Archive through June 18, 2019
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E INPUT:
F&E Strategy Discussions:
Archive through June 18, 2019
When the Hydran goes off map, generally get between 20 and 25 EP a turn, plus guild, and produces between 1 and 3 ships, generally all FF (even counting MSY they can hardly get to 4). It's standard to save 4/5 EP a turn before repairs (which a smart Hydran hasn't have much to do, even after capital falling) and while getting to 9+31 (discounted price to build the first IC plus 3 turn of OCS FFF) EP on third turn of reconstruction (first chance to build the IC) is pratically impossible, unless you left the map at all and taken the 30EP of the guild in bulk, building the IC on turn 5 of recostruction at 9+25 isn't that far off. A hull or 2 less and some salvage would be enough. And the 4 ship equivalent and the safe higher compot you get with the IC is well worth the sacrifice for me.
Also, unless you build a CV (not worth it, if I have to spend that much on that than I'll build the IC instead) or a PIV (might be worth instead) with turn 4 or 6 ranger of the OCS schedule, building the IC is the only way to use all the OCS FFF that you lose once the new shipyard get on line.
I think everyone is missing the point of the IC (or two points)
1) It allows the Hydrans to build a 'safe' CR10 hull - Hydran Battle Tugs die far too easily - and Paladins are expensive.
2) It's the only way to build a new DN hull** in the game, without a Capital Hex ship yard.
** - Yes Lyrans can convert to a DN, but that's not a new hull - and unless you build the second major conversion outside the capital hex, will be at the Capital Hex shipyard anyway!
So unique, possibly vital - and there is a cost!!
If your going to build the IC, do it on turn 3 or turn 5. Do not under any circumstances build it on turn 4 of 6 when you can build the RN or other allowed cruiser hull in place of the RN. You need all the cruiser hulls you can get.
The Hydrans lost their capital in the Fall of Y170. For the Spring of Y171 the Hydrans got 33.4 EPs. For the Fall of Y171 they got 33 EPs. For the Spring of Y172 they 31 EPs. What they get for the Fall of Y172 is to be determined. However two factors not accounted are: 1. The Federation is at limited war, not war, so no treasury bonus per turn, and 2, the Hydrans have not been kicked completely off the map to get the full 30 EP bonus on one turn.
If you think that is shocking, keep in mind that the game that brought about this question was a Hydran first game from the Spring of Y169 when the game started, not the normal GW scenario.
Paul, next time please include a link to a ruling when something is not included in the rulebook. It took me 45 minutes of searching to find the ruling you were referring to regarding the OCS free fighter factors.
Why would the Hydrans be at limited war?
The Hydrans aren't. The Federation is at limited war. For the Hydrans to receive the Treasury bonus after losing there capital but still on the map, the Federation must be at war with the Klingons.
Thomas
Note sure if you got out of bed the wrong way, but using the keyworld search, took me 2 mins to find the ruling!
Q: The Hydran Guild Shipyard gets (511.321) “three free fighter factors for hybrid ships” per turn. Are these three “hybrid factors” (worth three EPs) or three “standard fighter factors but only usable on hybrid ships”. Can they use them to build a ship such as the IC which uses standard fighter factors? Since Free Fighter Factors were changed to an annual allowance, does the Guild Shipyard really get six per Spring turn and none in the Fall?
A: They are three “hybrid factors” (worth three EPs). They could be used on the IC but each one would give the IC only half of a fighter factor. While this could be an exception due to the way the rule is written, feel free to treat it as six per Spring turn.
Ted wrote:
Quote:Anyway, thinking out loud for the next time I play Coalition...
I told you how to use those D7As offensively each turn.
From one of the reports from the front that I wanted to comment on, but in a general way that applies to almost all games ongoing or starting the future.
Quote:By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, June 04, 2019 - 07:52 pm: Edit
It's pretty important to not lose ships and to build SEQs as the alliance. Building expensive toys early can cost you EPs to do stuff later. You have to balance between the two.
The thing about the alliance is you have to make a concerted effort to build as many ship equivalents as possible. Mostly that is for pin battles where you want to keep as much of the coalition out of a given hex as possible for one more turn to complete some base upgrade or even to save your economy for a half turn.
Some downsubbing is going to have to happen. Also some ship equivalents will be fighters based on PDUs or possibly base upgrades. Police Ships are ship equivalents and there careful placement and use can help you keep more of your economy as well as causing supply issues for the enemy.
Hello, everyone!
Some days ago in the Q&A discussion thread a quick question for dummies on our fight over the Kzinti Capital resulted in several criticism about the Kzinti defensive tactics and revealed some major errors.
While we decided not to reset our game to the beginning of the capital assault, we decided to repeat the battle to see what would have happened and maybe extrapolate some kind of balance/compensation for the Kzinti.
