Archive through December 13, 2020
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E INPUT:
F&E Reports from the Front:
Active Scenarios:
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Mauler:
Archive through December 13, 2020
Hi Graham
So what took 1001 - as unless the Coalition also have a ship in 1101 and 1102, the Kzinti have to retreat to 1001 or 1002 - as it's closer to supply.
You never retreat out of supply - unless the hex in supply outnumbers your retreat force.
On 1202 - I assume the Kzinti sent a weak pinning force to block the Lyrans in 1202... and then in the reserve movement phase, the Marquis reserve went there?
1001: Coalition have ships in 1001, 1002, 0903. 1001 in particular is the remnant of the Red Claw Fleet - essentially a reinforced CC battle line after what was ceded to the Home Fleet and to the fight in 0701. (Surrounding 0902 was the point. I'm not sure this actually makes sense? But the idea was at least to make the Count's fleet fight me to get back to the rest of the Kzinti; 0902 was surrounded on the far side. The "Doom Star Fleet" (love the name, yes, I know it's not associated with Red Claw) is hanging in 1002 with about the same force. No hexes next to 0902 were in supply, on purpose.
1202: Yeah; reacted a ship or three from 1401 a battle hex and then sent the (rest of) the reserve, which was a much better line than what I sent to 1202.
We are through about three rounds over 1304 and it is becoming increasingly clear that the Klingons have the ships to take the hex, but the Kzinti have a reliable +2 shift and are making the Klingons bleed for it.
So far dice are about even, but BIR has been pretty reliably "up".
OK - lets go 1 step backwards to the 902 battle 
(Remember, I did say retreats and supply hexes is about 3 levels more difficult to work out then brain surgery).
What was the numbers of Coalition ships in 1001 and 1002?
You don't mention 1101 or 1102 - so I am guessing they are empty?
What happens if you temporarily put the Kzinti ship from 902 into 1001?
Are those Kzinti ships now in supply via Barony>1101>1001 or 1202>1102>1001?
Now repeat the process and temporarily put the ships in 1002. Are they in supply via 1202 and 1102 or 1103?
If the answer is 'yes' and the Kzinti's outnumber the Coalition in 1001 or 1002 - the Kzinti have to retreat to one of those hexes - as In supply is a higher priority than 'enemy ships which you outnumber'.
OK - the next step is - is there forces in both 1001 and 1002 (and less than the Kzinti) - if yes the Kzinti player must retreat to either 1001 or 1002.
If Only 1001 has Coalition forces in it - the Kzinti would normally 'have' to retreat to 1002, as Empty in supply hexes outrank enemy forces in a supply hex - but the Kzinti could choose to do a Fighting Retreat at that point into 1001 (as Fighting Retreat allows you to ineffect disregard empty hexes).
You could decline the Approach battle in 1001 (assuming the combat has already been done there) - and the Kzinti would continue to 1101 or 1102.
The only way to force the Kzinti West or South West from 902 is to ensure supply can't enter 1001,1002 (or have more forces there!) - which means having forces in 1101, 1102 and possibly 1103 (and possibly 1104 and 1105 depending on what other forces are dotted around)
The easiest way to see if a hex is moved from being out of supply to into supply is temporarily move the retreating force and you can then see what is truly out of supply.
i.e. The supply check is done assuming the retreat has been made to that hex.
It is one of the more difficult aspects to understand.
Due to the position of the Barony - it is very difficult to cut Kzinti forces off which defend within 3 hexes of it - further out it is possible - but due to the way supply works, its very easy for them to get close enough to reopen supply to the hex they are in.
(THe Hydrans are the reverse...it's very easy to cut them off!!)
* - Remembering the Barony Provides Main Grid Supply - and so the Kzinti can avoid having to retreat towards a partial supply grid - which is what hurts the Hydrans if they lose 617 and the Coalition block the Old Colonies off.
