Archive through January 17, 2021
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E INPUT:
F&E Reports from the Front:
Active Scenarios:
Waiting for Godot:
Archive through January 17, 2021
The 1401 round over the capital planet - indeed I did roll 2 points higher - but I try to note was it relevant.
The Coalition rolled a 1 - but the Coalition was still able to kill 4 PDU's.
So if a roll of 3 was done, it would have only reduced the number of owed from 16 to 9 (your compot was 138).
Would you have fought another round with 9 owed (probably I accept)?
Equally, if both sides rolled 2 higher - the Coalition might not have stayed for another round (as I would have done another 14 damage).
On the game and winning balance - I may also be moving over 'to your right'.
I think the two issues are
1) If the Alliance rolls on average poorly/ Coalition roll well (or the Alliance makes an awful lot of modest mistakes), the Coalition will get far enough infront of the expected curve to stay there and win.
Equally, poor Coalition rolling (or good Alliance rolling) or various Coalition modest mistakes will probably take to turn 15-20 to reveal the effect it has on the game (i.e. the Alliance economy is significantly bigger once exhaustion occurs and it becomes clear they will be easily able to push the Coalition back).
2) A strong turn 7 invasion of the Federation can break the Federation - i.e. kill the 3 SB's and set up camp deep in Federation space - and the game is won or lost in Federation space.
The only thing which the Alliance can do to stop that, is either have a successful Expedition (which generally ends the game) - or a near successful expedition and enough Coalition ships are pulled away on C6/A6 to stop them invading on C7.
Combing the two issues - a turn 7 attack and poor Alliance dice just accelerates the difference between the two sides (the Coalition continues to get stronger and the Alliance continues to get weaker).
Just had a look at some of the turn 6-8 rolls - and it did surprise me a bit.
C7 - In the major battles, the Alliance actually did roll well/better (Coal v All)
3rd Fleet SB - 3.33 v 4.11 (9 rounds)
4th Fleet SB - 3.00 v 3.43 (7 rounds)
7th Fleet SB - 2.80 v 4.00 (5 rounds)
Marquis SB - 3.40 v 3.5 (10 rounds)
The smaller battles were fairly one sided though (so a reverse of C10 basically).
This is also an excellent example of where 'planning' can cancel out poor rolls - the Coalition was able to send enough to basically ignore a few poor rolls (and something we have mentioned, the Federation has zero defence against rolling poorly on Coalition turn 7 and in effect no major benefit of getting lucky, as those 3 SB's will all die).
A7 - 3.11 for the Alliance v 4.11 for the Coalition (and very much so the bigger the battle, the larger inbalance).
C8 - Was the rolls went mad.
3.71 (Coal) v 2.89 (Alliance) - and key rolls benefited William (he did miss the 1/12 chance on the TG+VAP) - the 5 most important battle rounds though had an average of +4 to the Coalition (so yes, lots of 5 v 1 and 6 v 2 results).
22nd roll was the first 6 for the Alliance (and the average prior to that roll was 4.00 v 2.67).
6 1's rolled in the first 22 dice for the Alliance
(Noting William did roll 2 1's too).
With a 'cap' on 3 numbers occurring before all numbers being rolled (at least once), re-rolls would have occurred for me on 3 1's, 2 2's, 0 3's, 0 4's and 1 5.
(William would have had to re-roll - 0 1's, 0 2's, 03 3's, 5 4's, 1 5 and 1 6, in that first batch of 22 dice).
So basically, the dice have helped bust the game (IMHO) since Alliance turn 7 - and the dice prior then was fairly neutral (other than Survey and pursuits) - with both sides having some good/key relevant rolls (and some poor rolls to).
It's all the Federations fault!!! 
Well, with most battles and almost all the Federation front battles done - the dice, just suck - although my average is at least going up.
After 62 rounds, averages are 3.82 v 3.56 (which to be fair, doesn't look too bad....)
Timing is perhaps the key difference - I roll well in irrelevant battles - but generally miss key rolls - and William generally rolls well in key battles and gets key rolls.
