Archive through October 21, 2018
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E INPUT:
F&E Strategy Discussions:
Archive through October 21, 2018
Note that to stop a BATs -> SB upgrade, one 'easy' way is to score a SIDs on the BATS, which delays the upgrade until it is repaired.
You can do that with a prime team mission or a raid or standard combat.
So plucking down the EPs on A3 is a risk, as if they stop the upgrade for a turn, the BATs is unlikely to survive to become a SB in the meanwhile.
***
The Hydrans can get a decent number of PDU up at Hydrax _and_ build a decent fleet, if they use advanced deficit spending ruthlessly. And they should, imo.
Also, Soeren, I was curious what kind of gaming community you all have there is Germany? I haven't seen anyone on here that wasn't from an English-speaking country. I'm fascinated to know about F&E players from other parts of the world (starting with the fact that they exist!)
Sorry this has nothing to do with strategy.
Karl
The SIDS point is a good one, although any strategic base upgrade is a calculated risk. Either way combat is unlikely as the only realistic threat early on is a Lyran fleet from BATS 0413, which has to run the gauntlet to get to 0318. (Also that BATS is my primary target as the just an player.) Theoretically a fleet could also come from 0212 and still be in supply, except that the 2nd fleet SB is directly in between. There is no other coalition supply point within 6 hexes of 0318.
Anyway, I have a fairly high risk tolerance if you couldn't tell, and I consider it an acceptable risk. And still, diverting coalition resources is a consolation prize for failed Hydran plans.
Deficit spending, though. That's a double edged, sword. Ill admit I use it extensively as the Klingons, or the Feds when I'm trying to mount a counterattack (if I think my subsequent turn income will be going up to help offset this.) But I had a disastrous experience with the Kzinti once. I reasoned that the Kzinti couldn't afford *not* to spend all the money available to them in build schedule and capital defense. This resulted in being constantly in the hole while losing EPs every turn to attrition. To make matters worse, I maxed out what I could on drone bombardment in final defense of the capital. Once I finally got pushed out into the barony, I had a ragged, half-crippled fleet, no shipyard, and -10EPs. The Kzinti were not any kind of threat for several turns, as I was struggling to repair ships and build a new shipyard; new production builds were almost nonexistent (mostly just CV pods to not lose the fff.) Meanwhile, the coalition could afford to transfer all excess ship a to the Hydrans (who just got crushed) and take their time repairing the cripples from the Kzinti assault. They then turned their attention to the Feds without much threat from either of the other alliance powers. Exactly the position the coalition wants to be in. I can't help but think that at least even if I had just drained the treasury it would have only been a turn or so before enough repairs would bring the fleet on-line enough to be able to attack coalition positions near the barony to force them to tie up more ships. The hydrans, who still have to make the run to the old colonies with their remaining fleet after Hydrax falls (esp if the coalition pulls the 0718 trick) would be even worse off. That's a big concern for me. Especially since the fall of hydrax is inevitable.
I think this is maybe the most difficult decision in the game; when to retreat from the capital. Of course you don't want to let the enemy march in and take the capital for minimal losses, but if you fight too hard and your defending fleet is wrecked, you have a real problem trying to pull things together if the capital does still fall. So what's the best time to pull out? Obviously there is no a right answer. I'm just pontificating as usual.
I generally put a klingon supply tug at 0413 by turn 3 so i can move some klingons there on C3 to threaten the back of Hydran space if i can spare the ships. I try to build up Lyran forces in 0413 and such by that point too.
***
How much do the Hydrans lose by using deficit spending? By turn 15 their economy will be the smallest (by far) of the major empires, so a few turns of early exhaustion is not exactly a huge deal.
More Hydran forces and defenses early are better than more EPs on turn 14-15+ - those things will cost the Coalition a lot more than it will cost the Hydrans.
***
The Kzintis should use deficit spending more cautiously, if you are careful with early spending, you can get your PDUs up on Kzintai and still build a bunch of carriers, frigates and medium cruisers and variants of such. Be frugal and penny pinching, but still, if you need 3 EP and can only get it by deficit spending, you do it.
Some really good comments.