This is a lot to take in - and we did say it's a steep learning curve
See, that's what I thought, too, but then I read Priority 4, which says that (unless the player chooses to make a fighting retreat, which it looks like they can't be forced to unless there really is nowhere else) a retreat is never forced into a hex with enemy ships; but now that I read it again I can see the priorities are in the opposite order and #4 is less important than supply calculations, so you can be forced to make a fighting retreat after all.
[This is good for me and bad for Trent, I think; he has to make a fighting retreat and allow pursuit if there are cripples. My battle lines in 1001 and 1002 aren't good, but the BIR advantage for a fighting retreat will be fun after ten rounds of a -2 shift over starbases.]
He doesn't ever have to make a fighting retreat. A fighting retreat is what happens when there's an open hex that he could go to, but he decides that he'd rather retreat into a hex with ships.
A regular retreat into a hex with ships is just that; there's a normal battle that takes place there after the retreat. There may be another retreat and a second pursuit, but it's not a fighting retreat.
Graham - as Sam said.
Basically Fighting retreats can be very powerful - but can be risky if you retreat into a hex with a large force.
If you don't want someone to retreat somewhere- the only way to stop it (unless there no other option*), is to have more in the hex than the can retreat with.
So a 10 ship equivalent force can't normally* retreating into a hex with 11 equivalents there - but if two hexes have 3 ship and 7 ships in - they are equally on supply/supply range you can retreat to either.
* - Example 5 Kzinti ships in 0101 retreating - both 0102 and 0201 have 6 ships in - you can retreat!
Yeah, just as support--the retreat rules are probably the most arcane yet important to understand rules in the game. And the ones that cause the most confusion. And the ones that result in the most instances of "Jeez. I forgot that one bit, and now I'm stranded out of supply, and I have now lost the game. Can we redo that?"
You are never forced to fighting retreat. You *can* fighting retreat when there are 2 or more hexes that are otherwise identical for retreat purposes, but at least one of them has ships in it. For example:
-Hex A: Empty, 2 hexes to the closest supply point, no other hexes are closer to supply.
-Hex B: Has a small number of ships in it[*], 2 hexes to the closest supply point, no other hexes are closer to supply.
In that instance, you could either retreat into Hex A and be done with it, or Hex B and be in a fighting retreat situation.
[*] You can *never* retreat into a hex with more ships than your retreating force, so you can only fighting retreat into a hex that has fewer ships than your retreating force.
If, however, your retreat options are:
-Hex A: Empty, 2 hexes from the closest supply point.
-Hex B: Some enemy ships, 1 hex from the closest supply point.
You'd be compelled to retreat into Hex B (assuming fewer enemy ships than your retreating force, see above), as while it has enemy ships, it is also closer to supply, which is more important, priority wise, than the hex being empty. And because of the supply situation, it would *not* be a fighting retreat, just a regular one with regular combat.
Fighting retreat is often used to aggressively kill small province raiding ships (i.e. attack somewhere where you can then fighting retreat over a couple FFs that are behind you). Fighting retreat is occasionally the best of bad situations to get back into supply.
Regular retreats where you retreat into a combat you want to retreat into that you set up with a convoy or something is a cruel, yet beneficial way to often kill things. And one of the things that makes understanding the arcane retreat rules incredibly helpful.
I second this
"Regular retreats where you retreat into a combat you want to retreat into that you set up with a convoy or something is a cruel, yet beneficial way to often kill things. And one of the things that makes understanding the arcane retreat rules incredibly helpful. "
William loves placing CC's and 10 compot ships in the only hex the other side can retreat to - especially good when you attack a province holding garrison ship and the adjacent ship reacts in too.
Normally - 1 garrison ship fights and dies against the larger attacking force and the other one safely retreats.
Now it has to retreat (or stay and die!) right into a much larger ship which will also probably kill it - but it does have a larger chance of living!
Certain areas of the map are good for this - 404 to 1001 for example!
So here I am, learning that:
A retreat with fighting is not the same thing as a fighting retreat;
Ships are required to retreat and fight if they can to get closer to supply, even if not actually in supply (this is what I was missing I think);
A fighting retreat is never required, but a retreat with fighting often is, and isn't even particularly disfavored;
Putting just a battle line behind your opponent for him to trip over isn't a great idea after all (oops).
> A retreat with fighting is not the same thing as a fighting retreat;
Yes.
> A fighting retreat is never required, but a retreat with fighting often is, and isn't even particularly disfavored;
Yes.
> Putting just a battle line behind your opponent for him to trip over isn't a great idea after all (oops).
Heh, yes. (I learned that the hard way too)
> Ships are required to retreat and fight if they can to get closer to supply, even if not actually in supply (this is what I was missing I think);
No! You are never required to retreat toward supply if that retreat would not get you into supply. The Hydrans fighting across the Klingons to get to the Federation, for instance, are in no obligation to retreat toward Hydran space. Even if you could retreat to a space from which you could retreat into supply, you're not obligated to do that - only whether the hex you're retreating into is in supply matters.
Graham wrote:
>>A retreat with fighting is not the same thing as a fighting retreat;>>
Correct. A fighting retreat is a specific instance where you retreat into a hex with enemy ships when you *could* also retreat into an otherwise identical empty hex. When it is a Fighting Retreat, the retreating force is always gonna be BIR0, and then not retreating force will be BIR10. When there are roughly equal sized forces, this is a problem for the retreating force (so avoid that). When it is a battle fleet retreating over a couple FFs or something, it is irrelevant to the retreating force (in my experience, this is the vast majority of situations where Fighting Retreat occurs through intentional set up).
>>Ships are required to retreat and fight if they can to get closer to supply, even if not actually in supply (this is what I was missing I think);>>
This is a sticky point that requires a lot of understanding. If a retreating force can retreat into a hex that gets them into supply, they must (unless that hex has more enemy ships than the retreating force). If they *can't* retreat into supply for whatever reason, they can generally retreat where they want (with other priorities taken into account; i.e. an empty hex out of supply takes precedence over a hex out of supply that has enemy ships in it, at which point Fighting Retreat becomes an option). There are some corner cases where a retreating force is not ever forced to retreat towards a partial supply grid if they can retreat towards a main supply grid, even if the main supply grid is further away.
>>A fighting retreat is never required, but a retreat with fighting often is, and isn't even particularly disfavored;>>
Correct, generally speaking. Retreating into a hex with enemy ships (as long as there aren't more of them) that is closer to supply is a higher priority than retreating into an empty hex that is further from supply.
>>Putting just a battle line behind your opponent for him to trip over isn't a great idea after all (oops).>>
Depends. Often, the Coalition can do terrible things where they attack a small number of ships with a bigger number of ships, kill one of them, and force the defenders to retreat into a hex with an identical number of bigger, scarier ships, to kill them some more (to be fair, this is hard to set up, and doesn't happen much, but it can). Putting a solid battle line behind a force that is going to be forced to retreat over it *can* be helpful, if you think the retreating force will have a bunch of cripples you will get to pursue.
The battle over Starbase 1304 went seven "real" rounds, before the Kzinti fleet retreated leaving the auxiliaries and the base to its fate. The Kzinti had a -2 shift the whole battle (that Kzinti-get-18-compot-and-6-EW thing is brutal), but I think had slightly less friendly dice, which made up for the EW (a little, not completely.) Both sides did a fair amount of directing, first on scouts then then on line ships once all the good scouts were dead. The Klingons killed the SB and the Kzinti retreated to 1303.
In addition, the Count's fleet beat up the Lyran detachment in 1002 and killed a CL for a few crippled escorts.
Total losses so far, with all combat complete except 1401:Lyran Killed: 2xHFF, SC, CL, 2xBCCripples: 4xFF, CL, SC, 5xDD, 4xCWKlingon Killed: D6S, D5S, D6V, E4a, 2xD7Cripples: 4xE4, 13xF5, 3xF5L, D5, 2xD6, D7Kzinti Killed: 2xCLD, 2xSAD, SAS, SAV, LAS, LAV, 2xBC, TGC [and of course, 4xPDU, 2xBATS, 2xSB]Crippled: BCx5, BF, 2xDDE, 6xDD, FFK, 4xEFF, 5xFF, CC, 2xCL, 3xCLE
Pending 1401...
Dice are 3.89 for the Coalition and 3.35 for the Alliance. Oof. Not a huge edge, and the Kzinti did get 6, 5, 6 in the first three rounds over 1304, but it made a difference.
Morning Graham
Me again.
Can you split the losses for 902 and 1304 (and other)?
Who suffered the -2 on the dice due to EW (you mention the Kzinit did, but they dialed the SB to 6 EW)?
Something to learn for the next battle, if the defender is likely to lose the battle they can do two things with Auxiliary Ships
1) Kill them during the battle (or have them killed - if your directing on them )
2) Attempt to construct a line which might survive a slow pursuit battle.
Early on, the Kzinti probably don't have the escorts (even Ad Hoc ones) to help escort them - but later on 4LAV+3SAV slow pursuit force might live against a 80 compot slow pursuit force (the Persuer gets to pick both BIR's - and so 20-30 damage is likely).
You need to time the battle right if you want the base to protect the cripples ships from pursuit - and the base dies the next round.
Its hard to pull it fully off, but it's possible.
Generally, as Kzinti I evacuate all the aux's offmap or to 1401 on A1 so they don't get killed so easily.
As the more perceptive of you may have already noticed, some moron put a D6V on the line with only one light escort and got it determinedly killed when his opponent rolled a '6'.
36 damage isn't even that hard in the early rounds over a starbase.
The Kzinti benefited from the -2 shift throughout (over both SBs).
Combat is over on CT2, as is CT2 itself. The Klingons have mostly withdrawn to their border BATS, leaving only a small fleet on planet 1105 and stationing two very strong reserves on BATS 1407. They also "loaned" three crippled frigates to the Lyrans in 0903. The Lyrans may as well repair them since they are already there...
In 1401 the dice continued to favor the Coalition.
Final dice: Coalition 4.0 Alliance 3.38.
You can certainly see this in the losses, which favor the Alliance, but not by as much as you would expect given the Starbases... although the Klingons in particular lost ships that are hard to replace (2xD6S, D6V...)
Final combat losses:
Lyran Killed: 2xHFF, SC, CL, 2xBC
Cripples: 4xFF, CL, SC, 5xDD, 4xCW [23 EP (counting 7 Klingons)]
Klingon Killed: 2xD6S, D5S, D6V, E4a, 2xD7, 3xF5
Cripples: 4xE4, 14xF5, 3xF5L, 2xD5, 3xD6, D7, D6M [28 EP (not counting repairs by Lyrans)]
Kzinti Killed: 2xCLD, 2xSAD, SAS, SAV, LAS, LAV, 3xBC, TGC [and 14xPDU (7 on Kzintai, 3 on Keevarsh, 4 on 1105, 2xBATS, 2xSB]
Cripples: 6xBC, BF, 2xDDE, 6xDD, FFK, 4xEFF, 5xFF, CC, 2xCL, 3xCLE [45.5 EP, but most of it is not on a repair point on AT2.]
Edits: Above Kzinti cripples were wrong:
Correct is 4xBC, BF, 4xDD, 3xCLE, 2xCL, 4xEFF, 5xFF, FFK, CC, DDE. 74 Repair, 37 EPs.
I got 2 extra BC's and a DDE somewhere that I must have double counted in my chicken scratch.