Good examples being - I missed a 1/12 chance of living.... and then in the next battle, William gets a 1/12 chance of killing a key hull.
Persuits - WIlliam has a 100% success rate so far this turn (including a 5 ship pursuit).
Cloaks - probably fair to say 'average' - 6 offensive cloak attempts, 3 success, 1 failure and 2 NA's (2/0/4 would be closer to the average).
I don't normally go this in depth but the numbers looked wrong in two battles - William got a couple of good 'breaks' in damage in two smaller battles - and it was all due to the normal rounding (I was expecting to do 20-25% more damage... based on compot and rolls, was 5.85 v 7.425 and 5.6 v 6.45 - so two rounding's up and two rounding's down made the difference disappear).
Basically, it allowed him to cripple two small hulls rather than 2 medium hulls!
Romulans got nearly very lucky over 3611 - could have done a lot of damage, but I only rolled a 3 - which was partially offset by the Failed Offensive Cloak roll and the Mauler failing the Shock roll. (William also got the 1/6 chance to kill the Fed CVA FFE escort, thereby reducing the pursuit force by 9 compot…. - as had to swop the now 3CVA for a 3CVS+NCL (glad I did, as the pursuit dice rolled a 5 - no Alliance pursuit force with 5 ships has succeeded so far).
About the only battle which ended with the 'expected' result in my favour was over 3706 (I had marginally more compot* and actually rolled slightly higher)
*27 v 26 in my favour - plus I had 10 damage to take on the planet.
I still think though the end of C10 map will paint a very grim picture for the Alliance - in the larger compot battles (when both attacking or defending), they just haven't done close to average damage**, to slow the Coalition down.
** - This turns rolls have...
Average Small Battle is 3.375 v 3.67 (24 rounds)
Average Medium+ Battle is 4.10 v 3.55 (38 rounds - includes large battles)
Average Large Battle is (gulp) 4.44 v 3.38 (16 rounds)
Doing 1/3rd of a Pip more damage with 18 compot doesn't get you much....
...but doing 1 whole Pip more of damage with 80+ compot is pretty major (noting if you do more damage in battles, you will also take less damage in future rounds...).
and thank goodness C10's combat is over.
The dice continued to roll well in small battles for me - and badly in the large ones.
Small battles
2 v 4
3 v 6
Modest Battle
5 v 5
Large Battle...
5 v 1 - and William was able to cripple a whole CVS group (with a Mauler)
William then passed the Shock Roll
….and then failed the pursuit roll. (probably 4th 6 he has rolled...) - and so the slim chance the CVS group would have lived wasn't need to be rolled (3+ I think would have done it).
Thank goodness William declined to come into the Kzinti system and retreated.
Elsewhere - and more unusually, the Alliance actually won a SSC - liberating 1802, with a Federation DD which was able to Fighting Retreat over the Lyran FF. (8 v 9 rolled - net 7 v 9).
Both retreated (the Lyran crippled).
Pretty good luck for you not to lose that CV group.
The odds were actually pretty good of it living at the start of the battle.
3+ for William to get 22 damage and me to avoid getting 4+ (as I would have crippled the STT**)
Success for William and failure for me
2/3rd chance of avoiding Shocking - Success
Persuit 5 or less needed (Failed)
If the pursuit has worked, William would still have needed a 2+ to achieve the net 12 to kill the group.
So, 5 rolls all needed to go in his favour for it to die - he got 3 of them
** - Different rolls may have also slightly increased the chance of survival - as I was only able to retreat with the enforced -2 points for example (the 2 of the 3 Carrier fighters were homeless).
Admiral See-No-Kzinti has been purged. His name has been retroactively removed from all news reports and historical documents. His likeness has been photoshopped out of all images. In fact, he never existed.
http://www.gatheringstorm.org/rules/Source/22.htm
Well. we have called the game with a full Coalition win.