Maybe some of you might want to comment on our second take.
=================================================================================================
Previous assault on the assault on the Kzinti capital (Coalition Turn 5):
The Kzinti had 74 SEQ (half ofg the in the static forces), 14 PDUs, 2 MBs and 1 SB alltogether with about 250 fighter factors total in their capital hex and faced a coalition armada of 160 warships with (only) 37 fighter factors.
Kzintai had its natural planetary defenses with 37 Kzinti warships from their mobile fleet with about 10-20 cripples from earlier turns.
The coalition fought the Kzinti for 18 rounds until all planetary defenses including the SB were killed and the coalition withdrew.
Losses (cripples):
K: 7 dead (8 crippled) =
5xD6M; D5V; 2xF5E; 13xiff; (C8; 6xD7; D6M)
L: 10 dead (24 crippled) =
3xDN; STT; 2xCW; STJ; DW; DDG; FF; 5xiff; (2xBC; CC; 10xCW; 6xDW; 3xDD; DDG; HFF)
Z: 17 dead bases - 23 dead ships (11 crippled) =
SB; 14PDU; 2xMB; DN; CC; CC(depot); TCB; STT; CM; CM(depot); MDC; CLD; 3xFF; 3xFF(depot); SF; SDF; FFG; 3xEFF; EFF(depot); FKE; 45xiff; (3xCV; BC; 2xCVL; MEC; 2xCLE; 2xFKE) + a huge number of DB points
This first battle neglected several rules and made major errors on the Kzinti side: deployed static forces outside the homeworld system, failed to use partial retreat to evacuate crippled kex units, killed 1 Kzinti warship each turn, fought unnecessarily long over a doomed minor plaent.
This caused major losses on the Kzinti side compared to the minimal casualties of the coaltion and major critizicm from tactical experts.
Coalition Turn 6 had similar errors and resulted in a wrecked Kzinti fleet and a cheap, captured Kzinti capital.
So we decided to replay the battle from CT5 under the following circumstances:
=================================================================================================
Kzintai Siege Simulation:
Kzintai under siege by Coalition forces. Kzinti forces devided into mobile and static forces.
Like the first attack, static forces were deployed outside of Kzintai system allowing the Coalition to go straight for
Kzintai and face only half the Kzinti forces. This was a tactical error the first place, but otherwise the coalition would have wreaked havoc on the outer worlds, so we kept it for now.
We simulated the result of what would have happened in the first place by using the same BIRs and VBIRs from the first assault.
New Kzinti tactical doctrine:
- Do not stay unnecesarrily long at the minor planet and withdraw more quickly towards Kzintai.
- No autokill unless demanded by the rules.
- Use partial retreat to evacuate crippled key units after each combat round before they are being targeted in the rear echelon.
- Use drone auxilliaries over Kzintai to reduce DB cost. (forgot to react them from the barony, where Joern evacuated his auxiliaries earlier)
- Try not to use direct damage to maximize enemy casualties.
=================================================================================================
Kzinti (Joern):
Mobile Forces:
[CV+MEC+FKE]; 2x[CV+CLE+FKE]; 2x[CVL+2xEFF]; [TCV+FCR];
DN+ADM(0); TCB+ADM(+1); 2xCC; BC; Z-STT; 2xCM; 6xFF; SF; [FFG+MMG]; MDC; CLD; SDF; DF
3xSAD;
Kuballus Defenses: 2xPDU
Kzintai Defenses: SB; 2xMB; 12xPDU; TTV(static); [NCL+Dip]; [DDT+DIP]
Coalition (myself):
160 SEQ including 37 fighter factors
=================================================================================================
Battle Log:
Turn 1 (Kuballus) Battleline:
Z: DN+ADM(0); CV+CLE+FKE; 2x[CVL+2xEFF];FFG+MMG; 2xFF; CLD(Scout); 2xPDU = (95 + 4 EW)
C: DN+ADM(+1); 2xBC; 3xCW; STJ; DW; DDG+MMG; [D5V+2xF5E]; D6S(Scout); 3xD6D(DB) = (98 + 12 DB + 4 EW)
Casualties:
Z: 44dp = 2xPDU mauled (10+12xiff); 2xFF(crip) (8); planet devastated (10); 4xiff
C: 31dp = CW(depot) (11); 2xCW+DW(crippled) (20); mauler safed.
Kzinti withdraw crippled FFs offmap and retreat towards Kzintai.
