Archive through April 20, 2021
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E INPUT:
F&E Tactical Notes:
Archive through April 20, 2021
The MON-V has 6 reaction fighters and is intended as extra compot over Hydrax.
You can't have more than two LAVs in a line (normally) and one would be at half strength. Having more doesn't help your compot go up, only provides (expensive) replacements.
I mean, you could buy a T6 Paladin (almost) for the cost of an LAV, a far better use of EPs (if you get to T6). If you don't get to T6 with your shipyard, as long as you can save the EPs for later it means more ships/repairs/whatever later.
One the capital goes down, Hydran aux ships caught on map are hard pressed to survive. They can hide offmap and do nothing, but then you'd have been better off saving the 16EPs for 6 more SEQs of FFs, or whatever.
YMMV.
Get An Extra Federation CVA
Thomas Mathews
USS Georgia
CVAs are expensive to build because of the cost of their fighters. However, those fighters can have a very big impact over the course of the game. How does the Federation get the extra CVA? The answer is a production override. Production Overrides (450.3) cost 5 extra EPs to use and you can’t use them to produce an extra DN; you can use them to produce an extra heavy carrier. So for everyone except the Federation and ISC you have to convert a DN to the new CVA. The Federation and ISC build a DN hull each turn. While most empires are going to struggle to find the funds for a second CVA in a given year (two turn period) the Federation has the perfect time to use it. When the Federation goes to war on Turn 7 they have more cash on hand than ships to build without using overbuilds. Even sending 20 EPs to the Kzintis still leaves you with plenty of cash. The Federation is going to build 2 carrier groups on Turn 7 anyways not including the activation of the two CLVs (525.314). Given that the Federation DN is 10/5 and the CVA itself is 10-12/5-6 excluding fighters you are getting a better ship. Add in the 2 fighter groups and now you have 3 ships equivalents on your DN build. This also gives you the opportunity to give the Romulans a tougher nut to crack when the scheduled turn 8 CVA is built as well. Now you have 3 CVA groups before they attack on turn 10. The Federation can’t use this when they go to Limited War under (654.2-A), but they can use it on the next odd turn when they are at full war as limited war does allow for the accumulation of Economic Points under (431.4).
The CVA's base hull is a DNG (a dreadnought) so it's a variant of a DN so you won't be able to use production overrides to produce it.
The MONs count against your command too and I'll give you in 1 round of combat would be an advantage being only 6 vs 12 fighters next to the first LAV (over that 2nd LAV) 13+16 vs 13+7 (w/[6] for the future).
I will point out on the SIT MON+V are 16 EPs (not 14) and by rule are slow to retreat. If you are looking to add Compot then you might as well take that 3rd option for the same 16 and get 4 Ftr mods for the FRDs adding 12 ftrs that do not count against squadron limits. It seems all of these slow options will die defending the Capital.
If we start talking about T5 or T6 we might as well drop 3EPs to pull a cruiser forward to T4 or T5, in case the Capital falls.
Yep I already said that about the extra FFs and varied mileage. Some of those could be CRs for the DLR repair conga or the more useful Saracens bringing us full circle. 
You are correct in the that MOV-V is 16 EP rather than the 14 EP I stated.
A MON in 0617 can't retreat until 0617 is a lost cause and being 16 compot I'd imagine it would get directed before the SB goes down just to lessen Hydran compot, so slow retreat issues are not a big problem.
If it somehow does get to slow retreat, it will be with any Hydran auxiliaries that also retreat (likely surviving carriers, scouts , troops carriers, FHLs) and can take hits in favor of more useful units at that point).
I like your idea of using accelerated production to pull a cruiser forward if you're sure the capital is going to fall, though in such a case the Hydrans probably don't have enough EPs to pay for such a cruiser. But if they do, then maybe do that (depends too much on what else is going on to make it a guaranteed good idea).
You would probably have to use ADS (447.0) to pay for the accelerated CA. Unless you are willing to cancel your frigate production to pay for it. Probably better to use ADS here.
{A MON in 0617 can't retreat until 0617 is a lost cause and being 16 compot I'd imagine it would get directed before the SB goes down...}
Agreed.