Rules are not with me - but I thought it was ruled if a SID is scored on any base being upgraded (or even crippled) - the base upgrade still goes through and takes what ever damage was done with it (so a crippled BATS becomes a crippled SB for example).
On what to build - I personally don't think the Hydrans will get any real value from upgrading a BATS to a SB - they just don't have the forces to defend more SB's and if 617 has fallen, there is better things to spend the money on.
One aspect of PDU's (which was discussed probably 10 years ago) is not what extra damage they will do - but what type of damage they do.
Capital hexes are about the only place where a bad roll allows the attacker to pick one of their ships to die - but a good roll it changes to pick a ship that lives.
Example
Attacker has a line of 7 x DN/C8's, 3 x D5/CW's, 3 x DW/F5L, D6M, D6S (so Battlegroup, Admiral and Command Points (or 2 CP's used)
Defender has a line of 250
@ 30%, that's 75 damage - painful but not an issue.
@ 40% that's 100 damage - the bulk of the line is crippled
If the Defender built 4 more PDU's - we have 286
@ 30%, that's 86 damage - the bulk of the line is now crippled.
@ 40% that's 114 damage - if you want to keep a two or three DN/C8's uncrippled - the bulk of the Battlegroup will have to die
If the defender built 4 more PDU's - we have 322
@ 30%, that's 97 damage - the bulk of the line is crippled.
@ 40% that's 129 damage - DN's start being self killed.
If you never get over 300 compot - outside of 'lucky' rolls, entire lines hardly ever die - in other words, - the damage from 'just 4 more PDU's' may well be the difference between no kills and several self kills, which could make a capital assault just that bit more expensive (and a 300+ compot line WITH a lucky roll, might save the capital for another turn).
...So that's your entire line dead and you still owe me 10 damage for the next round.... 
Re Karl:
About the gaming comunity in Germany. Its rather small. Here in my area its actually only my friend Joern and me who play these kind of games since we discovered a taste for it in our university time some years ago.
Most players of wargames I knew have become working family fathers and had other priorities now. Additionally online and mobile games have largely taken over.
And even my friend tends more to easy to learn online games like Mechwarrior Online while I prefer the more sophisticated and complex games like SFB or Harpoon4 and its cousins from AdmiraltyTrilogy which are more simulations than games.
Federation and Empire is our so to say common ground we share once in a while, work and family/girlfriend permitting. Otherwise its mostly me playing solo games.
But I have to say I enjoy following this forum. Its a comlex games with many facettes to be gradually uncovered. Always something to learn so the mind never comes to a rest. Thats what I prefer over the vast variety of online or mobile games.
And now back to the strategy discussions.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein
Re Karl:
(Still off-topic)
I'm from the Netherlands, though still learning the ropes of SFB and F&E.
Then again, I posted like thrice in total?
Its nice to know there are people all over the world playing this game. I'm in Montana, which sometimes feels like another country due to geographic isolation and local culture. There are all kinds of people in this forum, it seems.
Now, Paul, I'm not arguing your numbers at all. I agree with you completely regarding PDU capital defense, and such lines over Kzinti or Earth are quite satisfying when entire coalition lines wither away in a single round.
My problem in the case of the Hydrans is that conventional wisdom is to defend the outer SBs until the coalition can mount an attack on the capital, then turtle up and bet the house on Hydrax. The PDUs of course play a major role here, but then it all depends on how you roll. If you roll poorly, especially the first few rounds, then the coalition got an easy capital without losing too many large hulls.
The Hydrans are sort of unique for the alliance in that they have the initiative to attack, an option I see all too often passed on. For the coalition to win (or even do reasonably well) they have to control the pace and direction of play. Keeping the Kzinti and Hydrans on the defensive allows the coalition to dictate moves. The Hydrans have opportunities to disrupt the coalition's cleverly laid plans.
