Archive through February 22, 2022

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E INPUT: F&E Reports from the Front: Active Scenarios: Where Terrible Things Happen: Archive through February 22, 2022
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, December 29, 2021 - 04:52 pm: Edit


Quote:

Yep - it's compot is poor (and it costs 3 Ep's) - but I think the ability to stop Alliance counterattacks over Coalition bases hasn't been taken into account.....


In my experience, this has a lot more to do with pincount advantage that the Coalition initially enjoys, more than any EW advantage - as the Coalition can simply outright deny the Alliance the ability to get to a base.

A determined Alliance player can almost always destroy a base if he can reach it - assuming he's willing to pay the butcher bill - EW advantage or no.

I do think the CLS EW is not right - at 2 special sensors and mediocre power, it is not equivalent to, say, a CWS or the Kzinti MCS (which has 3 sensors and more power for the same EW).

But G.O.D. has confirmed the CLS EW status, so it is what it is.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Wednesday, December 29, 2021 - 06:24 pm: Edit

In the copy of CL#46 I have, the CLS SSD indicates the ship has 4 special sensors and 25 power (2 APR, 3 IMP, 20 WARP).

The disruptors are removed, so there are only the ESG and phaser capacitors to fill, which would be filled automatically at WSIII. So the 25 pts would be for housekeeping, movement (2/3), and then the rest generally available for EW.

I wouldn't say CLS has all the power in the world for EW (it could use more), but it seems like it could do a reasonable job of using the 4 sensors.

Compare:
Klingon D6S, 4 SS, 37 power, EW4
Klingon D5S, 4 SS, 31 power, EW3
Klingon F5S, 2 SS, 20 power, EW1
Fed DD 8 SS, 19 power, EW4
Lyran CWS 4 SS, 32 power, EW3

EW3 for Lyran CLS seems reasonable?

--Mike

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, December 29, 2021 - 09:01 pm: Edit

Yeah, if the Fed Scout is gonna get 4EW? The Lyran CLS at 3EW seems not at all unreasonable.

And in the grand scheme, it hardly seems an issue. The Lyrans have an infinite number of 2EW scouts (SC, DWS) that they can stack on the line in Battle Groups. They get enough 4EW scouts from TGS. They start churning out 3EW scouts in y172 (T8).

Yes. The Coalition certainly have an EW advantage in open space early in the game. But a few extra, relatively easily killed CLS, isn't really gonna make a difference.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, December 30, 2021 - 09:06 am: Edit

I must have an old CLS copy, as it only had 2 special sensors. Weird.

Yeah, 4 special sensors makes a big difference. So, 3 EW is much more reasonable.

Still think that forcing a consistent 2 shift really isn't going to save a base from a determined Alliance player who can reach the base. YMMV.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Thursday, December 30, 2021 - 04:23 pm: Edit

Are we really debating the game-warping effects of the awesome destructive power of the Lyran CLS?

I mean, that ship isn't even the best Coalition 3-point scout at the beginning of the war. And scout conversions aren't limited. The only reason it ever gets built is that CL hulls don't have a useful function in their own right.

If the Coalition wants to forego 15 COMPOT to get an extra 9 EW I think that is probably okay; I mean, 5% means about 15-20% of total damage but requires scouts on the line - and - gives up about 15% of the Coalition's damage. By turn three the Kzinti can put up DN {F,ADM}, TTS [Scout] [CV+MEC+FKE]x2 [CV+CLE+EFF] + FF which is 90 without showing anything better than an FKE, or (replacing the outer escorts, 83 with ad-hoc FF's on the outside and 18 fighter factors the Coalition just won't have.

Not that I've been thinking about Kzinti lines or anything.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, December 30, 2021 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Graham - - I think it was me who point it out....

I think your accelerating the Kzinti 'response' line too - it's not has if as soon as the MEC and FKE became available, they are are available everywhere.

Assuming they keep 1401...., by turn 5 they might have a modest number (but every time a FKE is used, it probably will die - so they have to be used with care) rather an it being a single line or two in a single hex.

Equally, the Lyran CL does have other uses... the BC :)

But that only uses perhaps 1 a year (and a CA is converted to a DN on the other turn each year).... and they do start with a few CL's....