Its fun and never-ending debate but unless there is something illegal about the posted tacnote strategy it would join the rest in the 'this is yet another way to intentionally go' category.
As for the Acceleration I am going to post what I am thinking over in discussions. Also a Raid question my ally needs clarified.
I rate your HN conversion tactical note among 'things the Coalition hope the Hydrans do' category, along with 'build an A3 UH group' and 'build A3 PDUs on non-Hydrax planets'.
As a Coalition player, I would prefer the Hydrans spend EPs on HN->SAR conversions rather than better things.
So, go ahead and do that. :p
Tac Notes submitted to this point have been downloaded and formatted for grading for Captain's Log #54.
Tack Notes submitted after this point will be considered for Captain's Log #55.
Penal Ship Honor Duals vs Carrier Escorts
Thomas Mathews
USS Georgia
Penal Ships (528.0) are a curse and blessing to both sides. The sacrifice mission (528.42) is great to help protect a stasis ship or other valuable from being destroyed when the damage is small enough to prevent the destruction by normal means. Penal Ships, especially cruisers have another valuable mission they can perform against the enemy. Should you find yourself up against a single carrier in a given battle force with your Penal ship on the line, consider the using the Honor Dual against the outermost escort under (528.433). If your ship is successful in removing the outermost escort from the carrier group, you may be able to cripple or kill the remaining ships in the carrier group outright. Remember that the outcome of the honor dual only requires that you score 1 casualty under (310.2). While the casualty can be taken as a retreat result under (310.3) the ship is not actually forced to retreat from the hex, just that it is not available for the actual battle to come next under (528.431).
EW Warfare
Lawrence Bergen & Thomas Mathews
USS California & USS Georgia
When facing a battle fleet with only one scout in the hex consider crippling the scout. If the battle is obviously a pinning battle, then kill the most valuable unit you can. However, there are times where small and medium scale battles may go longer than one round such as a moderately defended Battle Station or planet with PDUs. These are the locations where your opponent may have only committed one scout to the hex, while sending his others to combat hexes where he expects the combat to be heavier and more deadly. By crippling your opponent’s lone scout, you take away the EW it provided. This will either give you an EW shift in your favor, or at worst return the EW level to neutral. Why should you cripple the scout instead of killing it? Simple, any lone scout in a given battle force is most likely to be in the free scout formation box (308.51). This means it takes the (defense factor + one point) times three to cripple or kill. If your opponent can take the remaining damage without losing any offensive compot then you should consider killing the scout outright. If it does result in the loss of offensive compot then crippling the scout is better for you.
Obviously this won’t work where the scout is protected in an escorted group such the Federation CVL with an escort or two, or a Scout Carrier that is properly escorted. It will work on these types of scouts if they are on a battle line without escorts.
NOTE: This tactic was originally developed by Lawrence Bergen fine-tuned and written by Thomas Mathews.
There has never been a tactical paper with two authors and never will be,
When Off Map is not a choice
Paul Howard
HMS England
The Kzinti Capital is perhaps the best located Capital Hex in the game – as crippled stuff can safely retreat to the Barony and if the hex is lost, the Coalition can’t pin the Kzinti out of the hex (if they want to build bases etc).
But equally, it does have one significant disadvantage – if the Kzinti Counter attack into 1401 fails to capture the hex, unless 1502 is still held (which I think it is fair to say is very unlikely), any Kzinti retreat will see them end in the Barony and therefore unable to retrograde.
If those forces are needed ‘on map’ (the Marquis Star Base for example), there is an option, which may improve the chance of that happening.
With planning, it can be a low cost solution and if it can’t be planned, at a cost.
The Kzinti need to create an additional On Map Supply point within 1 hex of 1401 – so 1301, 1302, 1402 or 1501 will suffice.
By sending a Tug (which could have Pods) into one of those hexes or an adjacent hex to them further into the map, on a previous turn (which may well be sent by reserve), will achieve the low cost option,
On the Alliance turn, the Tug drops its pods and becomes a supply point.
The magnificent counter attack into 1401 then fails – but rather than retreating to the Barony, you can retreat to the Supply Tug. During Retrograde, they can either remain where they are or retrograde to an appropriate retrograde point (which could be in the Barony, if required).