Personally, I prefer to go after the Lyrans. In particular the BATS in 0413 is the only Lyran supply point at start that is in range of Hydrax. Also the Enemy's Blood fleet is the most anemic Lyran starting fleet, so it needs to be augmented with construction to be much of a threat anyway. Hitting them on AT3, especially if they are positioned on 0413, can knock them down a peg further. And if they are on 0413, or react out to it, you might be able to sneak the 2nd fleet up to take out the 0411 SB. And for cheap. (Note here I am pulling the goalie and sending the home fleet to 0413.) I'm noting now that Richards idea about a Klingon supply tug and fleet detachment here might alter plans a bit (although my question for Richard is where the supply tug is itself drawing supply from?)
The same tactic doesn't work with the Klingons, since the front is much wider, and attacking them releases the home fleet, which sort of defeats the whole idea of keeping extra coalition forces away from the Hydrans. But an attempted expedition can not only distract Klingon fleets that have to deal with the incursion, but also cause some economic disruption. And of course if you could somehow pull it off, the Feds entering early really throws things off. (Incidentally I also disagree with the idea that a successful expedition is automatically a game-over for the coalition. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has actually played through that...)
My bottom line is that I think playing the Hydrans too defensively is not taking advantage of their potential. If they create enough chaos in coalition ranks, the raid on Hydrax will be put off for enough turns that those PDUs will be set up and waiting for them by the time they get there. And you are not worrying about making your full build schedule because you are trying to max out capital defense before the coalition gets there.
I like to put a Klingon MB in 0810, at least until I decide the Klingons don't need supply to 1013 (for example, if the Klingons hold a Hydran planet in 0617. 0810 is six hexes from the Klingon capital, so go set it up using just op move if you have a TG and MB in 1411 ready.
***
A couple other good places for MB (in this case the Lyrans) are 1407 and 1611 (then put a Lyran FFT in 1411). Some people will upgrade the one at 1407.
In the Empires of the Dead game, I did roll badly during the Coalition assault on the capital. Even so I managed to force Bill to kill about 50 ships total. 3 of them I directed on when I killed his only good carrier group, a D7V+AD5+F5E. Keep in mind that in the Empires of the Dead game, the Coalition started the war in the West with the Hydrans while the Gorns (alliance) started things off in the east. The game started on what is Turn 2 of the General War, but turn 1 for the purposes of our actual game.
I played a game with a successful expedition on A5 (the northern route). The result was total disaster for the Coalition. It is my opinion that the Coalition cannot win a game where the Hydran expedition succeeds before turn 7. I could be wrong, but then again I have never seen any Coalition player seriously attempt to do and succeed.
I had one successful expedition against me as the coalition and I played through it, and in that case I was pursuing a Kzinti first doctrine. I ended up having to fight guerilla warfare in hydran space, but didn't suffer as much by the federation. It could have been the inexperience of my opponent (he had never attempted the expedition before, which may have been part of the reason I was unprepared for it), but with all the ships I had in Kzinti space I shifted a lot of those toward northwestern fed space, where the 5th fleet was unprepared and was immediately on the defensive. I think if the Kzinti were still in decent shape (1401 had just fallen), the whole thing would have been a shambles for the coalition. The game ended I think at AT10; the central and southern fronts of the FTO were still a stalemate, outside of border BATS, but things were looking good for the romulan entry as he had reinforced that front minimally to deal with the immediate threat. Unfortunately the game ended so I didn't get to see how it played out in the long term. It certainly depends on the situation though. I didn't get the impression it was game over immediately. I'm of the camp to not wait for the fed invasion also, so I generally am expecting to engage by CT7. Anyway, that's my one case study to submit.
zin first is unpopular to the point of extinction on these forums. For one thing, it gives the farties way more opportunity to make things unpleasant, especially for the lyrans. also, the zin have more favorable off-map geometry, special rules preserving the marquis zone, and a fleet much more resilient to heavy attrition.
i remain interested in that branch, just because i feel making most aggressive use of CT2 and CT3 is important, but to date my success has been lackluster.
i do not intend to put words in your mouth, karl, but my impression is that your experience is being able to mash both western alliance powers in tempo of a credible t7 fed invasion. i would be pretty interested in observing such a thing; certainly i cannot manage that feat myself
Chris-
I don't know what to tell you. I am very aggressive playing the coalition because I feel the overall game mechanics work so that time is against them. A slow coalition player loses. Thus, if I'm taking risks and screw up fleet placement or roll badly, I'm just losing sooner rather than later. (Obviously I am only reporting on my successes here.)
