Archive through March 03, 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 March 03, 2021
Yeah, it worked out because we figured out the issue while all the Coalition forces were still flowing across the Kzinti border and hadn't had time to get too far from home. I've mostly used the Klingon and Lyran fleets separately anyway except for capital assaults, so they've tended to stay in their respective lanes.
Since everyone seems to be reading this anyway:
What is the BIR if a Coalition fleet AND an Alliance fleet fighting retreat into the same hex at the same time? Because I think this can happen in 1803 if 1704 goes first in sequence or the Alliance retreat first.
Also: If the retreat priorities are different for the various empires' ships due to the supply situation, can they retreat to two different hexes?
[For instance: In 1704 the Klingons will be two hexes from each of two different supply points (1504 and 1802). However, the Lyrans have a supply point five hexes away (1202). Are the Klingons required to retreat to the 16 row to stay with the Lyrans? I think so, but it could be important.]
IIRC there was a ruling that if there are two fighting retreats into the same hex, they fight a round at BIR 0. I could be mistaken, but I'm like 90% confident that's right.
See (302.761) for allied forces retreating separately. (Basically, yes, they can retreat separately)
Not only separate empires can retreat separately (are not needed to, each empire can either retreat to his supply grid or to the grid of the empire that comanded the last round of fighting before retreat), but a lot of good players use that rule to create situation that let them gain control of multiple provinces by retreating (consider north west of kzinti territory, group of small ships in 3 exes, 1 in each province, when attacked, they join for fight in 1 exe, 1 dies, lyran retreat west, klingon retreat south and they get back 2 provinces instead of 1) or to create out of supply situation AFTER reserve dispatch by closing the only 2 exes left for the supply...
Sam:
Yes, if two forces that are opposed both use fighting retreat to enter a hex in open space with no approach battle situation, then they fight one battle round with both forces at BIR 0 and then retreat.
So we chatted about potential lines for the starbase fight and (compared to big fights a few turns ago) things have escalated.
With the Fed CVA, the Kzinti can put up 150/9 (although they can't keep up the Drone Bombardment given they are in a partial grid with only 1EP available.) in a first round (after approach is declined) over the starbase.
[Technically they could get 150/10, but since Kzinti Starbases are the same compot either way, and there is no shift, Trent says in that case he'd give the EW guys some time off.]
The Coalition [2 Lyran CP spent] can manage 131/10 in a first round with a line of 9 DN (Actually 5 DN, BT, and three C8), 3 IFF, D5S, CLS.
[Final lines may vary when we actually run the fight]
So the Coalition can feel good that they are only giving away 20 COMPOT (maybe 8 damage?) a round, but as the saying goes, the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent: The Alliance has roughly 90 fighters in the hex and can put 33 of them up at a time without sacrificing COMPOT. So the Coalition line will melt to a more normal number before the Alliance line will...
But the Coalition has 177 SEQ in the hex, so the ultimate result is probably not in doubt?
Graham
Easy answer - correct - the SB is dead... if the Coalition wants to kill it.
Two points.
With a good Coalition roll (and if you have a Mauler on the line) - the Coalition may be able to cripple the SB in 1 shot (so the Alliance need to accept the approach battle possibly to generate some minus points if possible).
Equally, if the Alliance rolls well, they might say 'let the damage fall - forcing the Coalition to cripple 2-4 DN's (over and above killing 18 Fighters) - which means the Coalition high compot might drop quicker.
Probably best to fry a DN/BT/C8 though a round - as the Alliance has to stop the killer Coalition line at some point - i.e. a DN heavy line can happily attack SB's - and the Defender has to go low to minimise the risk of 1 shot crippling it.
(The Coalition compot is lowered in your example due to the FIghters - and no Drone - as once you get to say 150+, 40% might be enough).
Is 10 EW correct in your example of the Coalition though - I guess a CLS is 4 EW, BT would be 1 EW (unless it's got 2 x DP pods, but is only CR 8 then - you might still call it a BT though...) and a D5S 3 EW, so 8 or 9 EW in total ....
On how to kill the SB...
SID it or let damage fall.
SIDDIng is horribly in efficient, but atleast you know the SB will die - and might actually cosr you in damage (and yes, the enemy takes less too).
Example
Alliance should do about 20% more damage...
If they have 80 equivalents defending - 60 Equivents crippled is 72 Coalition equivalents crippled - but the SB is still undamaged.
(Prpbably afew more in the difference, as the Alliance compot is likely to drop more slowly....)
You could spend 8 rounds SIDing - taking 6 cripples a turn.... and so you might only take 50 crippled equivalents to kill the SB (and Alliance will have afew crippled ships).
Choices choices choices!!
Doing SIDS is generally the best way to go if you have enough reserves to kill the SB, but not enough reserves to win the hex for sure. It's fairly easy to estimate. Assume the opponent will roll 4 every time and assume a compot of around 150 (go higher or lower depending on what he has in the hex). Determine how much defpot you have to absorb and then divide. Then look at your line and assume you only roll a 3 every time (usually you have around 100-120 compot in the early years) and divide with his total Defpot. Compare those two numbers. Do you have more rounds in you than he does? That is a ROUGH approximation.
Otherwise, if you have enough to win the hex, you're usually better off letting the damage fall. While you take substantially more damage than your opponent, he *is* taking damage on his fleet, which will have to be repaired.
Either way, if you decide to kill the SB by SIDS do so *before* the battle begins and then be as efficient about as you can (possibly bringing SAFs or G units to speed up the process). As Coalition, always retain 1 mauler so you can one-shot the crippled SB.
If you have WAY more than enough reserves to win the hex, then consider directing on his ships. Again, while the butcher bill is very high doing this, you can end up killing upwards of a dozen ships this way.
YMMV
Paul wrote:
>>With a good Coalition roll (and if you have a Mauler on the line) - the Coalition may be able to cripple the SB in 1 shot>>
That is super unlikely, even with a mauler.
At 130 point line, to get 62 damage (is it 62? Does the SB get the scout bonus? I'm suddenly not even sure...), they need to hit a 6 on BIR10 (i.e. both players pick 4, VBIR rolls a 6, Coalition roll a 6, no EW penalty).
All the Kzinti need to do to prevent this is to pick BIR3. Or dial the SB to an EW shift. And even if they don't, it is still super unlikely.
To have a reasonable chance of mauling the SB (assuming 62 points is the target, but it might be 64), the Coalition need to have, what, a 160 point line (hit on 40%, which is unlikely, but not so unlikely to be basically impossible), no EW shift, including a mauler. Which is not a line they can make without X ships and PFs (12xDN and Lyran STL=156, but then you also have a -2 EW shift...)
Paul:
I forgot the Scout Tug in the Scout box (3+3+4=10).
Ted:
I haven't decided all this yet, but I am assuming the first two rounds I will need to direct "whatever 4 point scout is in the scout box" regardless, because he is very short of scouts... only has two decent scouts (Kzinti Tug + one Fed SC) (plus a CLD) in the hex, and achieving a 2 shift against 150 COMPOT is, um, relevant.
Peter, Paul:
I don't have the COMPOT yet on Y172 technology to realistically shoot down starbases; I can't get 144 to even have a chance unless I give up EW, and then I'm shooting into a shift and 144 isn't enough anyway. (Yes, 134 with a Mauler, but I can't get 134, a mauler, and no EW shift either, I don't think; at least, not until I kill his scouts...)
However, given the Kzinti economic and supply situation, I really want to fight him; I have 6 FRD's and about 8 BATS in retrograde; he has one Fed Starbase, one BATS for each empire, and maybe a Fed FRD AND he's going to have to pay good money for fighters.
So even if I take twice as many cripples - or more - I'm kind of happy to do that because I can pay normal repair bills and all I lose is the second carrier and mauler conversions I have to forego, and maybe a couple of downshifted cruiser builds. The Alliance is going to be out of commission for a long time if he sticks around more than the 5 rounds I expect [Two rounds directing scouts plus 3 rounds of dropping damage and killing mostly fighters].
Note that Hypothetically you could field 10 C8s/DNs, 3D6S a mauler and 12DBB for 150/12 compot/EW before Y172.
Well, yeah, there's that. But Trent has a visceral hatred for D6S's and has killed every single one I have in Kzinti space. And somehow my D6D's ended up being in range of things that needed pinned when the main fleet was not, so they are pinning reserves rather than fighting (yes I know this is not ideal). And I have sent some DN's south, so I only have nine.
I thought 131/10 was pretty good!
I only need huge lines the first couple of rounds to guarantee killing scouts in formation; after that I can put up battlegroup ships and cripple them forever fairly happily.
F5's repair for 20% of their compot instead of 25. D5's for something like 22%. Leveraging discounted repairs repeatedly seems to be a major Coalition strategy thing.
(Scout Defense Bonus specifically does not apply to bases. Which I actually knew. But spaced out on earlier.)
Well, who would take the bet VBIR goes up 2 and the Coalition rolls a 6 over 1704?
But, yes, BIR 3 would suffice for the Alliance, as there is no Drone Ships there* - but I was errong on the side of caution (137 compot is sufficient at 45%, with a Mauler...)
* - Might be 1, the Drone Tug 
So with DN's, a Mauler and CC's - it might be possible.
Graham - just checking one thing - are you playing with Admirals?
If you are and the force has one, the most useable CP's (you can spend more, to cover if the ADM dies) is only 1 ship - so 13 ships plus the free scout - and your line has 14 and the free scout - one too many!
If you swopped 5 ship's/IFF's you could have a Battlegroup (so get back to 14 ships and the free scout) - but that probably doesn't add compot.
That is a good point. I had thought I could stack the CPs with the Admiral, but 308.95 is a thing. I had never been tempted to use two in the same hex before so it hadn't come up since the first time I read through the rules.
[I don't think Trent has used a CP yet; the Hydrans and Kzinti have needed the EPs for ships.]
So retrograde is in process and strategic movement is in planning. It looks like the Hydrans will have lots of fairly juicy targets, and despite the piles of extra cripples the Coalition is taking, the overall hull count for kills is about even; pretty disappointing, really, although of course the big items are the Starbase (and BATS/planet) kills that I kind of have to keep making.
I still have superiority in pincount, but it's getting hard to pin him out of everything, so despite a very fancy set of retrograde moves, I think the Alliance will be able to kill some things if they so desire to do so this turn.
However, a LOT depends on whether he just has to buy fighters, or whether he has to pay to supply his 75 Kzinti in 1803 for combat, or if they get to move 6 out and back just because they started on the BATS, or some combination.
There is a difference of opinion in this thread on that point and it appears to be echoed in the Q&A. I can't figure out for the life of me what the supply situation for a fleet sitting on a base in a partial grid is after that fleet moves in operational movement.
[It seems clear that they would be out of supply for retrograde movement unless they move into supply from the main grid?]
However, I kind of need to either (a.) make a decision about this for purposes of this game so I can plan my retrograde; or (b.) figure the darn thing out for good...
Right now I have put a plan on the map that assumes that he gets to move 6 with full COMPOT, but I could be a lot more aggressive if that wasn't true...
See:
(202.31) WHEN RECEIVED: Each unit receives a new allowance of Movement Points at the start of each phase in which it will use Operational, Reserve, or Retrograde Movement. These are received during the owner’s Player Turn, not the Game Turn.
***
Movement points are alloted at the beginning of the operational movement phase, if I recall. There is no rule saying that you get other than the full movement allotment if under supply at that point.
Nevertheless there is a ruling to the contrary by Chuck somewhere relating to the situation here, but I don't remember exactly what situation was covered.
Personally, I'd favor giving ships their full allotment of movement points at the beginning of op move (if the ship is in supply) and just go with that if I had my choice.
I think that's what we're going to do; I'm not going to limit Trent's Op. move based on a ruling I haven't seen and don't understand when it very much appears by every rule we read together that he should be good (well, until the supply check for retrograde, anyway).
And then I found it:
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 06:09 pm: EditAsked and answered before by ADB in CL41:
Quote:CL41 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Q: A Hydran fleet has cut off the Lyran supply route into the captured (and now former) Hydran capital. The Klingons, however, have a valid supply path, as well as both PDUs and a BATS at the former Hydran capital. Are the Lyrans in supply by (410.4) since they’re with a friendly base?
A: There would have to be a homeless supply line (410.5) established or an expeditionary fleet (411.7) established to leave the hex and operate. The forces, per (410.25) would be in supply as long as they are in the same hex as the friendly base.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 05:33 pm
==============
FEDS CLARIFICATION OF ADB RULING OF JUNE 10, 2010:
Rule (410.25) provides a very restricted form of exigency supply. What ADBs ruling above means is that if a unit fails an otherwise routine supply check, then rule (410.25) provides exigency COMBAT supply strictly for units in the hex and ONLY while in the hex.
Unless overruled by ADB, units that fail the following routine supply checks but are stacked in the same hex as an ELIGIBLE friendly supply point under rule (410.25) are restricted as follows:
(410.21) OPERATIONAL MOVEMENT: Units attempting to move off of an ELIGIBLE friendly supply point under rule (410.25) are immediately treated as UNsupplied for operational movement.
(410.22) COMBAT: Units in the same hex as an ELIGIBLE friendly supply point under rule (410.25) are treated as "SUPPLIED" ONLY for combat purposes in that hex.
(410.24) RETROGRADE: Units in the same hex as an ELIGIBLE friendly supply point under rule (410.25) are treated as UNsupplied for purposes of retrograde movement if they were SOLELY combat-supplied ONLY by rule (410.25) AND not otherwise supplied by standard Retrograde supply rules.
FEDS SENDS
A rare case of Chuck outright inventing a new rule in a ruling.
On Chuck's ruling (and I accept, I agreed with it) - is that I believe the powers that be always wanted partial supply grids to offer combat supply - but never envisaged it could be read as full supply.
So in effect a 'unit' can have 5 supply definitions, which can only change at the relevant Supply check points during the player turn (although Homeless, Expedition and 413.41 paid remain until the end of the player turn) :-
Out of Supply
Allied Base Supply (Chucks ruling) - In supply for combat (in effect the 1803 forces - but if they move, they become Out of Supply)
Homeless Supplied (As Drone Ships etc will not work for example)
Expeditionary Supplied
Full Supply
So in your game Graham - the Alliance forces can remain on 1803 and count as in supply for combat - but don't get full operational movement or replacement fighters.
I am guessing the Kzinti wasn't able to burn up many fighters over 1704?
413.41 can resolve the issue for the Kzinti though - so key both you and Trent read it before ending the Coalition turn.
Even if the 1803 Partial Supply Grid only has say 1 Ep in income (minimum, as it's at 'worst' a contested Kzinti province) - the Kzinti can use Orion smuggling to send additional Ep's to the grid - and for example - 6 Ep's sent - becomes 3 Ep's in the Partial Grid - plus the 1 Ep would allow 20 ships to operate in full supply and provide 48 replacement fighters...
20 Ships going 6 hexes rather than an expected 3 hexes might cause some problems.
(Note, there is an active Q&A question on some of the interrelated Partial Supply Grid rules - 413.41, Homeless and Expeditionary Supply, which has paused my game with William )
The most I think I have seen spent in a Partial Grid via 413.41 was something like 8 Ep's.....
The Kzinti (and Feds) burned up every single fighter they had in 1704; that was pretty much their strategy. So the Kzinti fleet either needs to take a turn off (probably by using this turn to head offmap, since if they sit without fighters they aren't going to be a great defense force on CT8) or spend the EPs to get their fighters back, in which case they will be a danger from 1803; 1803 is a pretty fantastic forward supply point, because I have to defend a 120 degree arc (180 if you count planet 1802).
[I retrograded as if he had six hexes.]
We will check 413.41 again.
I totaled the Coalition repair bills (including the projected repairs retrograded CT8 for actual repair CT9). Since taking the Kzinti Capital CT5, on CT6-9 the Coalition will have spent at least 439 EPs on repairing ships.
This is really cutting into the budget for fancy ships (Klingons) and fuzzy toys (Lyrans).
[We have a running joke that the Klingons think the Lyrans are amateurs at war and not pulling their weight, a joke the dice have fed into a bit this game.]
Alas for the Alliance - Repaired ships come back - dead ones don't.
Without seeing the map - Kzinti have several options.
Clear a path off map?
Supply 40 odd ships to do some real damage (and retro back to 1803).
Do both?
Feds are likely going to have so stay or go East....
Well, that has certainly been the Coalition's (publicly stated, no less) strategy; accept any number of cripples in order to keep the front moving, repair them all at any cost, and keep pounding.
Trent's theory, I think, is that if he just directs scouts and drone ships, and drops damage most of the time, he will strip my fleet of specialty units (and keep a lot of ships off the line) until the Fed economy saves him.
It is certainly true that I have made few inroads into Fed territory. They have lost two Starbases, but they have ninety ships in range of the third one I can reach for defense, I haven't occupied any substantial territory, and I still have some border BATS to clean up.
As the map shows, getting off map is trivial (8 ships in 1802, nothing else that can pin him, and if it could so what? He can retreat onto the main grid.) Only question is whether he wants to do that.
Fighting on map requires an investment, but nothing stopping it.
I'm not going to talk about his options before he moves, though.
MAP as of beginning AT8:
https://ibb.co/BfLs78Q