Voila - the Kzinti stay on map.
If the Tug can’t be pre-positioned (and actually there is a lot of ways it can be achieved – a Reserve being sent to 1202 or 1502 for example), a good old Convoy could be built in the Barony – and it Op Moves onto the map (ideally avoiding reactions etc).
Although the Kzinti will be hurting economically after losing 1401 – if the spending of 6 Ep’s guarantees they can remain on map – that 6 Ep’s might be the best Ep’s spent.
If He Builds it, You Will Come, Part II
Cadet Mike Dowd, HMCS British Columbia
In my Tactical Note from CL 30, “If He Builds it, You Will Come“, I discussed waiting for a mobile base to be laid or even in the process of being upgraded to a battlestation before targeting it for destruction to make it easier to destroy via directed damage and increase the economic loss of your enemy.
It is more difficult, but much more satisfying to wait until your enemy is upgrading it further from a battlestation to a full on starbase. By this point, they have sunk 25EP into the base via the MB cost of 10, the upgrade cost for the BATS of 9 and 6 for the fighters. They have also just committed a further 30 to upgrade this to a SB and another 6 for fighters, for a grand total of 75EP, possibly more if your opponent has invested in extra base modules.
While the BATS is a more formidable target than a MB, it is an easier process to at least cripple it and then come back on a later turn to finish off, rather than target it for complete destruction. Crippling the BATS should be the initial goal here, for even though you’d like to see it destroyed, a functioning BATS or SB can still repair ships and self-repair -- something that crippled bases cannot do. This means that even though the BATS upgrade will still be completed, it will result in a crippled starbase, and the repair capacity of this base will be worthless to the enemy, it won’t be able to repair that single SIDS to bring itself online and it suffers from lower EW ratings.
This condition will necessitate a tug with a repair pod (usually in short supply) to visit which itself is a vulnerable and valuable target on a subsequent battle round. In short, any time you have the opportunity to tag an enemy BATS being upgraded to a SB, destroy, or at least cripple it.
Mike, the Tug doesn't need the repair pod to repair a base. See (420.6).
NOTE: Edited to reflect Turtle's input.
If He Builds it, You Will Come, Part II
Mike Dowd, HMCS British Columbia
In my Term Paper from CL 30, “If He Builds it, You Will Come“, I discussed waiting for a mobile base to be laid or even in the process of being upgraded to a battlestation before targeting it for destruction to make it easier to destroy via directed damage and increase the economic loss of your enemy.
It is more difficult, but much more satisfying to wait until your enemy is upgrading it further from a battlestation to a full on starbase. By this point, they have sunk 25EP into the base via the MB cost of 10, the upgrade cost for the BATS of 9 and 6 for the fighters. They have also just committed a further 30 to upgrade this to a SB and another 6 for fighters, for a grand total of 75EP, possibly more if your opponent has invested in extra base modules.
While the BATS is a more formidable target than a MB, it is a much easier target to at least cripple and then come back on a later turn to finish off. Crippling the BATS is the initial goal here, for even though you’d like to see it destroyed, a functioning BATS can still repair ships and self-repair -- something that a crippled base cannot do. This means that even though the BATS upgrade will still be completed, it will result in a crippled starbase, and the repair capacity of this base will be worthless to the enemy, it won’t be able to repair that single SIDS to bring itself online and it suffers from lower EW ratings.
This condition will necessitate a tug to visit, which itself is a vulnerable and valuable target on a subsequent turn. Don't forget to do at least 2 SIDS damage to keep the SB crippled since under (420.611) limits the tug to 8 points of repair, which is usually 2 SIDS worth.
In short, any time you have the opportunity to tag an enemy BATS being upgraded to a SB, destroy, or at least cripple it.
Penal Ship Honor Duals vs Carrier Escorts (Ver 2.0)
Thomas Mathews
USS Georgia
Penal Ships (528.0) are a curse and blessing to both sides. The sacrifice mission (528.42) is great to help protect a stasis ship or other valuable ship from being destroyed when the damage is small enough to prevent the destruction of it by normal means. Penal Ships, especially cruisers have another valuable mission they can perform against the enemy. Should you find yourself up against a single carrier in a given battle force with your Penal ship on the line, consider the using the Honor Dual against the outermost escort under (528.433). If your ship is successful in removing the outermost escort from the carrier group, you may be able to cripple or kill the remaining ships in the carrier group outright. Remember that the outcome of the honor dual only requires that you score 1 casualty under (310.2). While the casualty can be taken as a retreat result under (310.3) the ship is not actually forced to retreat from the hex, just that it is not available for the actual battle to come next under (528.431).
(Ver 2.0) is edited for better clarity.
If I Build it, He Can't Come
Ted Fay,
USS Texas
Your opponent will want to destroy your base while upgrading due to the economic loss that you will suffer. The temptation is greatest when you are upgrading from a battle station to a starbase, because of the mandatory large economic cost to make that upgrade, and because of the difficult-to-destroy supply point a starbase represents. Indeed, the opponent may be willing to suffer significant loss of ships and many cripples to destroy the base while upgrading.
So, deny the opponent the ability to reach your base at all. This may be accomplished in two ways.
1) Place the base so that you are able to react before the opponent can reach the base. For example, it is common for the Coalition to plant a starbase in hex 1403, two hexes away from the Kzinti capital in 1401. Then, ensure that you have enough ship equivalent units (SEQ) to match ALL enemy ships that could possibly reach that hex, PLUS any new construction that he could build that could reach that hex. Do not forget to count survey ships in the offmap area. Do not forget to count cripples, police units, SEQ from a fighter strike, etc. (While police, fighters from a fighter strike from two hexes away, etc. can't enter the base hex, their SEQ must be pinned or else more mobile warships can get through the pinning hex and to the base.) In the early phase of the war it is likely that the Kzinti player simply *cannot* muster more than 175 SEQ to hit even a base as close to the capital as hex 1403. In this manner, you can pin the Kzintis out of that hex before he reaches the base by reacting into hex 1402 (or any of the other hexes surrounding hex 1403), thereby denying the Kzinti *any* chance of destroying the base during upgrade.
2) The second method is similar to the first. Sometimes you want an upgraded base further back from the front line (such as Klingons establishing a network of bases into Romulan space). In this case, place the base far enough way from enemy fleets (e.g. more than 6 hexes) that they cannot reach the upgrading base at all. Watch out for fast ships that can move 7 hexes.
However, for such bases it is generally easier to place a small force that can react out to any smaller force that could still reach the rear base. A reserve fleet may be a good way of both protecting the base during upgrade (by reaction movement but giving up reserve status), and still being useful to move to forward targets as a reserve, when the forward units are attacked.
If I Build it, I Want Him To Come
Ted Fay,
USS Texas
Consider building and upgrading a forward-deployed base, but NOT placing enough ship equivalent units (SEQ) to pin the enemy from reaching the base being upgraded. Consider even spending the money on upgrading a starbase, but leaving the upgrading battle station or sector base with too few SEQ to pin an incoming enemy force.
The enemy will be tempted to come and destroy the upgrading base, most especially if it is upgrading to a starbase, due to the economic loss that will accrue to you and also to deny you the supply point that threatens deeper enemy targets or protects your assets or conquests.
Let him come. However, be sure to leave a powerful fleet so that you can extract more than a few pounds of flesh for his efforts. Make sure you have a fleet powerful enough to accept, and hopefully win, all three approach battles to force him to accept as many casualties as possible. Pick battle intensity 4 during the approach battles. Once he reaches the base, go down to battle intensity 1 and maximize your scouts - **if** doing so will make the odds of him being able to direct on your base 50% or less. Make sure to overcripple a large ship on the last approach round (or if he wins an approach round) to make it even more difficult on him to direct kill or damage the base under construction.
Continue to go low BIR, heavy electronic warfare, and continue to use over-crippling to make it as hard as possible for him to destroy the base. Your objective here is to fight as many rounds as possible.
Depending on the overall strategic situation, consider directing on his ships and reducing his overall pincount. The Alliance, in particular, suffers more from pincount loss early in the war, because by percentage an alliance SEQ loss hurts more than a coalition SEQ loss. Force enough cripples so that when he retreats (and be sure you have big enough he will be retreating after he destroys the base) you can pursue and further punish the enemy.
It is entirely possible that the enemy will accomplish his mission of destroying your base, but that the victory will be Pyrrhic. If he takes too much damage, or loses too many SEQ, then even if you took more overall economic loss, you will end up in a superior strategic position and be better able to contain the enemy going forward. The increase in strategic position may very well be worth the paltry cost of a starbase.
Finally, reduce your own losses. Consider upgrading the base without fighters to minimize cost. If the enemy does not take the bait, then go ahead and add fighters or other refits to it on a future turn.
Note that both the Coalition and the Alliance can use this strategy effectively. However, the Alliance can be particularly effective with it by building a heavy base over a planet in the capital system or even an extra base over the capital planet, resulting in truly punishing losses if the Coalition player feels compelled to come in and destroy the base and the planetary defense units (PDUs) that add their combat potential to the upgrading base and your fleet.
Another impossible dream:a kzinti CVL battle Fleet.
Jeff Wile,
USS Minnesota.
the venerable Kzinti CVL has long been the odd duck of the Hegemonic Navy. with only 9 fighters (three short of a full 12 fighter squadron, or to convert to F&E fighter factors 4.5.) to assemble a battle fleet with 36 fighters/18 fighter factors or 3 nominal fighter squadrons), required some fiddling with the ship force pools to find a combination that totaled the "sweet spot" of 36 fighters (etc...)
While 4 CVL groups do total 36 fighters (18 fighter factors.) 12 ships (3 per CVL group) exceeds the command limits of a Dreadnought,much less, that of a CVL.
the solution is to use an unescorted CVT as the force flag ship, giving it right to use the flag ship slot (thus giving it better protection verses directed damage attacks.)(Note:the CRT does have a F&E command Rate of 9, equal to a CC Command Cruiser.)(Note
4.5+4.5+4.5+6)=19.5 fighter factors exceeds the 18 fighter factor limit, so this force still exceeds it by 1.5 fighter factors.)
The other reason (besides providing a credible battle force that does not require a dedicated command ship such as a CC/command Cruiser or a DN/ Dreadnought), is to provide a decent pin force that (as designed) minimizes potential combat losses while maximizing damage inflicted on the enemy.
the Kzinti CVL battle force contains 1xCVT, 3xCVL,3xMEC or CLE, 3xEFF or AFF,(1+3+3+3=10), plus 3 full nominal fighter squadrons or a pin strength of 13.
when used in the Pin Mission, the rules of disengagement are half the force may depart immediately, priority given to the CVL class ships and the CVT. then the ECL or MEC excorts, leaving the 3 x EFF/AFF escorts and the 3 fighter squadrons. (13 ships eq. 13/2=6.5 ships rounded up to 7 hulls. this would allow the CVT, 3xCVL, and 3xECL or MEC hulls to disengage.)
one EFF/AFF is designated the flagship, it has a F&E command rate of 3, just enough to lead the 3 fighter squadrons into battle, while protecting the remaining two escorts from any damage. after one round of combat, the remaining ships are released.
the only real decision to be made is what BIR
(Battle Intensity Rating) to choose. high BIR maximizes damage to the enemy, all but guaranteeing the destruction of the EFF/AFF. a minimal BIR, assuming the enemy forgoes directed damage attacks on the one escort left in the battle line, would (if the enemy elects to inflict general damage instead of directed damage) fall on the fighters.
At the very least, this tac note puts the CVL class back in combat where it belongs, instead of spending the General War acting as a fighter transport lending its fighters to better carriers that actually participate in the battle.
Jeff,
It is unclear what a "CVT" is. The Kzinti are capable of mixing and matching two pod types on a tug, and either a TGT or a TGC can be used in the role. That makes it hard to check your fighters, but based on your written-out math and the listed command rating, it appears you mean to use a TGC+2*VP. You might want to be more clear about "CVT" or else someone might think they can use your tac note with a TGT+2*VP, which won't work because the TGT+2*VP only has a CR of 7.