As far as the Kzinti first doctrine, if I do well the first few turns, I generally try to continue the trend all the way to 1401 if possible. The Kzinti are easily the most frustrating race to play against imo, and as far as I can tell the only way to really subdue them is economically. Otherwise Kzinti space is soon filled with carrier groups and although the Hydrans can make things difficult for the Lyrans, the Kzinti can trouble northern Klingon space, and are harder to dislodge. The only solution I see is going for them early. But maybe I'm wrong. If you can go for the Hydrans early and manage to tear apart their fleet and take hydrax, you don't need as much to garrison their space, so more ships can be diverted elsewhere. What puts you in a better position to attack the feds?
And I'm not holding both capitals before attacking the feds. But if I'm holding one and have the other at least under seige, I want to strike while the iron's hot.
I've always been solidly Kzinti first, as I've posted occasionally. Though again these are all games from quite a while ago, with the last half or so all being solo games.
Still, given the massive advantage of taking a capital, there is no point delaying taking out the kzinti. You have three turns to build up the pressure, just finish the job. I'll usually be methodical about it and take their capital turn 6 or 7. I want them essentially off map by turn 7 when the Federation can try to do any sort of assistance/linking up.
I've never found the Hydrans to be that big a deal. Their fleet that is good is way too small and too slow to build up/replace, they have really low income. Sure you need to send a good amount of stuff to take them out, and the Hydrans can be quite annoying. But the coalition can afford to deal with whatever they do, especially when the Kzinti capital has fallen. I usually take the Hydran capital turn 10. (turn 9 if things go well)
Early versions of F&E you could sort of get away with taking both Kzinti/Hydran capitals and have 'enough' of a force to grind on the Federation. Now I don't think you can do so without waiting until turn 10.
The coalition does have a time pressure, but I don't think it is as bad as you may think. Until the Federation is actually in the war the Coalition has a major EP and ship building advantage, which will continue after you take both Kzinti and Hydran capitals. Waiting a bit and moving up a few more DN/maulers/etc. plus the bulk ships to soak up the casualties works as well if not marginally better, even if you do end up facing more PDU's. And the vast majority of the ships the Federation builds for most of the game are CW/FF's. Not something that really matters against coalition lines.
Once you do have both capitals you are well set to grind down the Federation and Gorns. How far you get then boils down to how costly the capitals were and how much the Federation and Gorns fortify their capitals.
I still believe it is a rare game that the coalition should not get a marginal victory or better.
Tim.
Ok. Since the last post, we started a new game to try out some things. I have to say, it has already changed my coalition strategy significantly. We just finished CT4. I'm nominally doing Kzinti first (I honestly don't know what you are supposed to be doing the first 2 turns of the game otherwise) and am working on stripping pdus on 1401 currently.
However, Richards comment about the Klingon supply point in 0413 has been a literal game-changer. I did the math to figure out that setting up the MB in 0810 and then the supply tug in 0413 delays the Klingon supply at that point until CT5. So, I instead made a Klingon expeditionary fleet and started moving it CT2 so that it would be ready for Hydran entry in the war. My opponent ended up pinning that fleet and trying for the 0112 BATS instead, which was short-lived. I concentrated all my Lyran efforts on the Hydran 2nd fleet subsequently, which with the assistance of this Klingon fleet tipped the scales and blew the SB. He mostly consolidated his rear defenses his turn striking instead at Klingon targets on that front (west fleet and s. reserve manning that front). Instead of struggling with a stalemate on the Lyran side of things, I now have a clear advantage in western hydran space.
In still thinking about Tims comment re: the Federation, and waiting to AT10 to attack because why not. I tried to think of a good rebuttal for why attacking on At7 was clearly superior, and realized I didn't really have one. Ultimately my "blitzkrieg" style that works very well for the Kzinti and Hydrans early on performs poorly on the feds. Its like attacking Russia. My plan has usually fallen back to just creating chaos in federation space to buy enough time to be able to focus on the Gorn capital once they enter the war. But waiting and making a concerted attack AT10 seems like you could make a credible threat to Earth if you play your cards right. My question is, has anyone here captured Earth? And if so, what was the strategy that allowed that to happen? I'm trying to wrap my head around this.