I don't think there is anything the Alliance can now do to either avoid the Coalition owning 85% of the map for the next 25 turns - or taking 2 more capitals.
So how did we get here?
Williams strategy certainly worked well.
1) Contain the Kzinti
2) Capture 617
3) Invade the Feds on turn 7
4) Swarm Federation space.
There are certain things the Alliance can do and in response
1) I certainly was very aggressive wit the Kzinti.
I think there was 1 tactic I might have taken (but the dice probably stopped it from being attempted, even if I wanted to) - basically stay forward deployed.
It might have worked and pulled more forces back to face the Kzinti…. or could have resulted in 1401 being captured, as William always had 'just enough' forces to contain the Kzinti.
(and so new builds pins the Kzinti forward forces in 1407.... and the rest attack 1401).
Inviting the attack though might slow the Klingons down in Fed space.... which I don't know if worth losing 1401 on the cheap?
The one time I tried to leave some forces forward deployed, did allow the Coalition to devastate the non-Capital planet, partially on the cheap (a Lyran DN line is not worth facing over the Minor planets - and when I defended a Major Planet, I did lose a 3CVS group - and so couldn't defend the others then).
2) Hydran Front first
Absolutely no counter to this - other than attempting the Expedition.
I am massively stuck between my Hydran tactic of attacking being a good idea (I fully accept the turn 4 counter attack was massively screwed up and failed)- and a terrible idea.
Not sure I like the idea of the Hydrans doing nothing to preserve hulls and wait to lose 617?
Certainly preserving 1 Paladin and 1 HR/TR to cheaply build a IC and NSC tactically makes sense - as that might bring forward the ability of the Hydrans to fight back onto the map and stay there for a turn.
On trying to save FRD's over the MB's, it's probably a wash though, as if you can repair more than 8 Ep's of ships, it will probably delay the completion of the new shipyard (with better survey dice, it probably would allow the Hydrans to repair an extra ship or two per turn, so might have some value).
3) Turn 7 attack - alas nothing the Feds can do.
They don't have the strength to defend even the SB's - and perhaps the only thing which would have saved a SB, is very very poor dice for the Klingons and they don't quiet send enough.
I rolled well over the SB's (marginally better than William), but it wasn't enough to save them (so planning for poor dice can clearly help).
4) Again, two responses I could have done.
Run from the front line (and thereby accelerate the Ep differential balance) and save what I had - or counter attack to attempt to regain key planets.
A7 was the first turn when the dice showed a marked inbalance (outside of Persuits* and Survey) and certainly the Kzinti massively suffered.
* - Generally success for William and generally failures for me (although from what I remember, William generally rolled poorly in pursuits and so would only kill 1-2 hulls, rather than kill 2 hulls say - but that's better than missing the pursuit and killing nothing ).
I certainly don't want to say 'the dice cost me the game', but I think it's fair to say, due to the timing of good dice for the Coalition, it probably brought a clear indication of the games direction 5-10 turns earlier than it would have otherwise done (accepting that if the Alliance can keep the game on edge, once exhaustion starts, it may allow them to be pull themselves back into the game).
But with 5 turns before exhaustion stats (and the Romulans more than match the Gorns on ships etc) - I can just see the Coalition claiming more and more of Alliance space.
This is evidenced by turn 10 - the Federation are unable to build a full production schedule - even if they ignored mothballs and repairs.
(On Map Income is only 127 - plus 8 from off map new provinces).
Klingon income was just over 195...….
So the Income inbalance will increase over the next 4 turns as will the Ship inbalance.
Even with the Gorn's - if the Feds can build everything, they might only gain 1 or 2 ships a turn.
So, no real counter to the 'swarm' approach.
I was surprised it looked 'so bad' for the Alliance and so did look at the dice abit more in depth - and certainly C10 shows how it can affect the game.
Accepting in smaller battles, the Coalition will do a lot more damage (25-40 Compot v a BATS or Minor Planet), the Alliance should catch up some of that over the Major Planets (and other key battles).