But to counter counter that, the Lyran CLV's with the odd Klingon carrier will give the Coalition 8 or 9 fighters if they want to take same free attrition in the first few turns.

But getting back to the main point - the CLS. They will make killing even just a BATS, far more difficult - purely because earlier war the Alliance lines are very anaemic and facing -2 on the dice due to EW, will possibly force the Alliance to SIDS a BATS - as getting a net 18 will not be easy.

Example - using the 90 Compot line - which has already fought through 3 rounds of approach and lost 3 escorts (on other groups) and probably had a cripple or two too (as the kzinti might not have 50+ fighters to burn though).

BIR 5 with with a roll of 4, is 30%, which drops to 25%, is only 23 damage. With 6 owed (over crippled a CW for example).

So you need a 5 or 6 to one shot cripple a BATS against a modest Coalition opponent.

Against a competent Coalition player wanting to extract some pain - they will overcripple a CC to get 8 owed.

And your down to a 1/6 chance of one shot crippling the BATS.

A 5th round to then kill the BATS.

If they never get a good roll - do they waste damage and SIDS's the BATS (and take alot more pain)?

Do we want the Kzinti in effect to lose 5+ escorts and risk several escorts in pursuit (or even a group if there is a mauler there) to kill a BATS?

So the Kzinti attack - if they get lucky and win the approach - they still need a good roll to cripple the BATS.

And thats just to kill a defended BATS.

Do we want Alliance counter attacks to be so painful (on the Alliance)?

Might be wrong, but there are too many good or effective new Lyran ships from day 1 - and the Alliance has nothing to counter them.

The net effect is key Coalition BATS will be too difficult to kill - so the Alliance doesn't attack them, which I don't think is good for the game - do only want 1 attacking side?

Will copy the CLS stuff to the general discussion topic to avoid polluting your topic :)

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, December 30, 2021 - 08:27 pm: Edit

Paul wrote:
>>But getting back to the main point - the CLS. They will make killing even just a BATS, far more difficult - purely because earlier war the Alliance lines are very anaemic and facing -2 on the dice due to EW, will possibly force the Alliance to SIDS a BATS - as getting a net 18 will not be easy.>>

I really don't think it will make a particular difference. The Lyrans already have (as noted previously) 2x 4EW scouts (TG+SP) and then an infinite number of 2EW scouts (SC and DWS) that can get stacked in battle groups. If they Lyrans want to have 10EW? The Lyrans can already have 10EW (TGS+3DWS BG). Adding a few 3EW CLS into the mix isn't going to make any measurable difference at all.

Yes. The Kzinti and Hydrans have limited good scouts early on. They have 2x 4EW TGS each early on, and then various 1-2 EW scouts. But then early on, the Kzinti and Hydrans (other than on the Hydran attack on T3) aren't likely to be attacking Coalition hard points early on (unless they are decidedly undefended, which happens sometimes), so the ability for the Coalition to defend BATS is irrelevant (and, again, the addition of a few extra 3EW CLS isn't going to make any difference at all).

>>The net effect is key Coalition BATS will be too difficult to kill - so the Alliance doesn't attack them, which I don't think is good for the game - do only want 1 attacking side?>>

"Key Coalition BATS"? What is a "Key Coalition BATS" early on? The Kzinti can't likely attack anything at all, due to overwhelming Coalition numerical superiority early on. The Hydrans can kill some Lyran BATS early, 'cause the Lyrans might not be defending them on T3. The Kzinti and Hydrans can certainly occasionally pick off underdefended BATS early on (i.e. "go where the enemy isn't"), but the Kzinti and/or Hydrans can't remotely afford to attack well defended BATS until the Feds enter the game, and by then, the Alliance have more scout options, and the Feds have plenty of good scouts.

A few extra 3EW Lyran scouts? Not likely going to make any difference at all.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Saturday, January 29, 2022 - 08:41 pm: Edit

Joe Hepp:

The Lyrans have, amongst the balance factors taken, "Early Maulers".

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Sunday, January 30, 2022 - 01:13 am: Edit

>> Early Maulers

So good!

--Mike

By Joe Hepp (Buckjoe) on Sunday, January 30, 2022 - 06:31 am: Edit

Sorry for posting in the wrong topic. I now see that this one is for discussions about the game and the other is for actual game posts.