AT2 Econ
Kzinti
Starting Treasury: 1.125
Survey: 14 + 6 = 20 (1 Province)
Income 93 (-10 conquered) (+2 Off Map) = 85 EPs
Repairs: 2 (BC in 1401)
DBB: 80 (-48 Free DBB) = 3.2 EPs
Salvage:
Construction:
BC -> CV 12
2xCM -> 2xMEC 12
2xDD -> 2xDDE 14
3xFF -> EFF, 2xFFK 9.5
Conversion:
FF -> FFK (OFF) 1
Build 4 PDUs on Kzintai 28
81.7 spent, 4.425 left.
DDEs are terrible (they are super expensive, low compot, and have to be heavy escorts, so are exactly the same as CLEs). Even with just the standard down-sub rules, you can downsub 2FF for 2DD (spending 5EP for a couple hulls instead of 12). Just make a couple more FFs instead of the DDs, and then convert a couple more CLs to CLEs if you need extra heavy escort hulls; you probably still have tons of CLs lying around.
DDEs can be the size four components of battle groups. Making DDEs instead of CLEs gives you more hulls to convert to CLDs.
I think DDEs also have a lower command rating.
Other than that, I got nothin'.
Revised AT2 Econ after Trent read the above and looked at the SIT again.
Kzinti
Starting Treasury: 1.125
Survey: 14 + 6 = 20 (1 Province)
Income 93 (-10 conquered) (+2 Off Map) = 85 EPs
Repairs: 2 (BC in 1401)
DBB: 80 (-48 Free DBB) = 3.2 EPs
Salvage: 10
Construction:
BC -> CV 12
2xCM -> 2xMEC 12
2xDD -> Sub 2xFF, 2xFKE 8
3xFF -> FKE, 2xFF 9
Conversion:
None this turn.
Build 4 PDUs on Kzintai 28
81.7 spent, 21.925 left.
The Kzinti pretty much fell back to the capital and the Marquis area, not giving the Coalition reserves a chance to fight by simply not creating any battle hexes this turn. This will cost a few net EPs in provinces, but Trent's strategy appears to be to bleed the Coalition by fighting over hardpoints, and that makes sense. The Kzinti have a strong reserve on 1401 and on 1504.
Hi Graham
There is a limit on the number of FFK/FKE's prior to Spring 175 to 3 hulls - by any means.
Tried to find it (and failed) but Peter mentioned the 'Down Sub to an FF' rule - can someone point me in the right direction?
Lastly - I assume you mean 1401 and 1704 for the reserves?
Certainly, not 'attacking' can have benefits, but the Kzinti where possible need to burn fighters for Coalition cripples.
Was there anywhere the Kzinti could attack without allowing reserves closer to 1401?
Alas for the Kzinti - they don't have many hard points left (other than 1401 and 1704)!
Graham
Unrelated to your game per say, how is you son finding the game?
I have a 12 year old who likes gaming.
Not sure he has the patience for F&E yet (can get far to excited - he is on the Spectrum) - but it might be something I can introduce him to.
Cheers
Paul
He can just turn the extra FFK's into FFs; that isn't a big deal anyway. He is thinking ahead (the extra EPs saved are for all the repairs on AT3 I believe). This is fixed above.
Trent is very excited about F&E. He has Federation econ spreadsheets theorized for multiple turns and we're still on CT3. We argue about who made the better Excel spreadsheet for tracking econ (in a friendly fashion).
It's great for kids, as long as the kids have the interest. Patience is a thing, but if kids are interested patience will come.
Paul wrote:
>>Tried to find it (and failed) but Peter mentioned the 'Down Sub to an FF' rule - can someone point me in the right direction?>>
There is a specific "You can downsub 2 hulls per turn to something smaller, according to these overy specific empire based substitution lists" rule in one of the later expansions (Strategic Ops, probably?).
Jason and I always play with "you can always sub an FF for anything", which works fine, is simple, and probably helps the Alliance out some. But the official rule is more complicated, yet has a similar effect.