Archive through February 11, 2021
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 February 11, 2021
So, some interesting facts about the game.
The Coalition has 108 cripples coming back CT7, but a fair number of them won't get to fight this turn (as they are being repaired too far from the front.)
The Kzinti need to make a big decision as this is the last turn when they will be able to get back on the map "for free" (that is, without fighting their way through Coalition space and being concerned about supply). If they move on map (and defend SB1704) then the Coalition will have time to upgrade the Lyran and Klingon MBs in 1401 to Starbase. On the other hand, if they keep the pressure on 1401, they lose 1704 cheaply and probably have trouble getting on the map for some time.
In Hydran space, the Hydrans have a pretty free hand (both sides have the familiar problem that they can't pin anything on their turn if they leave ships unmoved to reserve, so the only reserve in the south is a middling Lyran reserve in 0411.)
Difficult to say from the map...
So how many equivalents to the Coalition have in 1401, 1502, 1504 and 1703?
Remember also, if the Kzinti can pin 1502 - it might allow a smaller Kzinti quality force to do more damage in 1401.
Have an Coalition Maulers been captured by the Kzinti?
(If they have, will make killing MB or BATS much easier).
Killing MB or BATS is fairly easy - question is will the Kzinti be happy to go through the pain?
Up to 3 Approach battles - and 2-4 rounds to kill the Bases.
So - which planets were the bases set up over?
The Kzinti have 20 ships in 1601, 39 healthy ships offmap, and 50 cripples offmap. The Coalition have 36 ships in 1401 and 50 in 1502, with probably another 50 (plus cripples) in 1504 and environs, of which about 20 are in Klingon reserves that could move to 1401 (including a D7V group and a C8).
No captures in this game, so no captured Maulers.
I know what I would do, but I'm not playing in this game. :-)
I'd be curious to hear (afterwards!).
Important question.
AT6 is upcoming, and we have read the OOBs and scenario rules many times on this now and don't know the answer.
What happens with the Feds if the Coalition reacts into the Marquis area on AT6? This could be relevant, especially if the Kzinti try to defend 1704.
I -think- probably the Feds go to limited war immediately and can move in operational movement (and retrograde/reserve/strat) on AT6, but don't get to go back and do their economy as if they were at limited war. Of course, under 656.0 it looks like the Feds get their EPs even though they don't have a production schedule, so I'd be handing them 115 EPs for Turn 6 to be used later?
That sounds bad.
If the Coalition react into the Marquis Zone on AT6, the 4th Fleet is immediately released and can engage; their 6th fleet builds are already done at that point, but I think they retroactively get their income (possibly minus build costs).
Don't react into the Marquis Zone on AT6.
Yes, their turn six builds are set in stone, but they do get their A6 income (minus construction costs). Note that in peacetime they get no free fighter factors.
Those T6 builds are also released and can go anywhere the Feds want. Note that they could be sent anywhere in Fed space.
As Peter said - Don't! 
If you have though,as mentioned, the Alliance Economic Turn has already been done - so the Federation can basically do Operational Movement onwards in the turn.
It's fair to set Tugs up on a MB, FRD, Ep mission or Pod Mission (as in effect everything is set up….).
Activating the Feds on Alliance Turn 6 is probably as bad as the Germans attacking the Russians in 1941….
The worst thing is the Fed Home Fleet can come forward and the horrible Federatiion Deployment areas can be partially resolved.
(Remembering, most Federation Fleets remain unreleased with the Feds at Limited War - the Federation 2nd Fleet and 4th Fleet can enter Kzinti space, but Home and Third fleets can manoeuvre within Federation space).
In other words, allowing the Federation to move 32+ ships (depending on rules/expansions etc to help defend the 3rd and 4th SB's), prior to any Coalition invasion is not a good Coalition idea!
Richard - I don't believe the Federation get to spend the surplus income - that's only via the Hydran Gambit rule (601.14).
Trying to find a more specific comment/rule....and found it - 656.0 covers early war (full war, not limited war).
So no surplus Eps I believe.
Without doing my rules research, pretty sure that the Feds get the income in peacetime. The rules state they cannot save it from turn to turn if I recall, but as far as I know there is no rule that says they lose it before the end of the turn they get it.
Anywho, that's the argument.
656.0 is what I was looking at. It says they get 50% (it doesn't say anything about build costs, but that isn't clear).
Given that the whole reason I am attacking CT7 is to prevent him from moving up the Home Fleet, reacting in on AT6 isn't an option (as we had thought, but I figured I would check!)
As a result, he can absolutely go defend 1704 if he wants to and there isn't a lot I can do about it.
There is a Captain's Log article somewhere that does a very good job of describing what happens in the various instances when the Feds get activated early. I'll see if I can find it.
Yeah, the Kzinti can generally defend 1704 without much effort, even if their Capital is captured, and attacking a defended 1704 on the T7 when you want to be attacking the Feds isn't usually an optimal idea. But you can always kill 1704 later; drop 100 ships on it, SIDS it 8 times, maul the crippled SB. You'll take a lot of damage, but it isn't that difficult. But it totally is not worth activating the Feds early just to kill it.
Ah, (656.0) is probably that article anyway, now that I'm looking at it.
It says that if the Feds enter the war on the Alliance turn (say, on AT6 when the Klingons react into the Marquis Zone, i.e. exactly what is under discussion here :-), the Feds have already produced, so you get 50% of their income, subtract the build costs of that turn's production (which, on T6, is CVA 18+15FFF, presumably; ECL 7; 2DE 14; 3NCL 15; 3FF 9; FFS 4, or a total of 67 EPs from the income of the 107.5 EPs they get at 50%, leaving 40.5 EPs to save up for the next turn).
So if the Klingons accidentally breach the Marquis Zone on AT6, the Feds get 40.5 extra EPs, can move the 4th Fleet into Kzinti space to help defend, and can move the new builds (11 ships) somewhere via strat moves at the end of the turn.
Seems like a bad plan.
You might be right - 656 may cover Full and Limited War...
….but fortunately, either way it's not relevant here
I don't know, maybe it's only 10.5EP, in which case maybe we are in the range of reasonableness (no FFF while not at war).
[Not really. Still a bad idea. Bad.]
If the Feds activate on A6, they can send some of those EPs to the Kzintis.
Paul wrote:
>>You might be right - 656 may cover Full and Limited War...>>
It is unclear who might be right here. Or what you are talking about :-)
Graham wrote:
>>Here is the map as of the end of CT6...
https://ibb.co/9NJmjRp>>
Ok, so looking at that map, the Coalition have lone FFs all over the map holding provinces.
This is where the Alliance need to be using Raids. Send a Kzinti BF from off map to go kill that lone Lyran FF in 0701 or whatever. Something like 75% of the time, the BF will vaporize the lone FF. If it is a DNL, that goes up.
Once the Coalition lose a few FFs this way, the Coalition realizes that they need to leave 2 or 3 ships in each hex they are in to hold provinces, in neighboring provinces (so, like, they'll have something like F5, 2E4 in hex Y and E4, D6 in adjacent hex Z in a neighboring province, which is what you need to dissuade a DNL raid).
The whole point of AO Military Raids (I don't know about advanced raids, as I have never used them, but understand they are controversial, at best) is that they:
A) Give the Alliance more ability to do things and effect the game state, even when they are totally besieged.
and
B) Force the Coalition to use almost 3 times as many ships to hold captured provinces than they would otherwise.
Yes, the Coalition can benefit from raids too, but certainly early in the game, the Alliance get way more milage out of raids, generally speaking, as the Coalition are generally capturing all the provinces that they would raid anyway, and as long as the Alliance aren't leaving lone FFs out places, they have nothing to attack. As noted in general discussion, later in the game, the Coalition can usually raid Fed provinces that they can't really reach normally, which is helpful and pays dividends. And certainly if the Alliance is sloppy, the Coalition can occasionally blow up lone FFs as well. But really, once both players understand what raids do, they never leave lone FFs places intentionally, and raids just mean that the Alliance can disrupt provinces (costing the Coalition money) and tie up a lot of Coalition ships contesting provinces.
In my current game against Jason (SCD3), I don't think either of us have killed ships with raids, but the Alliance costs the Coalition somewhere between 5-7 EPs per turn from disrupted provinces, and the Coalition are using a little under 3 times as many ships to hold space as they would be in games without raids. The Coalition don't raid much, but the potential of raids means that the Alliance always use groups of 4 ships (sometimes split over 2 hexes) to try and hold planets and provinces (when they bother).
I'll point this out to Mr. T before AT7. I have been lazy about provinces (holding them with lone -scouts- once or twice as those scouts were OTW forward.) But it's only since about turn 4 that I've had a lot of provinces to garrison.
Fortunately, I have a lot of ships in my backfield doing nothing this turn, maybe some of them can reach the provinces.
In other news, just before Mr. T went to bed I rolled survey and B10 for CT7. My survey rolls have been about average (Trent's have been awful; the Kzinti are almost a province behind the Lyrans, for instance), but my B10 rolls continue to amaze. I am going to have a very early B10:
4-5-6-5-6 for 26 in five turns (after CT7 econ actually happens - in process now). I know, splits happen, but this is... extensive.
The B10.....4-5-6-5-6 for 26 in five turns …
- with luck, the B10 can be very good value.
If you continue and get it for 3 more rolls - 40 Ep's (plus fighter cost etc) will seem like a bargain.
If you average 2 though - 100 Ep's is a disaster!
I bet you roll 5 3's now, making it just good value !!
Yeah, the B10 luck train has to end sooner or later, one would assume. But getting it for 50 EP isn't bad. If I have a lot of repairs again I will skip a C8 on CT8; if I have the cash for a DN though I have a feeling more DN's for command is more important than a one turn advance on the B10.
Saying it has to end is a misstatement of how probability works. Assuming you have unbiased dice, you can roll 7 sixes in a row, you can roll 7 ones in a row, and both streaks have the exact same probability as rolling 2, 3, 5, 1, 6, 2, 4 in that order.
The odds are, the B10 luck will end soon, and it will wind up costing 45 or 50 EP. But that's just because 14 is the average for 4 rolls, that much in 4 or 5 is over a 2 in 3 chance, regardless of what the earlier rolls were.
Perhaps his Karma needs adjustment.
It is conceivable that this is just making up for a life time of gaming misses... like a certain TNG actor / Gamer who, when taking a seat at the gaming table, formally apologizes to the player (s) seated next to his chair for the ubiquitous string of bad rolls that are sure to follow.
Strange things can happen at the gaming table, and getting a cheap B-10 early wouldn’t even crack the top fifty list.
I didn't mean to endorse the gambler's fallacy here; I just meant it was unlikely I would continue to average above 5 on a die.
Anyway, a cheap B10 would be fun, but not game changing.