And I also now see that the options were mentioned so all good on that front.

Man, the more I look into this game the less I know. :)

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Sunday, January 30, 2022 - 01:37 pm: Edit

Yeah, the combination of the +10 extra cruisers and the +4 early Maulers is brutal. The Lyrans can sub an STT and convert a DN every turn. The balance options for the Coalition are really good.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, January 30, 2022 - 05:44 pm: Edit

For what it is worth, the Lyrans are only allowed to sub an STT once per year (711.3), so they can still only produce 3 per year, and only if they convert 2 of them (which reduces their DN production unless they build a second capital SB and spend an extra 5EPs per turn on a second major conversion, which seems super expensive, even for the Lyrans).

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Monday, January 31, 2022 - 11:38 am: Edit

That's probably a good point, but having 2 extra subs in 168 and 169 is huge given they would have zero maulers in important battles until 171 otherwise.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Monday, January 31, 2022 - 11:44 am: Edit

>> unless they build a second capital SB and spend an extra 5EPs per turn on a second major conversion

I thought everybody did that? How else can the Lyrans flood the map with a ridiculous number of CR10 ships?

--Mike

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Monday, January 31, 2022 - 12:41 pm: Edit

I didn't in HILTSWALTM, and wouldn't if I had it to do again. The second conversion is just too expensive, and the Lyrans have more CR10 ships anyway than they can use (use for their CR, I mean, obviously 10-12 COMPOT ships are always useful).

I mean, the SB is 61 EPs on its own (51 if you use an existing MB.) Maybe less without fighters, but still a massive expense that bears fruit only with a significant delay.

I'd rather spend the 50 EPs + 5 EPs a turn on building a carrier force (or repairs, as in HILTSWALTM).

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, February 01, 2022 - 06:57 pm: Edit

>>I thought everybody did that? How else can the Lyrans flood the map with a ridiculous number of CR10 ships?>>

Oh, I dunno; it seems *real* expensive for what seems like a kind of dubious benefit. The Lyrans already have no lack of big ships, and the, what, 51EPs, plus 5EPs per turn, seems like something better spent on, like, overbuilding FFs, for my money.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, February 01, 2022 - 10:17 pm: Edit

I have not seen people do that often, maybe once?

51 EP for the starbase (for the Lyrans) is probably better spent on more trimaran conversions (or overbuilds) or more carriers. You could do 17 DD->CW conversions for 51 EP, for example.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, February 02, 2022 - 08:20 am: Edit

I did the "build an extra SB and spend 5 EP per extra heavy conversion" once. I found it was not worth it. I needed those EPs to rapidly repair cripples after a capital assault, keep the Klingons funded, etc.

The best way for the Lyrans to "flood" the map with CR10 ships is simply to consistently upgrade a CA->DN or a CL->BC every turn, plus their normal builds. It adds up. Combine that with a major conversion minor shipyard (assuming you're playing with Planetary Operations), then starting as early as CT8 you can be converting yet another CL or CA to a CR10 ship.

By Timothy Linden (Timlinden) on Wednesday, February 02, 2022 - 03:49 pm: Edit

I always built the second Lyran SB, though generally only paid the 5pts for some extra early DN's, not continuously. And then just did any other conversions while still doing regular CA-DN conversions. After all you will run out of CA's pretty fast doing that expensive extra conversions continuously anyways. Get a few extra's early and you can just wait for the rest.

Plus building the major conversion facility asap too once those existed.

Tim.

By Karl Mangold (Solomon) on Friday, February 04, 2022 - 05:50 am: Edit

FWIW, the "Lyran CLS breaks the game" topic was brought up when Sam and I started our game. I did not find they made that much difference (I built 2.) They are nice to have in opening turns as the Lyrans' only other heavy scout involves a tug. However Lyrans have plenty of 2 point scouts even in basic game, and when CWS (also in basic game) are available CLSs become obsolete. Plus as Paul pointed out, CLs can grow up to be BCs, which is a much more tempting option.
The extra SB in 0408 thing is an antiquated tactic in my opinion. I remember doing this in the 90's because I read an old CL that had a Tac Note about it. As a teenager I was delighted with "3DNs a turn!", but it comes at great cost to the Lyran economy (not that I knew anything about money back then.) Nowadays the major conversion facility is cheaper in both the short and long term, so in my mind the SB upgrade is just not worth it. Or, you know, the Lyrans could just be satisfied with 2CR10 ships a turn, which is still 4x the rate of any other race.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Monday, February 21, 2022 - 06:26 pm: Edit

More thoughts on CT2:

The Lyran CLS saw battle, after a decent Alliance roll blasted the Lyran scout Tug. It probably didn't make a lot of difference, as there were SC's available as an alternative, but it was another EW in the scout box.