Additionally, you might want to expand your tac note to make explicit pod combinations for the tug. For example, a TGC+BP+VP still gives you 16 fighter factors on the line (nominally 16.5), but a CR of 10. Doing so does not decrease the compot of the force because you have to exclude 1.5 fighter factors anyway, and it increases the defpot of the TGC+BP+VP by 2, making it that much harder to direct in form. With the CR10 you can also add another ship to the battle force.
Another favorite combination is to use a TGC+VP+SP, which gives 2 EW, but reduces your compot significantly.
Finally, I might consider listing the compot/EW factors for the one or two fleets you think are best for this role. I was getting around 74/0 for a TGC+2*VP (form), 3*{CVL,MEC,EFF} force. Toss in a scout for 1 EW.
Anyway, it's an interesting idea. The arrangement is not good for open combat, but it would make a decent pinning force, an excellent picket killer, and it's also good for a token SB defense force early in the GW where you need to focus your good units for capital defense. Might want to list those other uses for such a fleet.
My 2 Quatloos.
-T
I read the CVT as being a carrier tug, using the Klingon designation for such a ship. Using the Kzinti terminology from the Kzinti SIT may be less confusing? Also, the tac note seems to assume the CVT has a command rating of 9, which is true for the Klingons but as Ted points out not for the Kzinti.
Also, for the unescorted tug, doesn't it still require escort command rating slots be occupied, even if no escorts are assigned? Under (515.26) TUGS, the rules seem to (somewhat confusingly?) suggest that an unescorted carrier tug would occupy 2 command rating slots (515.261), and that a 5-10 fighter factor carrier tug should be treated as a CV (515.263), which requires a minimum of 2 escorts (total 3 command slots).
While (515.261) does have unescorted CVTs of any kind take two command slots (which is the minimum escort), the three following rules are for noting the maximum escorts the CVT may have (treated as a ...). Finally (515.267) notes that unescorted CVTs CAN be in the form slot (escorted carriers cannot).
Upside, an unescorted TGC+BP+VP can go in the form slot and actually command the three CVL groups [the tenth slot is for the 'missing' escort for (515.261)] ...
Really? A carrier tug regardless of the number of fighters carried only requires 2 command slots? So the carrier tug escort requirement is basically always like an escort carrier (1 escort) rather than the 2 or 3 escorts required as one might expect with CV or CVA pods?
515.267 is in FO but not FE2010, so I didn't see that on first pass. Isn't it true that any unescorted carrier (which by definition is not in a group) can go into the formation slot? The disadvantage to this technique would of course be the inability to be protected by escorts, and the "dead" escort slots in the battle force where the required escorts should go?
I think the original draft tac note was for the Kzinti tug with 2x carrier pods. Assuming this is a TGC with a base command rating of 8, the pods would give it +1 or 9. So, 10 ships total?
TGC + VP + VP (2 ships, I guess?)
CVL + MEC/CLE + EFF/AFF (3 ships)
CVL + MEC/CLE + EFF/AFF (3 ships)
CVL + MEC/CLE + EFF/AFF (3 ships)
That's 11? So the draft tac note suggests a potentially illegal battle force, and a BP would potentially be required to boost the command rating of the TGC to 10? So then the 11 total ships would make a legal battle force?
CVT.
See Module G3, page #56. Kzinti Carrier Tug, published in Module J-1, rule 14A. YIS 167. F&E Command Rating 9.
See also, Module 3-GA, Supplement Annexes. Annex 5. Page 5, first column. CVT, Carrier Tug.
See also, Module G-3A, Supplemental Annex, Rule (R5.0) the Kzinti Hegemony. Pages #59 & 60. See every year listings for escorts. For every year, the CVT may operate without escorts. (Hence the use of the word “NONE.”)
I will have to consult the F&E rules specifically for tug missions. I was under the impression that a tug assigned to a tug mission, specifically a carrier mission, did not specify escorts. I am not aware of any other tug mission that specifically requires carrier escorts to be assigned to a tug, (say as when a tug is assigned to use battle pods, or to move a PDU. Or to carry a mobile base, or to upgrade a base (such as BTS to Star Base.))