Using 32/60/90 Compot lines for the Coalition and 20/60/100 Compot lines for the Alliance (for small, medium and large battles I noted above), the Coalition should have done about 1% more damage than the Alliance (but that is needing to do 24 damage to kill a BATS for example) - and what actually happened was the Coalition did at least 18% more damage*.
* - As towards the ends of the smaller battles, William was able to pull cripples etc so could often end a battle with an owed point or 3.
We found in the other game, using a single ship to help defend a Minor Forces is not a good idea - the attacker just directs the ship - and so Minor planets are easy to capture - BATS are a tad harder (as if there is a safe place to retreat to - i.e. not be fighting retreated over by another force!) - as you can safely use a Ship and if the enemy sends say 40+ compot, it can use the Flagship rejection rule).
I did consider using say NCL's for this (as 14 damage to cripple is not certain) - but never had enough War Cruisers to do this.
Although not yet having any effect, the timing of 'lucky' rolls - the 1/12 chances for example, hadn't yet started to come through (the Kzinti and Federation had lost a lot of CC's for example - on top of the Fed DN killed over the Major Planet) - i.e. future battle lines would be a point or two higher for the Coalition.
And C10 was were I did roll some good dice.
A7 and C8 was pretty much one way (1 pip differential per battle) and so the easiest explanation is that the Alliance suffered a young death by 1000 cuts - rather than probably dying from old age (losing on turn 35).
So certainly good tactics helped (and perhaps is some evidence to show that the standard game is pro-Coalition) - but the dice ensured a good tactic is hard to beat (even with a good counter tactic!).
Both sides did make some mistakes (I probably made more smaller mistakes* and Willlam made 1 modest mistake in releasing the Fed 6th Fleet on turn 8)
* - Not sure why the cutting off of over 100 Coalition ships on turn 8 should have such a small effect on the game - and so the hulls I used (and lost) to make the pocket, could probably be considered a mistake for me?
I don't think if I had had overbuilt say 4 Fed FF's on each of turn 7-9, instead of building the maximum number of carriers made any difference - a net 9 more ships would make a minimal difference on the map - although combined with so say 20-30 more Alliance hulls on the map (due to average dice), might be enough to make difference?
Last comment on the dice - which probably does indicate the dice roller is NOT as random as it should be.
In the game - it rolled an awful lot of doubles - really, it was an awful lot - but very few double 1's (or 1-2 in pursuit) - one roll of 4 capture attempts resulted in 3 doubles coming in.
Didn't effect the game (as few ships was captured), but was interesting to watch the doubles come through.
So yes, I am fixated on the dice (which hopefully has some justification), but other than not playing the basic game*, what can the Alliance do to stop the damage of a turn 7 invasion?
* - The Hydrans in the basic game although are very powerful - basically they can't do much to slow the Coalition down - they can't afford PDU's and their main ships.... and they can't build all their main ships AND have a Carrier....
Basically - PDU's or a Carrier on Turn 3.... and several ships or a Paladin on turn 4, if they are heavily attacked!
Thoughts?
I think the base game, without any expansions, is unbalanced. The problem is that the Coalition can smash the Hydrans, then put 200+ Klingon hulls into Fed space on turn 7. (This game's actual total was about 230).
This is simply too much for the Feds. They can't hold.
In this game, I erred on turn 8 by moving within 3 hexes of Earth, thereby releasing all Fed fleets. On turn A8, the Kzinti made an annoying move, and I returned three Klingon reserves from Fed space to deal with it. The combination of the reserves moving back, the release of the Fed 5th+6th fleets, and the fact that Paul was able to cut supply to a lot of the forward Klingons, led to zero net gains on turn 9.
But on turn 10, the Romulans entered, and the early release of the Fed fleets no longer mattered much. The Coalition resumed making rapid gains all along the Fed front.
If the Coalition make an all-out attack on the Feds, these rapid gains are what should happen. They don't require an Alliance screw-up.
Had the game continued, there would have already been a grave threat to Earth on Coalition turn 11. The Klingons and Lyrans were threatening to move in with a fleet that included 11 various DN, plus 2 battle tugs, and perhaps 180 smaller hulls. The Feds would have found it difficult to put up much of a fight over their minor planets, and the non-SB majors would likely have also been devastated.
On top of that, the Romulans, who were not in range of Earth, would have killed the remaining Fed hardpoints that were in range of their border.
Now that I have escaped from overwork hell, a few final thoughts on this game.
The B10 was never completed. Therefore, I think the game is evidence in favor of Richard's opinion that the B10 is not worth its cost.
Paul was wondering if the Hydrans would do better by not attacking. I think they do. With an intact CA line, they can put up a stronger defense over Hydrax. But I don't think this choice would have made a big difference.
In contrast to the situation with the B10, I thought the 22EP DN the Lyrans kept building were worth their cost. The stack of DN made a big difference at Hydrax on turns 4-5, at the Marquis SB on turn 7, and at Kzintai on turn 9. Had the game continued, they would also have been important at Earth on turn 11.
I wasn't paying attention; by 22EP DNs do you mean that you were overbuilding CAs and converting them?
If so, it would be nearly the same cost if you arranged ahead of time for existing CAs/CCs to be at 0408, convert them, then use the 16 EP you save to overbuild a CW and FF. You'd get an overall stronger fleet imo.
But no gold-plated toilets.
I was overbuilding a CA every turn, then converting it the next turn. Part of it was that I wanted to have lots of CC, too. Entirely possible that overbuilding CW would have been better. It's worth thinking through an example:
Raw materials:
5CA
115EP.
Option 1: Convert 5CA>5CC. Overbuild 5CA and convert them to 5DN. End up with:
5CC
5DN
Option 2: Convert 5CA>5DN. 85EP left. Overbuild 8CW and 1FF. End up with:
8CW
1FF
5DN
I think I agree that the final product of option 2 is better. But there is the disadvantage that your CA remain CA before you convert them, rather than becoming CC.
Option 3: Convert 5CA>5CC. Bring them back as needed to convert to DN. 80EP left. Spend them to overbuild 8CW. End up with:
8CW
5DN.
I think options 1 and 3 are the most directly comparable. The cost of having CA instead of CC while waiting for conversion should not be ignored.
Effectively, Richard is saying that 8CW are better than 5CC. I think that's probably true, but it's close. For example, I'm pretty sure that 5CC are better than 7CW.
The main point I was making is that an overpriced DN one turn after the EP are spent is better than an overpriced B10 that appears 0-12 turns after the spending of various EP that go into it, with an average delay of 6 turns.
I think I'm saying that 4CW 8FF is better than 5CC.
Even better, though, would be 4D5 5F5 2E4 per 80EP saved on not building B10s. :p
Personally, I think the B10 is always worth it - even if it never fights.
Who else gets to build a 20 (ignoring fighters etc) compot unit?
You can hardly be a Supreme Chancellor Klingon without a B10.
But within the game - how quickly it comes out, as a significant effect on whether it's fair value or not.
For example - if by start of say turn 13, the B10 is on 34 points (10 rolls, average of 3.4)…. and you then roll a 6, 55 Ep's and it being available on turn 13, seems pretty reasonable and you will be happy with starting it.
If however, you have rolled 34 and then roll a 4 and then a 1 the following turn (and if you roll it, almost certainly 6 would be rolled, taking it to 45) you get the B10 for 70 Ep's on turn 15, you might think it was a tad expensive and wish you hadn't started it.
In effect, if you think you can win the war by turn 15, it probably isn't a good idea to start it.
I certainly do agree though, maximum DN production makes a huge difference - more so of the CA/CC>DN over a CL>BC conversion.
Overbuilding 1 CA on turn 1 (and in effect always leaving a CA in 408) I think long term would be better value than accelerating the CA.
The effect the DN heavy line is pretty massive against the Kzinti - a later than normal attack on the Capital is likely to force the Kzinti to not defend the Minor Planets (as 130 Coalition v 120 Kzinti is likely to allow the Coalition to 'let fall' or kill a modest target on a better damage exchange rate than they receive).
Hydrans - Do nothing and get crushed.... or attack and get crushed.
So, how to get the best pound of flesh?
I think that if you go up against 120 pt Kzinti lines that losing a DN here and there is definitely in the cards.
I lost four of them in the Marquis SB assault, yes, despite lots of overcrippling. That was obviously painful, but did have come with a silver lining as turn 7 crips put me well over what my repair facilities could handle on turn 8.
However, the Lyrans lost none during the two assaults on Hydrax. There was one round Paul could have fried one but chose to fry a mauler instead. He said afterwards that this was a mistake. But either way, when you are putting up valuable ships, you might as well put up a lot of 'em.
They didn't lose any at Kzintai either. The only time Paul could have fried one there was the one round over the capital planet. He chose not to, probably because he felt he was at risk of losing the hex if he directed at that point. If that was his assessment, I agree with it. I wasn't looking to capture Kzintai at any point in this game. But had it been presented to me on a silver platter, I obviously would have gone for it.
Richard
I agree - although it's likely it probably would need a 6 (or VBIR to go up) - as with over crippling, 32.5% will not get a net 36.
That was one thing William did well with, overcrippling - although I don't think it ever 'saved' a DN (I never got enough chances* or rolled enough), it did save Lyran BC's and CC's from being directed.
* - i.e. Round 1 you use a DN and put it in form....once you get 5-7 owed points (there was times when both sides directed and left no damage to take), you can put several DN's on the line - rather than using the DN line all the time.
Trying to work out - should the Kzinti try a different approach?
i.e. Instead of a DN, 3 x 3CV + 1 other hull.... try DN, 2 x 3CV and 3-4 BC/CC's.
Compot will be higher - and they probably lose a BC/CC instead of an Escort.
I have a horrible feeling though, the net effect will be the Kzinti run out of BC/CC's before the Coalition plan for that hex has concluded......
….but aggressive use might scare the Coalition enough to not use maulers though (as swopping a 10 Ep's Mauler is not a good exchange for a 8 or 9 Ep Cruiser**)
(but when the Coalition hit 1401.... the best line can't be done).
** - Ignoring the fact a BIR 3 Coalition line more is or less is an Auto Kill on a Kzinti Cruiser - and getting 28 at BIR 5 or below will be less than a 50/50)
William is also dead correct- when the initial 'raid' on 1401 happened, I felt the hex was probably safe - but with DN lines*** - I could have lost the SB and all the PDU's.
*** - The Kzinti couldn't maintain a good line - I had 4 full 3CV groups, plus various carriers - but only 7 CM or better hulls - and so a modest line plus SB would have perhaps been lower than the Coalition DN line!
If pressed, I have found the Romulans and Kzinti end up with being unable to do effective lines - two many carrier groups and not enough normal ships.
So, no directing on DN's.
Paul wrote:
>>Thoughts?>>
I'll echo the idea that, when both players are reasonably seasoned, and the Coalition is played by someone who is clever and plays them well, the base game is still unbalanced in favor of the Coalition (I suspect that when players are reasonably brand new, the first couple times someone plays the basic game, it probably shakes out reasonably even, as the Coalition takes a lot of planning and management an knowing not to overextend ones' self, but if both players are reasonably competent or better at the game, the base game favors the Coalition).
So what could you have done? Probably nothing much better; if you played reasonably well against a reasonably well played Coalition, were just using the basic game, and the Alliance player was unlucky as well? It is not at all surprising that the Coalition won.
In the base game, the Hydrans should reliably lose their capital (assuming the Coalition are focused on killing the Hydrans, as they probably should be) by T6, at latest, but losing it on T5 is certainly possible. Assuming that happens, the Coalition can hit the Feds well on T7, and it all quickly cascades in the bad direction. If the Coalition set up poorly on the Hydran front, the Hydrans can kill some Lyran BATS without much damage on T3. If the Coalition set up super aggressively (and also have ships in the way to prevent the expedition), the Hydrans best option is just to cover their heads.