Turn 2 (Kzintai) Battleline:
SB adjacent to the planet, 1 MB focus of attack
Z: DN+ADM(+1); [CV+MEC+FKE]; 2x[CV+CLE+FKE]; BC; CM; FFG+MMG; CLD(Scout); 3xSAD(DB); MB + 1/2 SB + 1/2 MB; = (130 + 12 DB + 5 EW)
C: DN+ADM(+1); 2xBC; 3xCW; STJ; DW; DDG+MMG; [D5V+2xF5E]; D6S(Scout); 3xD6D(DB) = (98 + 12 DB + 4 EW)
Casualties:
Z: 33dp = MB(mauled: (8+1+4)*2-7=19); 14xiff
C: 46dp = BC; CC; 3xCW; DW(Crippled (46); STJ shocks
Turn 3 (Kzintai) Battleline:
SB adjacent to the planet, 1 MB focus of attack
Z: DN+ADM(+1); [CV+MEC+FKE]; 2x[CV+CLE+FKE]; BC; CM; FFG+MMG; CLD(Scout); 3xSAD(DB); MB + 1/2 SB; = (126 + 12 DB + 5 EW)
C: DN+ADM(+1); 2xBC; 3xCW; STT; DW; DDG+MMG; [D5V+2xF5E]; D6S(Scout); 3xD6D(DB) = (101 + 12 DB + 4 EW)
Casualties:
Z: 34dp = MB mauled ((8+1+4)*2-10 = 16); BC+CM (crippled) (15); 3xiff(3)
C: 28dp = CW (11); 2xCW (crippled) (14); 5xiff (5)
Turn 4 (Kzintai) Battleline:
SB adjacent to the planet,
Z: DN+ADM(+1); [CV+MEC+FKE]; 2x[CV+CLE+FKE]; CC; Z-STT; FFG+MMG; CLD(Scout); 3xSAD(DB); SB + 12xPDU; = (262 + 12 DB + 15 EW)
C: DN+ADM(+1); 2xBC; 3xCW; STT; DW; DDG+MMG; [D5V+2xF5E]; D6S(Scout); 3xD6D(DB) = (101 + 12 DB + 4 EW)
Casualties:
Z: 25dp= 4xPDU mauled (20 + 24) = 19 Minus points; 1 successful G attack killing another PDU (+6 minuspoints due to fighter losses)
C: 94dp= STT Mauled (18) + 3xCW (1xdepot)(33); BC+DW+D5v;2xF5E(crippled) (52); 3xiff(3); 2 Minuspoints
Turn 5 (Kzintai) Battleline:
SB adjacent to the planet,
Z: DN+ADM(+1); [CV+MEC+FKE]; 2x[CV+CLE+FKE]; CC; Z-STT; FFG+MMG; CLD(Scout); 3xSAD(DB); SB + 7xPDU; = (217 + 12 DB + 10 EW)
C: DN+ADM(+1); 3xBC; CC; 7xFF; DDG+MMG; D6S(Scout); 3xD6D(DB) = (82 + 12 DB + 4 EW)
Z: 1dp = 1xiff (1); 1 successful G attack killing another PDU (+6 minus points due to fighters)
C: 71dp = CC mauled (18); DDG (directed) (8); 4xFF (8); BC+3xFF crippled (22) = 1 Minus point
Turn 6 (Kzintai) Battleline:
SB adjacent to the planet,
Z: DN+ADM(+1); [CV+MEC+FKE]; 2x[CV+CLE+FKE]; CC; Z-STT; FFG+MMG; CLD(Scout); 3xSAD(DB); SB + 6xPDU; = (208 + 12 DB + 9 EW)
C: DN+ADM(+1); DN; 2xBC; L-BC; CW; DW; DWS; 3xD7; D6M; DDG+MMG; D6S(Scout); 3xD6D(DB) = (106 + 12 DB + 6 EW)
No mauling due to BIR 1+2 and VBIR -2. -10 compot for both sides.
Casualties:
Z: 10dp = 13xiff (13) last fighter reserve in the rear echelon depleted.