Karl,
By waiting until turn 10 to attack the Federation, you allow them to build and activate a minimum of 39 Ship Equivalents. Depending on the Fed player's choice this can become 51.5 Ship Equivalents from carrier groups and fast ships. CAs can become CCs at locations where CAs aren't being converted to carriers. The 2 major and 1 minor conversion available in the capital can be used on ships still in the mothball fleet to become useful variants later. 2 of the mothball CAs can become GSCs and 4 of the CLs could become LSCs for EW.
The Home Fleet is allowed to maneuver. This brings them into the donut area allowing them to be more aggressive on defense and offense.
The Federation will easily have enough money to send 20 EPs a turn to the Kzintis when at limited war. Allowing them to build something close to their full schedule for each of those turns.
2 Colonies can be completed and another 2 started, with 2 more one turn away from completion on the Fed half of turn 10.
By not attacking the Feds until turn 10, you disallow them overbuilds and survey rolls and slow their activation of mothball ships to 2 a turn instead of the full allotment.
Is there any value to the idea that the feds will experience exhaustion sooner with a pre-CT10 attack? Since we are talking about survey rolls/colony development the economic warfare aspect of the game is more important with the feds than most other races. Obviously that's long game.
I should say also that I don't advocate the limited war scenario at all. Sorry if I insinuatedthat The only time I invite the situation is if I attack the marquis area immediately before a general fed attack. That's mainly to bait the 5th fleet into Kzinti territory so I can backdoor into NW fed space if I'm going. For more northern route against the feds. Otherwise, yeah, I agree fed limited war is a bad deal for the coalition.
Losing survey rolls has an impact as soon as turn 8 (where you would have almost certainly gained a provice). Generally the Feds will get at LEAST one province a turn via survey on turns 7-11, sometimes more (depending on a lot of things).
You do lose 25% of your income on turn 8-9 if the Coalition doesn't attack (turn 7 is limited war whether they attack or not). If the Coaliton don't attack, they do lose the easy taking of the 7th Fleet SB on turn 7.
The flip side to losing 25% is that you will have a few EPs in the bank on turn 10. There will be no waiting period to go to 100% on turn 10.
On the survey side you will probably lose a total of 20 to 24 EPs between turns 7 - 9 vs turns 7 - 12 if the attack on the Feds is delayed until turn 10. NOTE: This assumes average rolls on 7 survey ships and no high risk survey or Prime Team on Survey duty.
A normal turn 7 attack results in the Feds at a 75% exhausted economy beginning on turn 28. Delaying until turn 10 it becomes Turn 30. Giving the Feds a full extra turn in the late war at 100%. This does have an impact on XTPs.
Ah, yes. I actually think that the limited war rule on turn 7 is what made me decide on early fed attack in the first place. Since I don't typically wait, (that I can remember) I forgot about the rule. If I am not feeling bold on turn 7, I will at least go after the marquis, because what's the downside at that point of doing so. (This is then followed by a fed invasion on turn 8.)
I see the point about the survey gains, but does that really outweigh the EPs the feds are earning at 75% and stockpiling because they can't spend it all? If they are sitting on 100+ ep by the time you do finally attack, economic warfare options are not likely to matter much to them early on.
The timing issue regarding exhaustion also affects the length of your offensive, ultimately. If you wait to turn 10 as the coalition you have essentially 6 turns to cripple the feds before going to 75%. With turn 7 you have 9 turns at 100. Also,I would point out that the third way comes into play around the time of coalition 50% exhaustion, at which point what kind of further gains can you make against the feds? The window of opportunity is smaller. Conversely, if waiting to turn 10 puts you in the position to take earth quickly, its worth it. I just don't have a sense of the approach needed to get that done in short order.
Sorry if anyone is annoyed by my persistence here. I'm mainly interested in people's rationale for their strategic decisions/preferences. And I quite like playing devils advocate even if I agree with what others are saying...
The Third Way is sort of irrelevant to the discussion because it is fixed in time. Yes, some extra income later may make it more effective, but I'm not sure it matters that much.
From the games I've played and observed, if the Hydrans are a big pain in the Klingon backside then it really doesn't matter when the Klingons attack.
For the Empires of the Dead game the Federation banked about 50 EPs so far. 40 of it has gone to the Kzintis, who have made excellent use of it building a full schedule and building quality hulls as well with it. With Turn 9 looming the Feds look to have another 20 EPs to send to the Kzintis. So the 10+ extra EPs the Feds have accumulated have paid for colonies under construction which will help the Fed econ when they go to 100%. Keep in mind that each of the Colonies so far has cost 2 EPs instead of 3 EPs thanks to a survey ship spending a turn to help build it.
Delaying attack on the Fed has its advantages and disadvantages, as noted. Also, note that on A10 with delayed Fed attack you are likely to have a massive bolus of overbuilt FFs show up with the money the Fed saved over that time.
Like anything in gaming and war, the best approach is to be flexible. Know the available strategies and tactics and select the best one for changing combat conditions. Adapt to your opponent's defensive choices.
I dno't have a lot of hard data to back me up. Up until a year or two ago I had no completed games under my belt. I played "Against All Things Ending" against Richard Eitzen and, after he abandoned the game for RL reasons, was taken over by Gary quick. I won with the Coalition using a delayed CT10 Fed attack strategy.
I'm currently doing pretty good with a CT7 attack strategy in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. However, that game is still very much undecided and only heading into CT13.
I've lost games as both Alliance and Coalition, but most of my games (including all but one loss) have been abandoned due to either RL issues or one side or the other deciding there was no longer hope for victory.
Anyway, based on my experience, such at it is, there is no magic bullet victory strategy for the Coalition in F&E. (The Alliance doesn't have many options at first). Which is good, because if there were it wouldn't be a very good game at all. Select one, but don't look back. Switching mid-stream usually results in disaster (but I only say usually).
In my *personal* opinion, I believe Hydran first is important. The Hydrans can become *fierce* opponents with punishingly powerful compot lines and tons of fighters for soaking up damage. Also, if not dealt with quickly, you are in a serious war on two fronts - and even Lyrantan can become threatened easily.
Thus, I *tend* to go Hydran first. However, every so often I go Kzinti first just so my opponents don't know my strategy every time. In BTEA I had intended Hydran first, but a reserve decision and then a bit of luck allowed me to take the Kzinti capital in the same turn (CT6) after crippling almost every single Coalition ship.
YMMV
I appreciate the discussion. I don't believe there is any one "right way" to approach any situation in F&E, of course, but the setup of the game, rules, map, and production schedules are all invariable factors that naturally push us during play to make decisions, and those are not necessarily all just based on the result of a battle, or the action of your opponent on the previous turn. Strategy involves more general goals, and it is those different choices that I'm trying to understand fully. To use the example of the SFB tactical manual, a player can pick it up and learn the different maneuvers and tricks that would otherwise only be learned by trial and error, or never learned at all.
There is nothing like this, to my knowledge, for F&E (please correct me if I'm wrong. I would love to be.) The old '93 rulebook had little sidebars with tactical notes but those have gone away now. Even then there was nothing really regarding strategy. The only real resource for players looking for strategic ideas would be various excerpts from CL issues, and this here forum.
For example, the Hydran vs Kzinti first is a given strategic decision for all coalition players who have played the game more than once, yet the terms are not written down anywhere, it us just understood. There are innumerable strategic decisions on the part of both alliance and coalition that are unnamed, and haven't been discussed. An example could be the first turn CT1. There is an old back and forth on the board game geek forums about setup and strategy for both Lyran and Kzinti that is actually quite thorough. That alone could be a chapter of a strategy manual (pamphlet?)
Anyway, that's my goal in posting here. Flesh things out. Sound out ideas and see what people think before trying in a real game and failing miserably or succeeding fabulously. I hope you all don't take it the wrong way.