The solution to this is play with expansion rules, as discussed in General. The OB, ship, and econ rules in AO (as well as the AuxCVs from CO) make the Hydrans *vastly* tougher. I mean, they'll still lose their capital if the Coalition means to take it, but it will cost a lot more and generally take longer. Which helps the Alliance overall.
The other solution is to use balance options.
C5 is a sure thing if one overweights the Hydran front sufficiently. The one thing the Hydrans might be able to do is to hold on to their 2nd fleet SB. If they can do that, they can tie down more Coalition forces than they can from offmap.
Clearly there is a level of balance options that would make it a fair game. What that level is I don't know. Spending 16 points to put 16D6 into the Klingon mothballs might do it, but it somehow feels unsporting as they would still be activating on turn 23.
Or maybe a slightly larger number of points, all spent on strengthening the Alliance fleets. Fed option B(3NCL and 3FF for 4 points) is particularly likely to be helpful, especially if one assumes, as seems reasonable, that they are set up after turn 6, and anywhere in the Federation.
I probably need to play with AO (last game was probably 10 years ago that had it) to refresh how it improves the Hydrans - as in basic F&E - I don't think there is much value in 'having a SB to run to' - for two reasons.
1 - The Coalition are probably happy to trade a Mauler for Hydran CA/CC
2 - The Hydrans eventually have to run for the Old Colonies - and so after a 617 fight and 215 fight....still need to have enough to break through any Blockaid.
The question is - what delay on transferring ships to the Federation front will it buy? (Which goes back to, do the Hydrans counterattack to do damage - but lose ships - or guard what they have).
Yes, they will slow some down - but I think as the Coalition, I would just transfer another X number of ships from the Kzinti Front (or have them in the NW Corner of Klingon space) - and Fed Option B (or double B) will help, but I think the Coalition can still send enough to kill the 3 SB's.
With the 'better' than Coalition rolls (so the normal dice inbalance can't be said to make it easier for the Coaltiion), Federation rolls, we had 10 Klingon uncrippled ships left from 2204, 26 from 2211 and 16 from 2915 (Alliance ship numbers was 5, 13 and 8).
So another 12 Federation ships, more or less equates to probably 16 or 18 more Coalition ships crippled (2915 would make the most difference, as it would allow a full line), but as Klingon forces can each reach 2 SB's, the extra Federation ships can be matched (i.e. less in 2211 and more in 2915).
Therefore, either the Coalition chooses not to attack on turn 7 (as part of a game agreement), or the Alliance somehow can do enough damage to buy a 1 turn delay.
I don't think (other than a very good Expedition attempt), there is anything which can achieve that.
AO may give the Hydrans enough toys (and enough extra money) to buy that delay (i.e. build the Paladin, normal ships and 4 PDU's on turn 4) - but I can't see they can do enough in just the basic game to achieve that?
It doesn't exist - but what would be the Balance Point cost of the Feds being able to op move/strat move, some/all of the Home Fleet on turn 6 and use a Reaction Feet marker on it (or gets it as a game reaction if 'Eastern' Fleet forces doubles ore more in size - i.e. like the Federation Reaction Rule on the Coalition capturing two capitals?).
That would at least get an extra 12 Ships to help defend 1 of the Star Bases - which being a Reserve Flee move would probably be enough to save it?
Even a one-turn delay buys a lot, as the Feds get to bring up Home Fleet.
Paul wrote:
>>I probably need to play with AO (last game was probably 10 years ago that had it) to refresh how it improves the Hydrans - as in basic F&E - I don't think there is much value in 'having a SB to run to' - for two reasons.>>
-The Hydrans get more ships in the AO OB, including 4 fast ships, of which 2 are dreadnaughts. Later on (T7+), they get a free PGS hull every year. When the shipyard is down, they get to build an IC. The LNHV is a cost effective, solid CV they can build.