The Alliance outrolled the Coalition by precisely 2 pips over 6 turns at each Starbase, but managed three autokills, so I wasn't too sad about the ultimate result...

That said, as a first time Alliance player... wow does the Kzinti navy suck. The thing that struck me was the -utter absence of odd numbered ships to cripple- when I needed to put a line up. I'm used to maintaining odd numbered ships on the line, but apart from a few FFK's, I didn't have any. Even apart from that, I'm used to vanilla heavy cruisers being the "kind of crappy substitute for battle group ships," not "the only way to get a COMPOT over 85."

I felt like I got decent value but of course despite the decent number of dead specialty ships, and then need to give up 2xSB in the process, I'm really just keeping up with production of maulers and scouts at best... not even that really.

I assume CT2 always feels tough for the Kzinti.

By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Tuesday, February 22, 2022 - 10:32 am: Edit

I really prefer crippling a significant portion of the Kzinti fleet over Duke's or Count's (or both!). This blunts the attack (because you can station ships on the SBs to threaten doing it again, so the Coalition has to send enough there to get the job done) and gives you time to repair everything that was crippled. Combined with the large EW/Compot boost that a SB gives you, the Coalition takes more cripples and it delays a serious attack on the homeworlds.

C2 feels much less bad for the Kzinti if you keep at least one of the SBs.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Tuesday, February 22, 2022 - 11:34 am: Edit

Do you mean C3? This was CT2, and mostly I think that the Coalition can take both SBs on CT2 if they focus on doing that (and they did). No ships to the Capital, even.

And yeah, I made a decision to kill ships in preference to trying to actually win, which may have been a mistake (although I didn't know how the dice were going to go in advance...). I could have kept the Duke's SB this turn if I had dropped damage (I think?) But I know that only in retrospect.

By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Tuesday, February 22, 2022 - 01:18 pm: Edit

No, I mean this: In 0902, you lost a CC and crippled CL CLE EFF 2FFK. You had a compot of 130+ most of the time - surely you could have crippled a bunch more escorts or cruisers. In my current game (A Blaze of Glory) I crippled 2BC 2CVL 2CLE 2EFF FF DF SF and took 5SIDS (a crippled eff and a crippled bc were directed - we both put cripples on the line and then directed them, and I had taken 2 SIDS on C1). I ended up not defending it on C3, but he sent 22 ships there (and I could have sent a reserve but chose to defend 1502 instead). Having a not-quite-crippled starbase is going to draw at least a full line of ships.

Granted, my game is essentially a base game, but there's a lot more room for taking damage on ships than you used. Others may disagree with me; either way, winning battles is less important than slowing down the attack.

The reason I like to defend the Count's is that the Kzinti want to fight as much as possible under the guns of a starbase. Since the Coalition have a numbers advantage, that eventually means just the capital. I'd rather do some of that combat earlier so that I'm utilizing more of my repair capacity. Especially since it's super common to just kill PDUs and leave over the capital which doesn't leave much in the way of defender casualties. This is less true of the Duke's, as it's much easier for the Coalition to just pin the ships there and then go on to the capital.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, February 22, 2022 - 02:46 pm: Edit

Graham

Yep - the Kzinti navy until modest numbers of FFK/FKE's and CM/MEC's arrive has very few good options - outside of fighters to take damage (CC's being the only odd compot unit - and they perhaps are too valuable to self cripple in most battles?)

On what to do - what will work in game A may not work in game B - if they cripple too much, they never get those ships back into action when they are needed (i.e. cripple on turn 2 - move off map, repair on turn 3 - and they can be used for turn 4 reserves...).

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation