Paul,

Re. Auto-Kill Rule: Indeed, definitly wrong use on our side. We did not utilised the #2 and #3 criteria, but do used #4 instinctively.

Re. Partial Retreat: Yes, we never employed it to evacuate parts of our forces. That might have saved several cripples.

Re. Turn 5 losses: I directed both CCs, the TCB, the STT and I guess some of the Kzinti scouts. The Kzinti DN was crippled by direct damage and later killed while waiting at the rear echelon. (Failure to escape by partial retreat)
Joern directed on the coalition maulers everytime possible and on the Lyran DNs when rolling high enough.

There were several rounds were the coalition rolled high and the Kzinti low, but I would have to go through 18 rounds of combat to figure the exact amount of damage on both sides. So, I can't really say anything about the damage. But the low coalition losses might possibly be coming from Joern directing that much on lyran command ships and klingon maulers instead of letting the damage be resolved by the coalition.

Quick survey of die rolls for the first 7 battle rounds over the minor planet at the Kzintai system:
Kzinti: 3 4 1 3 5 1 4 1 for 230 damage points total dealt
Coalition: 6 4 6 1 5 3 6 3 for 281 damage points total dealt
The Kzinti were constantly at a -1 EW disadvantage but I have to admit, I am not sure if we have forgotten the 2 EWP from the local PDUs.

Round 9 started the fight over Kzintai directly:
Kzinti rolls: 1 1 5 4 4 5 5 5 1 1 for 415 damage points dealt
Coalition rolls: 3 6 4 2 2 6 4 6 4 4 for 315 damage points dealt
Constant -2 EW disadvantage for the coaltion.

We cannot tell anymore when we crippled, killed or directed anything exactly. But seeing these numbers Joern maybe should have dropped the damage instead of directing against my maulers and DNs.


Re. Lyran fighters: They had only 5 fighters on a JGP-V. All others were klingon fighters.

Re. Kzinti Carrier losses: Only 1 CV died.
It was crippled like the other ones together with all their escorts while fighting over the outer planets on turn 6. When the Kzinti finally withdrew and a last pursuit battle followed. Joern put two remaining undamaged CVs (actually 1 CVL) on the line together with the heaviest(although damaged) escorts available (and the mandatory light escort). The crippled CVs were escorted by the remaining crippled escort ships in the rear echelon.
Unfortunately, I rolled a 5 plus a +1 VBIR +1 for an ADM, with a compot of 64 and dealt 24 pts of damage together with a last mauler spared for the final.
Instead of going for the ships on the battle line I took out the one CV in the back which was escorted by two FCRs which were crippled earlier.
(CVcrip+2xFCRcrip = 5+2x3=11 damage points. Doubled for direct damage = 22pts, and by the pursuit battel rule every crippled warship even those not on the line were eligible for direct damage)

By Sören Klein (Ogdrklein) on Monday, June 03, 2019 - 03:54 pm: Edit

Wow,

Thomas, Paul, Douglas, SVC!

We had never guessed that such a short question for dummies resulted in so many detailed answers.
Now, Joern and myself feel somehow a little bit like two little, green amateurs having got so many questions in return about details we should have seen before even by good reasoning. But it was worth it.

I would to thank you all for the quick and detailed answers. As always on the BBS we learned quite a thing from you. More than by just reading the game reports.

Many thanks for that.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, June 03, 2019 - 04:31 pm: Edit

It may have been poor Kzinti tactics or another rules error which didn't help....so lets start with that one.

Why did the Kzinti fight 7 or 8 rounds over the Minor Planet?

When it became apparent the Coalition was ignoring the outer systems - the Kzinti player could have self killed the PDU's and if more damage was done, devastate the planet - which they can then ignore.

i.e. the Attacker can't force the defender to defend a devastated planet (with no other defences) - the attacker basically has to attack a new planet.

So - why was combat fought for so long over the minor planet (I am guessing half the Mobile Kzinti force was crippled at this point)?

The damage done over the Capital is therefore also off from normal.

12 PDU's is 108, a SB is 48 and a fair Capital planet defensive force is 120 - so that's 276 Compot.

A maximum Coalition attack line might start at 150 or so.

The dice were not nice for the Kzinti though, so that will reduce the damage done - but I would expect with the Coalition having to kill PDU's initially - damage of 500 from the Kzinti to 300 from the Coalition is within the normal range.

Putting cripple Carriers on the line with Crippled FCR's is also economic madness - and this is where partial retreat normally works really well.

So what Carrier Groups did the Kzinti use - where are the MEC's for example?

To be as fair as possible - you might want to re-do from turn 5 onwards (if your playing on Cyberboard and not on the map) - as the way you have played the game has broken the Kzinti far beyond a simple repair.

The Kzinti have a fleet designed to fight a war of attrition - but forcing them to basically defend a minor planet AND then Self Kill a hull a round..... is not what it's good at.

Sorry! Its easier to learn the mistakes earlier in the game at least.

By Nick Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 03, 2019 - 04:40 pm: Edit

There is a 5th criteria for auto-kill, it can only be invoked on the 2nd or later combat round.

To invoke auto-kill against your opponent you must:

Be on the 2nd or later combat round
Have 100+ compot
Have BIR 5+
Have a natural 6 die roll
Decline to use directed damage against them

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, June 03, 2019 - 04:54 pm: Edit

A crippled CV+2FCR takes 9 damage points doubled to 18 to destroy. Crippled escorts do not provide nor have any defensive compot bonus.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, June 03, 2019 - 08:03 pm: Edit

Soren, every game is a learning experience. No two games are ever the same.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - 10:11 am: Edit

Coming in late to this discussion:
"At the beginning of retro, a carrier is connected to the main grid. Retro movement cuts its supply lines. Therefore, by the time replacement fighters are received, the carrier is "in supply" in the sense that it was in supply as of its most recent supply check, but it is no longer connected to the main grid. If it matters, it retroed to an SB that was connected to the main grid as of the end of combat but is no longer connected after retros. "

Like, there is a very specific point in the SOP when the fighters get replaced (that I don't have handy right now). I have great faith that the answer is "if the ships are in supply at that specific point, and also in supply from the Main Grid, they get fighters replenished. If they are not in supply, or not connected to the Main Grid, they do not."

That being said, if the ships are sitting on a SB that is not connected to the Main Grid (i.e. a SB in a Partial Grid), they could replenish fighters by paying 1EP for 12, I suspect.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - 10:36 am: Edit

Nope, you can only pay for supply in a limited grid near the start of the turn, and it only provides fighters right then and there, not later in the retrograde phase. That one was more or less in Q^A in the past.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - 02:27 pm: Edit

Ah, ok, so "partial grid resupply" only pays off doing econ. That'll teach me to imagine answers without the book nearby :-)

Then I'd imagine that the answer to this question is, pretty much, "the ship can't resupply fighters during the end of turn fighter resupply phase, as it is not connected to the Main Grid supply network."

But then, I could be wrong.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - 02:34 pm: Edit

Ok, so went and looked at the master, expanded SOP. Phase 6, step D:

"6D: All players may replace fighters (501.51), PFs (502.43), and GCEs (521.22) as appropriate if in supply."

Where "supply" actually has been clarified to really mean "supply from the Main Grid".

So that seems pretty clear, answer wise?

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Sunday, June 30, 2019 - 06:10 pm: Edit

Interesting retreat battle force question came up today. In the hex, the Kzinti have the following. Crips are in lowercase.

DN, BC, CVS+mec+MEC+(empty slot), VT+eff+FF, dd, cl, eff (not escorting anything).

What is the best battle force they can put together?

Seems clear the BC can't be added. The following looks legal to me:

CVS+mec+MEC+(empty slot), VT+eff+FF, dd, cl, eff.

That's CVS commanding 9 ships for a total of 10, which, if I'm not mistaken, is legal.

But then can the DN be added? We are already at the command rating of the flagship. So by the last sentence of 307.31, maybe not?

If the Battle Force does not exceed the Command Rating of the flagship, additional uncrippled ships may be added up to the maximum rating. The battle force is 10 ships, including the flagship, while the command rating without the DN is 9.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, June 30, 2019 - 06:30 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Sunday, June 30, 2019 - 06:10 pm: Edit

Interesting retreat battle force question came up today. In the hex, the Kzinti have the following. Crips are in lowercase.

DN, BC, CVS+mec+MEC+(empty slot), VT+eff+FF, dd, cl, eff (not escorting anything).

What is the best battle force they can put together?

Seems clear the BC can't be added. The following looks legal to me:

CVS+mec+MEC+(empty slot), VT+eff+FF, dd, cl, eff.

That's CVS commanding 9 ships for a total of 10, which, if I'm not mistaken, is legal.

But then can the DN be added? We are already at the command rating of the flagship. So by the last sentence of 307.31, maybe not?

If the Battle Force does not exceed the Command Rating of the flagship, additional uncrippled ships may be added up to the maximum rating. The battle force is 10 ships, including the flagship, while the command rating without the DN is

---

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Sunday, June 30, 2019 - 07:13 pm: Edit

This is an interesting question. I've never had it come up, but I guessed as to the issue even as you posted the listed forces.

Step 1, include all the cripples. 5 of them total.

Step 2, include up to three healthy ships. Assuming you keep the carrier groups together, that would actually be 4 ships.

Step 3, assign flagship of the forces there - that would be the CVS, which can lead 9 ships. You have the CVS plus eight ships, but one of the groups requires an extra empty slot, so the line is full.

So.... is there a step 4, add additional ships *beyond* the command ratings, if such ships would increase the command rating? I don't think there is.

However... can't you reorganize the carrier groups in retreat, as per the rules? If so, have a VT + MEC + eff, and CVS + mec + eff (or vice versa on the carriers).

Line would then be... CVS (mec, eff), VT (MEC, eff), dd, cl, DN, BC.

If command can then be switched to the DN (I dunno if it can, I don't have the order of the rules in front of me), then the FF could be added atop of that.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, June 30, 2019 - 07:25 pm: Edit

Kevin, you can remove escorts under (515.154). You cannot change escorts though. Only the uncrippled MEC in the CVS group from William's list would be eligible to be dropped.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, June 30, 2019 - 07:39 pm: Edit

I think you can drop any escort from a carrier group for this step, but you cannot add any escort to a carrier group (or form a new group) except for emergency use of FCRs.

This doesn't get crippled escorts out of being directable though.

Note that a four ship carrier group (with no cripples) cannot be included as the first three uncrippled ships.

Here are the actual rules:
(307.32) GROUPS: Carrier groups with crippled escorts must be
included (308.12); any uncrippled ships count for the three uncrip-
pled ships. A four-ship group (even with a destroyed escort) can-
not be included unless it has a crippled escort (in which case it
must be) or unless the fourth ship (even if missing) is one of the
“additional uncrippled ships” added. See (308.122) which can
force carrier groups to be broken up to satisy this rule.

and

(308.122) This rule can run into conflict with (307.3) in a pursuit
battle. In such cases, the player must still meet both require-
ments (all crippled ships must be in the Battle Force, only three
uncrippled ships can be in the Battle Force). Carrier groups can
be broken down (515.15), allowing crippled escorts to be left
behind, and this must be done if it is the only way to meet the requirements of (307.3).

and

(515.15) TRANSFERRING ESCORTS: Rule (308.1211) speci-
fies that escorts cannot be shifted between carrier groups after
the Battle Force Determination Step (Phase 5, Step 3C). Escorts
cannot be transferred between, into, or out of carrier groups during the Combat Procedure. During Pursuit (Phase 5, Step 8),
crippled escorts can be detached from carrier groups, and in some
cases may have to be detached in accordance with (308.12).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, June 30, 2019 - 07:44 pm: Edit

Note that Turtle's comment that only a single escort in the above mentioned list can be dropped is incorrect, any escort can be.

Kevin:

You cannot exceep the command rating of the flagship selected at the point after the possible addition of up to three uncrippled ships. Note that all crippled ships will be eligible directed damage targets, there are updated rules in a recent Captain's Log that explains the intricacies of this rule in more detail.

You also definitely cannot change your escorts around beyond simply dropping escorts from carrier groups (during the pursuit battle force formation step).

I'm not an official answer guy or anything, so keep that in mind.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, June 30, 2019 - 07:56 pm: Edit

Richard, you failed to read the original post by William correctly. I was specifically commenting on the escorts in William's original post. The only escort eligible to be dropped is the uncrippled MEC. The other escorts listed are all crippled and therefore must be included.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, June 30, 2019 - 07:56 pm: Edit

Deleted by Author. Duplicate Post.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Sunday, June 30, 2019 - 08:02 pm: Edit

Ah, ok. Sorry guys. I am going by memory, and often I remember proposals that were discussed years ago but never actually added to the game. I knew there was some rule that was finally used, but I doubt I ever actually checked the finished product.


So yeah, it looks like unless the carrier groups are seriously broken up, it's impossible to get that DN into the line

Drop the MEC and FF from their groups, you could then add the three uncrippled ships as the CVS, the VT, and the DN.

Line would look like this: DN, CVS (mec, empty), VT (eff, empty), dd, cl, eff, and then add an additional BC.

So yeah, you could use both the DN and the BC in the line. And watch at least one of your carriers go boom!

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, June 30, 2019 - 08:21 pm: Edit

William's question is regarding the best possible line in the pursuit battle where the ships listed in his original post are those that are available to be used.

Line #1: DN (Flag, 1), CVS (1, 2), mec (2), MEC (3, 3), Empty (4), VT (5, 4), eff (6), FF (7, 5), dd (8), cl (9), eff (10). = 54 EW 0 assuming 6 Fighter Factors on each of the CVS and VT.

Line #2: DN (Flag, 1), CVS (1, 2), mec (2), Empty (3), VT (4, 3), eff (5), FF (6, 6), dd (7), cl (8), eff (9), BC (10). = 56 EW 0 assuming 6 Fighter Factors on each of the CVS and VT.

Given the vulnerability of the CVS group under Line #2 I would use Line #1. The 2 extra points of compot won't do enough extra damage to be worth the risk of losing a CVS group.

NOTE: My assumptions are based on there being no plus or minus points carrying over into this round.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Sunday, June 30, 2019 - 08:41 pm: Edit

More a rules question. I was unclear whether the DN could be added, as the way the rule was written suggested not. I am a bit surprised to see people say I can detach escorts in order to get better compot. I thought it was only allowed if forced.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, June 30, 2019 - 08:54 pm: Edit

Sorry about that Turtle. It's difficult for me to read through a lot of text nowadays and sometimes I skim when I shouldn't.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, June 30, 2019 - 08:59 pm: Edit

You cannot count a CVS with an mec and an empty slot as only one of the three uncrippled ships, this is implied in the direct statement that a four ship carrier group cannot be used as the three uncrippled ships even if one of those slots in the four ship group is actually empty (IE CVS+MEC+MEC+empty).

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Sunday, June 30, 2019 - 08:59 pm: Edit

Thomas, how are you getting the DN on the line?

Step 1, add all cripples. That includes the dd, cl, eff, plus (if you don't break up the carriers), the CVS (mec, MEC, empty), and VT (eff, FF)

Step 2, add up to three uncrippled ships --- but we already have, the CVS, the MEC, the VT, and the FF.

Step 3, *from the assembled ships, select a command ship* --- presumably the CVS.

And step 4, *if there is additional space*, continue to add more uncrippled ships. But there is no more space on the line.

So the line is CVS (mec, MEC, empty), VT (eff, FF), cl, dd, eff.

If the eff hadn't been there, you'd then be eligible to add one uncrippled ship - the DN - but the command ship had already been selected as the CVS so the DN would only be there for the firepower.

The only way to get the DN in command is to drop both the MEC and the FF from the carrier groups, so as to allow for the selection of three uncrippled ships - CVS, VT, and DN.

Then you get good firepower. And your carrier dies.


Or am I way behind on my rules understanding?

*~*~*~*

Richard,

So you mean that the CVS (mec, MEC, empty) would be THREE uncrippled ships (the empty being the third?)

Or do you mean it couldn't be added at all... which it must be added because of the crippled mec?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, June 30, 2019 - 09:18 pm: Edit

Richard, the empty slot on the CVS is counted against the command rating because it is the required light escort. It is not counted as 1 of the uncrippled ships because it is not crippled, nor is it crippled.

Kevin, the DN is added as the flagship because it has a higher command rating than the CVS. Also the CVS and VT were probably rejected flagship candidates at the beginning of battle in the hex. See (302.32).