-The Hydrans get a lot more money in AO, as their first PAL is basically free. And they get the "Guild Treasury" (30EP, either lump sum if they are pushed off the map, or parsed out 5EP per turn for 6 turns starting on T7)
-Assuming CO is in the mix, the Hydrans get a lot more fighters to burn up from AuxCVs and the refillable FCP.
-Assuming Salvage is in the mix, they Hydrans continue to have a lot more money, as they are losing cruisers all the time and getting a 2EP+ rebate for every dead cruiser.
-With Raids in the mix, the Coalition have to use 2-3x as many ships to just hold captured provinces. They can't just park 3E4s in 3 adjacent provinces, as that will result in a THR eating 1 or 2 of them every turn. So everywhere that the Coalition used to just park 2 or 3 E4s to hold provinces, they are now parking 4-6, if not more, E4s (or larger) to hold provinces. Meaning that the Coalition are using a *lot* more ships all over the map, just to hold down provinces ('cause the Kzinti also have a couple raiders; and the Feds have 3).
>>1 - The Coalition are probably happy to trade a Mauler for Hydran CA/CC>>
Don't worry about the cruisers so much. They are all going to be burned up. Just make sure they are burned up either over the capital or over a SB. With the extra money and extra ships and extra fighters, CV groups are a viable strategy; you start with a couple CVTs, can make a UH on T3, can (realistically now) make a CV on T4. You can mass convert LNs to DEs cheaply. Yes. The CV groups have lame compot with ad-hoc CU outer escorts, but for pinning attacks or low stakes fights, a line of CVs with only CUs to get shot down gets the Hydrans a *lot* of mileage.
>>2 - The Hydrans eventually have to run for the Old Colonies - and so after a 617 fight and 215 fight....still need to have enough to break through any Blockaid.>>
Every game of F+E I have played in the last decade, expansions or no, has seen the Hydran SB in 0215 last significantly past the fall of the Capital. It isn't that hard to keep 0215 alive (or make killing it seem not worth it at the time). Sure. Eventually, it is going to die if the Coalition want to kill it. But protecting it while the Capital is under attack isn't that costly, generally speaking, and then when the Capital falls, the Coalition can attack it in force, which further degrades their ability to attack the Feds, or just deal with it while shifting forces to the Feds. The Latter generally seems the better option.
On the point about province garrisons (vs Raids), as of press time, in my current game, the Coalition are using 48 small/sub optimal ships (mostly E4/FFs, but there are some D6/CL/F5Ls in the mix, in places that seem particularly vulnerable) to hold down 15 provinces and 4 captured planets (this is not counting territory and planets currently held by large forces; this is just the "a couple FFs hold provinces" situations); in just the basic game, these 15 provinces and 4 captured planets would be held, likely, by a total of 19 small ships. In this expanded game, it is taking almost 3 times as many ships to hold the same territory (and now that I'm looking, a few of those ships are likely accidentally vulnerable to raid death).
Most planets are held by 3 ships (a couple FFs and maybe something bigger and not in high demand, like a D6 or Lyran CL). Most provinces are held by an average of 2.5 ships per province (groups of 2 and 3 ships in neighboring provinces, or 2-3 ships per adjacent hex in 3 neighboring province). 'Cause the way raids work, the Raid gets to target a hex (and/or ship in that hex), and then one nearby ship can react in to help. But 'cause, like, 3E4s are still at a disadvantage fighting against a single 11 point DNL (DNL is -1 vs the 3E4; the 3E4 are -2 against the DNL in SSC), you generally want at least one bigger ship in the mix to react in to dissuade an attack by a DNL Raid.
A DNL fighting against, like, 2E4s is not unlikely to see 2E4s get killed.
As such, the Coalition end up stacking up, like, 5 ships to hold 2 provinces, 7 ships to hold 3 provinces, and 3 ships to hold an unimportant planet. Sucking up a lot of coalition hulls. Just 'cause Raids exist.