C: 31dp = BC+L-BC+CW+DW crippled (31)
Turn 7 (Kzintai) Battleline:
SB adjacent to the planet,
Z: DN+ADM(+1); [CV+MEC+FKE]; 2x[CV+CLE+FKE]; CC; Z-STT; FFG+MMG; CLD(Scout); 3xSAD(DB); SB + 6xPDU; = (200 + 12 DB + 9 EW)
C: DN+ADM(+1); DN; BC; 2xCW; DW; DWS; 4xD7; D6M; DDG+MMG; D6S(Scout); 3xD6D(DB) = (103 + 12 DB + 6 EW)
Casualties:
Z: 37dp = 4xPDU (20+24) + 1 successful G attack (no minus points for fighters as one PDU is depleted)
C: 85dp = DWS mauled (10); CW(captured)+DW+DDG (20); CW+4xD7+D6M crippled (49) 2 minuspoints
Turn 8 (Kzintai) Battleline:
SB adjacent to the planet,
Z: DN+ADM(+1); [CV+MEC+FKE]; 2x[CV+CLE+FKE]; CC; Z-STT; FFG+MMG; CLD(Scout); 3xSAD(DB); SB + 1xPDU; = (161 + 12 DB + 4 EW)
C: BB+ADM(+1); 2xDN; BC; 2xCW; DW; 2xD5; 2xD6D D6M; DDG+MMG; D6S(Scout); 3xD6D(DB) = (115 + 12 DB + 8 EW)
Casualties:
Z: 19dp = directed on fighters (10 Mauler + 4 extra); 1xiff; STT shocks
C: 33dp = D6D mauled (16); 2xD5+DW crippled (20) = 3 minus points
Turn 9 (Kzintai) Battleline:
SB adjacent to the planet,
Z: DN+ADM(+1); [CV+MEC+FKE]; 2x[CV+CLE+FKE]; 2xCC; FFG+MMG; CLD(Scout); 3xSAD(DB); SB + 1xPDU; = (145 + 12 DB + 4 EW)
C: BB+ADM(+1); 2xDN; BC; 2xCW; DW; 3xD5; D6D; D6M; DDG+MMG; D6S(Scout); 3xD6D(DB) = (115 + 12 DB + 6 EW)
Casualties:
Z: 48dp = directed on fighters (10 Mauler + 9*2); 4xSIDS; FFG crippled (4); 1 successful G attack killing the last PDU
no more Kzinti fighters left
C: 44dp = DW (9); 2xCW+3xD5 crippled (35); D6M shocks
Turn 10 (Kzintai) Battleline:
SB adjacent to the planet,
Z: DN+ADM(+1); [CV+MEC+FKE]; 2x[CV+CLE+FKE]; 2xCC; CLD(Scout); 3xSAD(DB); SB; = (122 + 12 DB + 3 EW)
C: BB+ADM(+1); 4xDN; BC; CLS; 2xD5; D6D; TBD; D6M; DDG+MMG; D6S(Scout); 3xD6D(DB) = (122 + 12 DB + 11 EW)
Casualties:
Z: 42dp = CC mauled/crippled (9); CV+2xCLE+2xFKE crippled (32) + 1 plus point
C: 20dp = 2xD5+CLS crippled (20)
Turn 11 (Kzintai) Battleline:
SB adjacent to the planet,
Z: DN+ADM(+1); [CV+MEC+FKE]; 2x[CVL+2xEFF]; CC; CM; CLD(Scout); 3xSAD(DB); SB; = (110 + 12 DB + 3 EW) (Found 2 more fighters on a CVL)
C: BB+ADM(+1); 4xDN; BC; CLS; D8; F5L; D6D; TBD; D6M; DDG+MMG; D6S(Scout); 3xD6D(DB) = (122 + 12 DB + 11 EW)
Casualties:
Z: 45dp = CM mauled (12); 2x[CVL+2xEFF] (32); 2xiff; unsuccessful G attack
C: 37dp = DDG (8); F5L(depot) (9); DN+D7 crippled (20)
Turn 12 (Kzintai) Battleline:
SB adjacent to the planet,
Z: DN+ADM(+1); [CV+MEC+FKE]; CC; MDC; CLD; SDF; DF; 3xFF; SB; SF(Scout); 3xSAD(DB); (110 + 12DB + 5 EW)
C: BB+ADM(+1); 3xDN; TCB; BC; C8; TBD; D7; D6D; D6M; CLS; D6S(Scout); 3xD6D(DB); (125 + 12DB + 11 EW)
Casualties:
Z: 49dp = CLD (mauled) (10); CC+MDC+SDF+DF+3xFF crippled (36); SIDS (4,5)
C: 43dp = DN+BC+CLS+D7+D6D crippled (44) = 1 minus point
Turn 13 (Kzintai) Battleline:
SB adjacent to the planet,
Z: DN+ADM(+1); [CV+MEC+FKE];TCB; FF; SF SB; 3xSAD(DB); (86 + 12DB + 2 EW)
C: BB+ADM(+1); 2xDN; 2xTCB; DD; C8; TBD; 2xD7; D6M; SC; D6S(Scout); 3xD6D(DB); (121 + 12DB + 7 EW)
Casualties:
Z: 31,5dp = SF (mauled) (7); CV+MEC+FKE*FF crippled (26) = 1 minus point
C: 20dp = TCB+D7 crippled (20)
Kzinti choose to withdraw their last forces and not to put them on a last line.
Turn 14 (Kzintai) Battleline:
SB adjacent to the planet,
Z: SB; (36 + 1 EW)
C: BB+ADM(+1); 2xDN; TCB; 2xDD; FF; C8; TBD; D7; D6M; SC; D6S(Scout); 3xD6D(DB); (108 + 12DB + 7 EW)
Casualties:
Coalition chooses not to use their mauler (-10 compot)
Z: 42,5dp = 7xSIDS (31,5); Kzintai devastated (10)
C: 11dp = FF(6); DD crippled (5)
Coalition withdraws.
Total casualties:
Z: 3 dead ships - 17 dead bases - 2 dev planets (29 crippled) =
SB; 2xMB; 14xPDU; CM; CLD; SF; 38xiff; (2xCV; 2xCVL; 2xCC; BC; CM; MDC; MEC; 2xCLE; 3xFKE; 4xEFF; DF; SDF; 6xFF; FFG; Z-STT) 15.6DB points (free because of SADs)
K: 2 dead (21 crippled) =
D6D; F5L(depot); 6xiff; (7xD7; 3xD6M; D6D; 7xD5; D5V; 2xF5E); 14turnsx12DBx0.1EP = 16.8EP
L: 18 dead (34 crippled) =
CC; STT; 3xCW; 2xCW(depot); CW(capt); 2xDW; DWS; 3xDDG; 3xFF; FF(Depot); 5xiff; (2xDN;5xBC; TCB; L-BC; CC; STT; 11xCW; STJ; 2xCLS; 5xDW; DD; 3xFF)
Differences to the first flawed defense of Kzintai:
Z: still the 17 dead bases and devastated home world but only 3 dead ships compared to the 23 at first. Most dead ships were now crippled and might be repaired in the off map barony.
no DB cost, as we allowd the Kzinti to react their SADs, what we forgot last time.
C: only 2 more dead warships but nearly double as much cripples. Major difference was the survival of most the coalition maulers which while been crippled were not directed and killed by the Kzinti.
Major questions arising:
1) Should the alliance keep directing coaltion maulers or wait for them to shock themselves during combat?
2) Is their a pursuit battle during partioal retreat? We guess no.
3) When Joern withdrew his forces before the last battle round, this included his SADs. Are they free to withdraw under the partial retreat rule or are they in trouble because they are slow units?
4) Any input or opinions how the Kzinti fared this time?
Mit freundliche Grüßen,
Soeren Klein
>>New Kzinti tactical doctrine:
- Do not stay unnecesarrily long at the minor planet and withdraw more quickly towards Kzintai.>>
You don't really need to withdraw to Kzintai. Fight over the outer planets if it seems effective at the time; soak damage on the planets as it shows up. When the planets are devastated (PDUs and fighters dead; you remembered to absorb 10 damage on the planet, yeah?), use those mobile ships at Kzintai.
>>- No autokill unless demanded by the rules. >>
Yeah, you generally don't want to intentionally blow up your own ships. Once and a while, you'll do so for specific tactical reasons (or very late in the game when you have so many cripples stacked up that killing some ships to avoid more cripples seems like a good idea. Especially if using salvage rules). The "auto self kill" doesn't come up much, due to the parameters (BIR5+, 2nd+ round, 100+ compot); it is more likely to happen in a Capital fight, but the attacker is usually directing PDUs for a while anyway.
>>- Use partial retreat to evacuate crippled key units after each combat round before they are being targeted in the rear echelon. >>
Yeah, this is always a good idea. I mean, again, certainly early on, the Coalition is probably directing PDUs, so the cripples being around are mostly irrelevant, but you generally lose nothing by retreating cripples off map as soon as they are crippled.
>>- Use drone auxilliaries over Kzintai to reduce DB cost. (forgot to react them from the barony, where Joern evacuated his auxiliaries earlier) >>
I'm not sure if this is just a typo or something, but you can't react ships from off map areas. If they are in a Reserve fleet, they can use reserve movement to go to the Capital, but they can't react. That being said, the only place that Aux Drone Ships should be is, generally speaking, in the Capital anyway.
>>- Try not to use direct damage to maximize enemy casualties. >>
This depends entirely on what your overall strategy is. But if your hope is "drop damage to cause a ton of cripples, and hopefully chase them away for a turn", then yeah, drop damage mostly.
>>1) Should the alliance keep directing coaltion maulers or wait for them to shock themselves during combat? >>
Again, depends on what your overall plan is. If they Kzinti think they are going to lose their Capital certainly, then maybe direct all the maulers so there are fewer of them to hit the Hydrans and then Feds; if they think they can hold the Capital another turn or two by dropping lots of damage, do that, hope some maulers shock out, and continue overloading repair capacity.
>>2) Is their a pursuit battle during partioal retreat? We guess no. >>
As long as there s a base or PDU in the hex, there can be no pursuit of retreating crippled units. If there are no bases or PDUs in the hex, you probably should be retreating completely anyway, in which case you could theoretically pursue the cripples that didn't already withdraw.
>>3) When Joern withdrew his forces before the last battle round, this included his SADs. Are they free to withdraw under the partial retreat rule or are they in trouble because they are slow units? >>
I'm pretty sure that slow Auxes can't retreat as long as there is a base or PDU in the hex.
>>4) Any input or opinions how the Kzinti fared this time?>>
I'm a little confused by your notation, so it is difficult to suss out what is happing in some spots; for example, the Coalition often are led by "BB+ADM". Is that a Battleship? And then there are instances where it says something like "D6D mauled (16)". What are the Kzinti using to maul?
Quick answers:
>>2) Is their a pursuit battle during partial retreat? We guess no. >>
If I remember correctly from the gamelog, the outer systems hadn't been hit yet (full PDU's on every planet remaining), so no, there's no pursuit battle of a partial retreat, and most ships just moved to the other systems anyway.
Oh, and Peter: "What are the Kzinti using to maul?" --- the Kzintis had previously captured a STT and were using it to good effect!
But I have some questions and analysis of my own, round by round:
Round 1, the battle at Kuballus:
Somebody give a quick refresher - MMG stands for Marine Major General, right? Can the MMG do a troop landing of its own, or does it only allow for an extra ship on the line (that ship being a troopship)?
As for the analysis, you knew the outer planet was toast, you gave as good as you got and you withdrew quickly. Maybe the coalition should have not directed on the PDU's? Instead hit the ships while they're still away from the main planet, and at the very least not risk shocking the mauler. But overall that round went well.
Rounds 2 and 3:
I think I would have set up the MB's next to the major planets in other systems. Seemed like here they were fairly easy kills before the main event. Or just pull them off map and have them ready for late-war offensives?
Round 4, at the capital planet:
When the damage scored is that high I don't think I'd direct at all, especially if the coalition has plenty of maulers (it didn't specify, but the coalition doesn't seem to have run out during the battle). Perhaps with your SST you could have killed the troopship for 8 points and let him eat the rest, and hope they coalition mauler shocks? But overall, good round. Sucks that the troops took out another PDU, but such is life and war.
Question for the crowd, as I do not have the rulebook in front of me: Could the defender have given up the G factor (instead of the PDU casualty) of the defending FFG even though the FFG wasn't in the battleline?
Round 5:
Ah see now, mauling to kill the CC for 18 points, and then the DDG for another 16... that seems like too much damage spent directing. You could have mauled the DDG for 8 and let the rest fall - he would have killed 3 more FF to resolve the extra damage.
Wait... the DDG was killed for 8. Is there a rulechange I'm unaware of (always possible, I'm out of date). Troopships can be directed upon in addition to the one directed damage attack per round, but I think they are still at the usual 2:1 ratio. It should have taken 16 pts of damage to kill if you used the mauler on the CC.
Double wait... You lost a PDU to G attack? Another rule change, or...? I think if the troopship is killed the G-attack is foiled. That brings up my earlier question about the MMG, as I don't know how those work - is that how the PDU was killed?
Round 6: A lull in the action. It happens.
Round 7:
Another DDG killed, another successful G attack.
Round 8:
Coalition started killing fighters - that was smart! I've never seen that used on the Kzinti before, I thought it only really was useful against the Tholians. But here, the Kzintis started having their firepower crater due to carriers lacking their fighters.
The Kzinti STT shocked, that sucks. But it gave solid kills, so it was a worthy trade.
Round 9: Last of the fighters dies, Starbase starts taking SIDS, yep this battle is over. Time to burn the SB and retreat to the outer systems, which still has all their defenses, right?
Rounds 10, 11, 12, 13:
Kzinti stay around in a fight which is no longer to their advantage, using carriers which no longer have fighters, trading blows they can no longer afford. Round 10 should have seen the starbase take the full brunt of the hit and then the Kzinti retreat.
Round 14:
And only now does the starbase take the damage, after the Kzinti retreats. If you're losing the starbase (and you were), spend the last round of battle taking those 7 SIDS (31.5 damage) while hurting the coalition. If you can take just 27 points (cripple just one more frigate perhaps?), you can force a round 11 against the crippled starbase and allow for safe retreat, but I guess that wasn't needed here (as you still held the outer systems).
*~*~*~*
Overall, you both did much better the 2nd time around, both tactically and rule wise. I wouldn't worry about the errors, this game is huge and it takes a few playthroughs to get it all.
And I hope I didn't come across as an ass... (I am an ass, I just hope I didn't come across as one). I just wanted to share my thoughts and ask some questions as I thought of them, round by round.
Have fun with the rest of the war!!!
Unless the partial retreat rules explicitly say that such units cannot be pursued, they probably can be pursued (perhaps similarly to units that withdraw before combat), but only once the defender does a general retreat and is eligible to be pursued (in which case all ships that retreated at any point are combined with any that did a withdrawal before combat and then all are pursued together).
Without actually diving into the rules (which I don't want to do as my vision is very bad and it is a chore to do that when I don't have to) that's what I think is how you do it.
Quote:(549.33) MULTI-SYSTEM DEFENSE: All auxiliaries are considered to be a single “type” in the division of static and mobile forces; see (511.534). Auxiliaries may not use the partial retreat rules (302.723) to evacuate a capital hex.
According to (549.33) Auxiliaries of any type are not eligible to use the partial retreat rule under (511.54) and (302.732).
Ignoring tactics - the only thing you may have got wrong is the 'SB adjacent to the planet' - which I believe only applies when there is more than 1 base - and unless it was a raid (and you wanted to protect the MB) you wouldn't exclude the SB - so the SB will always have compot added to the Capital force.
Sometimes the SB seemed to be included...and sometimes not - so not sure what happened there.
On tactics - not massive differences but as others have said - damaging the SB to 5-11 SIDS before you retreat the last of the ships will allow you to defend longer and the Kzinti shouldn't run out of fighters.
Killing fighers from carriers earlier on and then transferring the fighters from dead PDU's on outer planets is more valuable then generating minus points (over the capital minus points are perhaps more valuable).
As others have mentioned - I am surprised the G attacks was successful - the defender can use a G from the MMG ship to offset the successful attack.
On whether to direct kill Maulers - there is no easy answer.
If its the last Mauler in the hex - yes
If you want to generally reduce them - yes
If the Coalition will have to self kill a hull or two (even if just low value ships) due to damage done - perhaps not!
HI, everybody!
Thanks for the evaluation and input.
As for the annotations:
- We are pretty sure anytime the Kzinti mauled something we meant the captured and refitted STT mauler on their side. Otherwise it would be a dumb typo on our side which should have said directed.
- We allowed the coalition the four turn battleship production, so the Lyrans were able to field a BB on their line.
- We used the Admiral effectivness ratings, so the combination of BB+ADM(+1) meant a battleship with an admiral having a +1 BIR bonus.
Regarding the Marine Major General (MMG) and its attacks:
We reread 521.32 and indeed the G factor has to survive the battle round to make its attack. So an error with properly using the rule.
This is in part due to the fact that we first resolved the Kzinti casualties (including the G attack) and than resolved the coalition casualties.
So several PDU should have suvived because the commando ship got killed first and if it did survive one PDU could have been saved by the Kzinti commando ship and its G factor.
Learnt something new.
As for the multiple bases rule:
There were an SB and two MBs over Kzinti which should mean that we could employ the multiple base rule:
- one base with the planet most of the time the original base (the SB)
- defender might exlude one base to safe it with the cost that it cannot contribute anything to the battle.
- attacker may designate one base as its primary target meaning that that base alone would contribute its whole attack factors while the other non-excluded bases would only contribute half their factors and their attrition units only against the command limit.
So, I first targeted the two MBs on round 2 and 3 over Kzintai for quick and cheap kills, while the SB only contributes half (18) compot to the fight.
That way I thought I could try to keep the Kzinti compot low before having to face Joerns full power of the SB together with the 12 PDUs on Kzintai.
Did we misinterpreted this rule?
As for staying in the battle:
Joern thought of fleeing the system but wanted to deal as much damage to the coalition as possible for as long as possible. He expected to overload the coalition repair capabilities and to deter any coalition ambitions to use the spared casualties to attack one of the outer capital planets.
We guess it is a valid criticism as the Kzinti would need every available hull for the inevitable CT6 assault and even if I have had the guts to also attack the least defended outer planets I would have faced the deployed static forces AND the remaining mobile fleet. Therefor Joern would have dealt more damage than by staying with a doomed SB.
As for reacting the SADs:
At the beginning of the game, Joern deployed all auxiliary vessels (Troop ships, APTs, medical ships and so on) in one fleet. When the coalition threatened the Kzinti capital he evacuated the auxiliary fleet counter to the barony forgetting the LAD and SADs deployed there. Therefore he had to deploy sthe standard DB ships for nearly 20 EP worth of DB on our first take of the capital assault which blow a hole into the Kzinti economy.
Wether called reacting from barony, deus ex machina or an excellent staff officer remembering that the ships might be of more use in the capital, we allowed to Kzinti to redeploy the SADs to the capital (together with 3 SAVs that went to the static fleet) in compensation of this error.
Did we understood your comment correctly:
The SADs are no eligible to partial retreat. So when the Kzinti withdraw from the doomed SB on round 13, they would have to stay with the SB.
But what if it blew up:
- Do they have to withdraw under the slow pursuit rule therefore being a target by the surviving coalition ships?
- Would there be a pursuit battle at all, as the coalition could not enforce combat over a devastated and abandonned planet?
- Could the SADs have been redeployed to the other planets as they are part of the mobile forces and therefore be saved from a slow pursuit?
Our guess is:
When the last base died and the planet got devastated, the SADs stay in the capital system not retreating. As the coalition cannot enforce battle over a devastated planet they either had to
- withdraw... thereby leaving the SADs safe behind.
- attack another planet thereby allowing the SADs to be reployed anywhere or nowhere as they are part of the mobile fleet.
Either way they should be safe for now until the Kzinti have to withdraw from the whole capital hex.
If the SADs were part of the mobile fleet at the beginning of the capital assault they remain with the mobile fleet until crippled.
They cannot use the partial retreat rules because they are considered to be slow units. The same would apply to SAVs and LAVs (Aux Carriers).
If all Kzinti units retreat from 1401 then the Aux ships can retreat but only as part of the slow unit retreat under (302.742).
Kevin (and everyone else, Richard, Thomas, Peter and Paul),
we really do appreciate any input and comment on our questions. So any criticism is also welcome as they force us to reread the rules and to learn something.
If we were afraid of the answers and/or reactions we would not have asked the professionals on this board.
[edit] So, no offense taken, Kevin.
It is a fun game with many details and aspects to learn. This is our - we think - 6th game and the first time where we tried to fully employ the rules on capital assaults, multiple base rules, admirals and MMGs. Therefore our game is still full of errors but without them we would no have been able to learn. That is part of the fun.
As for myself I am a school teacher (math and sciences) and try to teach my midgrade students, not to be afraid of errors or making errors. Trial and error is their best way to learn and not to make the mistakes again later.
It is the right way, to do and make errors and asked about them.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein
Soren, I constantly make mistakes and question myself, my understanding of the rules, and other things about the game. I've been playing since the early 1990s.
I'm sure all of us who have played the game have done some very dumb things over the years with regards to the rules.
I had to look at the scenario rules for the game that Bill and I are playing. I discovered that what I thought would be a good idea to knock an empire out of supply, would in fact lead to something worse for me.
Soren,
I'm fairly certain the SADs and LADs can move with the fleet to the other systems, as they are part of the mobile fleet, so you're good there.
Also, a good move to allow dues ex machina to allow them there. That's just good manners!
Also, speaking of manners: A belated Welcome to the boards (assuming you're new here - I haven't seen you before). There's lots of good people here and we're happy to have you join us!
*I don't think you did the targetting of bases correctly.
If I understand correctly, the SB is with the planet and PDUs, the two MB are not.
The Kzinti player hides one of the MB (presumably).
The attacker then attacks the non-hidden MB (it is at full compot), but the SB is half.
The MB is presumably destroyed.
Now there is only the SB and the (hidden MB). You can still attack the MB, but if you do, the SB is at full value (as are any PDUs and so on).
Soren
What did you give the Alliance in exchange for allowing the Coalition to build BB's under the 4 turn rule?
That is a pretty massive bonus.... especially as normally only the Klingons can build BB's!
The multiple base rule is pretty complex - but I think you got it right
Richard wrote:
>>Unless the partial retreat rules explicitly say that such units cannot be pursued, they probably can be pursued (perhaps similarly to units that withdraw before combat), but only once the defender does a general retreat and is eligible to be pursued (in which case all ships that retreated at any point are combined with any that did a withdrawal before combat and then all are pursued together). >>
I think the issue that I was trying to articulate was that if you retreat behind a base/PDU, there is no pursuit. So all the partially retreated ships will inevitably count as retreating behind a base, assuming the Kzinti run when there is a SB with a single SID left on it. All cripples can safely retreat, as that trade, single SID SB is hiding the line for them.
Soren wrote:
>>we really do appreciate any input and comment on our questions. So any criticism is also welcome as they force us to reread the rules and to learn something. >>
Oh, totally--like, I in no way wish to come off like I'm being critical. I just want to make sure everything is going correctly, rules wise, and you have a lot of wacky extra things happening (like Lyran battleships and captured Maulers) that add to "not fully understanding the situation as presented" :-)
Richard,
I not sure that is correct.
As I understand the defender may exclude one base but does not have to. Joern and I haven't seen any big benefit from hidding a MB, so did not and took the 1/2 compot instead. After the first MB died we thought it was a valid to attack the second mobile base focus of attack while the SB and the planet stayed far away.
Did we misread the rule? Or did we overlook a paragraph that its only combat round. Otherwise I do think we made that one right.