Mike, since this is a Starbase SIDS fight the Coalition didn't throw up its best line in the first round. Both sides use Admirals + CP. The Coalition has tried a number of things.

The Alliance line - which was wrong and lost me an LAV - started out as (I think, this is from memory as we only wrote down the resulting totals not the lines):

DN [ADM] [Form]+TTS[Scout]+[LAD+2xSAD] [DBB]+[CV+MEC+FKE]+[LAV+BCE]+2xDNL+2xCC+CD+CLD+BC

And has morphed into:

DN [ADM] [Form]+TTS[Scout]+[DF+2xSAD] [DBB]+ 3x[CV+MEC+FKE]+CD+2xCLD

My only goal throughout has been to maximize COMPOT while maintaining a 2 shift.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Tuesday, May 31, 2022 - 04:35 pm: Edit

Moral of the story. Bare LAV's are fine in capital fights, escorted LAV's are fine in capital fights, under no circumstances in this game try to be neither fish nor fowl. One escort (or even two really small escorts!) is just an invitation to losing extra SEQ to directing.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, May 31, 2022 - 05:13 pm: Edit

Graham

Correct!

Early on in capital assaults - compots are high - and if there are several PDU's - losing a LAV+BCE might still be a fair trade if you kill a DN/C8 and still trash the enemy line too.

Choices, choices choices!

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Tuesday, May 31, 2022 - 05:19 pm: Edit

Well, yeah.

The point is it's stupid to escort it at all; losing LAV for DN is okay, if you also cripple a bunch of stuff and extend the battle a round by having them shoot [thing that isn't PDU or SIDS]. Losing LAV+BCE is an unforced error.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Wednesday, June 01, 2022 - 12:43 am: Edit

I guess the idea was that I think most of the time, the adage that one should do one whole-arsed job rather than two half-arsed jobs is true in F&E, and trying to do everything or split the difference is usually a mistake.

For instance, I now default to only two lines when selecting from a major fleet:

Carrier groups + FFs, with nothing on the outside of the carrier groups except vanilla FFs as ad hocs or leftover EFF/E4A's I'm not attached to anyway.
Whatever gives maximum COMPOT/EW.

If you are going to put one valuable ship where it can potentially be directed, you might as well put up twelve of them instead because your opponent only gets to direct on one.

Fish, Fowl.

Not both.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Saturday, June 04, 2022 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Combat isn't over, so this isn't the official update, but the Coalition has SIDSed down and then mauled the Kzinti Capital Starbase and now we are essentially fighting in open space to determine who will hold the hex at turn's end. The last SIDS round was an autokill against the Coalition, and the Maul-the Crippled-SB round was a 6-1 split in the Coalition's favor. So the dice are making sure everyone is awake.

The Coalition has a lot of cripples already, but the Kzinti are low on fighters and would have to cripple a lot of ships - that they can't afford to uncripple if they are going to build anything this coming turn - to hold the hex if the Coalition wants to fight to the last.

The Coalition, meanwhile, is presumably looking forward to CT7 and an attack on the Federation, for which purpose having the entire fleet crippled would not be ideal.

So a lot left to happen.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, June 05, 2022 - 03:55 am: Edit

Tough choice for the Kzinti.

Rule 1 - The Kzinti can not cripple their fleet in defence on 1401.

(Even is 2 FRD's got dragged off map - 40 Repair Points and if your using the Depot Rules will take a while to repair a sufficient fleet to properly raid the on Map areas).

Rule 2 - The Coalition can't afford the time delay for a failed capital assault - and having to burn through a lot of fighters again could be painful.

Depending on what remains uncrippled in the Kzinti capital.... my gut feeling is rule 1 is more important - as it's unlikely the following turns assault would be too painful for the Coalition (as the Kzinti will not have much to defend with).

An Empire in effect on paper is the one thing you have to avoid (and it could allow the Coalition to get defences into 1401, if they are that busted up).

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, June 05, 2022 - 04:01 pm: Edit

What did the Coalition have left - as I think they probably ran too early?

Seems the Kzinti navy is pretty much at full strength still?

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Sunday, June 05, 2022 - 04:36 pm: Edit

Yeah, that was the problem. The Coalition already had more cripples than they can fix in a turn (plus a backlog) and would risk having too many cripples to pin out the Kzinti on AT6 if they didn't leave, not to mention having too little on CT7 to threaten 1704/1802 and the Federation.

I think probably if I'm the Coalition I at least trade fighters for a round or two to see if the Kzinti are willing to cripple ships. But I totally understand not wanting to risk it, given that on CT7 the capital will be functionally undefended given that the Kzinti have to defend the Marquis area.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, June 29, 2022 - 02:42 am: Edit

Firstly - Easier to say than do....

1) SSC - Perhaps the most brutal rule (other than SFG's) in the game?

2 x E4's v a THR..... +2 v -4....

A poor roll - you lose 2 ships.

A good roll - you escape with no damage.

On the basis the THR can auto pursuit though,3 casualties (which only needs an 8+) - would probably kill both anyway, probably best to put up just 1 E4?

2) Why the invasion of the Federation on turn 7, with so few forces?

Killing 1 SB (and 2915 at that) is not worth IMHO, activating the Feds on turn 7.

Accepting the Feds are very weak on turn 7, the gains for a weak invasion, are far lower than the Federation gains (again IMHO!)!!

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Wednesday, June 29, 2022 - 12:24 pm: Edit

I mean, I guess you could justify not activating the Feds, but I agreed with the decision to invade, given that he gets to pick off a free Starbase and the Feds would be able to defend the Marquis area anyway. Relative to the last game I think the Coalition is about a turn "behind schedule," (albeit with probably less spent on repairs to date) but it isn't going to catch up by "not destroying Federation hardpoints on the cheap." As the Alliance player I would have been happy to go to Limited War under these circumstances.

I AM probably losing my COMCON next turn when it is in open space, which couldn't happen without an invasion. Not a huge deal, but it's a thing.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, June 29, 2022 - 03:54 pm: Edit

Feds on Limited War are like the Italians in WW2.... useful but limited in what they can do.

Feds on Full War is the US Economy fully geared up - i.e 1943+.

You may get different mileage, but instant overbuilding will make a huge difference.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Wednesday, June 29, 2022 - 04:20 pm: Edit

Well, we're not on the base game, but also not using SO and PO. So there are lots of things to spend money on, but not super compelling amounts of extra money coming in. So there probably won't be excessive amounts of overbuilding going on, especially as Yours Truly isn't a superfan of anything that costs double.

I mean, taking a well-defended SB probably costs 9 SEQ + significant cripples; probably close to the actual cost of the starbase all told. Taking 2915 is going to cost fighters. So the first 9 overbuilds you do are just getting back to par for that one opportunity.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, June 29, 2022 - 08:45 pm: Edit

A weak Fed invasion is still usually worth it assuming you can bag the SB and also take the Orion province and some border zones.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Wednesday, June 29, 2022 - 10:19 pm: Edit

I like the T7 attack since the Feds have such restricted defensive deployment options. T7 is tailor made for a nice successful start to the Klingon offensive. Hard to pass up that opportunity, IMHO.

If the Klingons can organize it so they have only light casualties and/or mostly just lose fighters, even better.

The Empire has been waiting for years to put the arrogant, condescending Feds in their place. What are we waiting for?

--Mike

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Thursday, June 30, 2022 - 12:50 pm: Edit

I beat this to death with some others in another thread, but my admittedly inexperienced view is that the head start the Klingons get with even a minimal T7 attack is a huge advantage not to be missed. Even if all they do is kill two BATS to make holes and two SB on 2211 and 2915, or (as in this game) one SB and a few BATS, they're killing hardpoints for free. And in F&E, control of territory is about pincount and hardpoints, where the Coalition has (until very late in the war) a pincount edge pretty much everywhere.

If you have to SIDS down a Starbase, you give up 9 SEQ (directed) plus cripples; if you can drop damage, you still probably give up 9 SEQ plus cripples (but make the other side cripple too). So an SB is worth half a turn of Lyran/Romulan production or a third of a Klingon production schedule, for which I will trade "a few Klingon BATS if the Feds get antsy" + pinning the utterly inadequate Federation fleet out of anything important in a heartbeat. Especially given that it also advances the acquisition of the IWR, releases the East Fleet, etc.

I'm sure there are situations where the T7 attack doesn't make sense, but they have to be extreme corner cases (such as T7 conquest of both the Hydran and Kzinti capitals).

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Sunday, July 03, 2022 - 11:57 am: Edit

Playing the Alliance it is easy to forget that your high-pincount Kzinti fleet is actually a paper tiger because 40% of it is vanilla FFs that aren't actually that useful in a fight.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, July 03, 2022 - 03:57 pm: Edit

Early on - it does lack strength (unless you happy to put BC's and CC's on the line), but as soon as MEC's arrive, it's OK - and if your playing with some of the expansions, the FKE does add a a few more points too.


In minor battles, a CC, 3 x CVS+MEC+FF is 78 compot - not too bad - and the best you can lose is a FF.

In modest battle - the FF's become EFF's and your up to 81.

In major battles a DN, extra MEC in one group and FKE's is 96. Add a drone - - thats 100 compot!!

But it does take time - and early on - you do need to be careful not to forget, although the CVS is brilliant, a CL and FF escort will hamstring it!

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Sunday, July 03, 2022 - 05:31 pm: Edit

Well, carrier groups are fine. But you run out of fighters quickly. And then you are left with... basically nothing to fight with. Which is what happened this turn. The Kzinti fought hard, with max DBB (paying for some of it!), strong carrier groups, and drone ships on the line to make a shift. But the Coalition shot some things, then started dropping damage, and the Kzinti fleet just melts. 147 fighters... poof.

With even SEQ, the Kzinti have no chance, even on defense with a Starbase to help, because they can't afford to fix anything...

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, July 03, 2022 - 07:11 pm: Edit

You have to pick your battles in the early turns as Kzinti. Generally on turn two it's critical to avoid letting the Lyrans bring too many forces in range of 1401. As long as this is the case, you can make a good reserve offmap and another at 1704 and then put a reasonable defense at 1401 and the Duke's SB (probably 10 ships or so at 0902).

If too many Coalition ships are in range of 1401 on C2, then it will be hard to defend the capital and the Duke's SB and things will go south.

In any case, you cannot stop the Coalition from doing a severe attack on C2, but you _can_ make them bleed for it. And you have to.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Sunday, July 03, 2022 - 10:07 pm: Edit

Well, we're up to CT7, and they're bleeding all right... 30 ships back in the box this turn on the Coalition side, most of them big. But I haven't slowed the Northern offensive a lot.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, July 04, 2022 - 02:32 am: Edit

"147 fighters."

I think you may have missed a key rule.

Not a game rule, but an 'effect' rule.

The Kzinti's job is to burn every single fighter, every single turn - and if it can do that, it's doing a good job.

Those 147 fighters death allowed the Kzinti to cripple or kill say an additional 200 compot or Coalition ships. (Defending a SB. so so 30% higher compot) - as if the Coalition is directing on Ships or doing SIDS, those Kzinti will have been self killed.

By balancing self killing fighters and crippling carrier groups, the Kzinti ability to outlast the enemy is actually pretty good (i.e. crippling a CVS, MEC and EFF is 21 damage - plus up to 18 ship fighters is 39 damage a turn they can soak up - plus SB fighters etc - assuming the Coalition do direct on something, a good Coalition roll you cripple a group + fighters and a poor Coalition roll you kill just fighters).


The Kzinti can't stop the Coalition - but it can slow them down.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Monday, July 04, 2022 - 07:45 pm: Edit

I wasn't saying the fighters didn't matter; but they buy you about five rounds before you have to start crippling stuff. However, if, as I do, you are shooting cruisers (and larger ships still) every turn, then you're only crippling somewhere between 0 and 5 Klingons and Lyrans in addition to the kills. I burned all 147 fighters.

I expected the Klingons to SIDS, but they just dropped damage (and even mauled a few things) and eventually it is either you cripple even-numbered ships (on an econ of like <20 before whatever scraps you retain on map), which seems like a bad deal since the Coalition has the ability to repair forever and you don't, or you back off and give up the base.

I mean, the list of cripples and dead ships in the game thread is huge. The Coalition lost 30 hulls total, over 50 salvage value, and have another 70 EP of repairs added on to their backlog.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Tuesday, July 05, 2022 - 05:19 am: Edit

The historical script and the initial OOB for the GW is the Coalition steamrolls the Z and H. It's not that the Coa has to play some ultra skilled game to do so -- they just have overwhelming fleet strength. The Alliance player certainly isn't playing bad if they get pounded at this stage, that's just the script. The Coalition initiated their war of aggression since they saw that their enemies had critically underinvested in military power.

The Alliance game is simple: try not to lose too much too fast, and try to inflict as many casualities as you can. And abuse your untouchable off-map areas.

It's not the worst thing in the world for the Z to have a lot off off-map cripples. Those ships are not dead and they'll be back later. Economic help is coming from the F and G, and stronger ship variants become available later too.

The Z can't really "win" a battle the Coa is determined to win at that stage of the game. But you can pick and choose where to fight, and try to fight in spots where you can somehow slow down the Coa a bit, or exploit any mistakes in their deployment to give them a bit of a bloody nose.

--Mike

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Tuesday, July 05, 2022 - 03:47 pm: Edit

Thomas:

There are no APT's and PT's because the rule set doesn't include those units. FE+AO+CO+FO. Rule 539 is in SO.

The CLV fighters are accounted for (8 FFF + 8 additional EPs in the "COST" Column to cover the remaining four un-free fighter factors. So the Feds spend 32 EPs (!) on fighter factors this turn, which may be a record (but probably not).