Archive through June 21, 2022
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E INPUT:
F&E Strategy Discussions:
Archive through June 21, 2022
Paul,
we experimented with several balance options from 653.0.
The coalition got its battleships, the Lyran blitz and the No-Tholian-Option. And we tried the early warp option were the Romulans deployed only modern hawk type warships.
The Kzinti got an early warning and deploy the fleet of the baron in the capital in turn one and enforced the klingon reluctance so thats why the Lyran already fielded a battleship while the klingons are one turn behind in production.
The Gorn got their early carriers but that did not fared very well as wy combined the basic game with the Demons of the eastern Wind scenario and the Romulans smashed a good part of the Gorn fleet and defenses before fighters came up. ATurn5 and ATurn6 were the Gorn stabilized their front and halted the Romulan advance at Gijard.
Hydrans got the Quest for Methane and the Mothball fleet. Starfleet got some extra Tugs and Major Conversions.
Overall we think it is quite favoring for the coalition. Except were in the eastern front were the Gorn are starting to hold their ground with the first Starfleet reinforcements, the coalition is steamrolling the Kzinti and Hydrans.
As we do not want to reset our whole game to the flawed capital assault on CT5 we thought about adding the ISC to the alliance side. Maybe with the Gathering Wind scenario.
And on the Kzinti side canceling the DB cost which was caused by forgetting the SADs and doing some adjustance to the Kzinti fleet in the barony. Maybe adding the formerly killed ships the the repair pool and enabling them a fight for their capital. Just some quick thoughts on our side.
That way the coalition might still build up a power block in the western theater, but if the Federation could hold long enough against the coalition, the ISC might breakthrough and help them out.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein
The benefit of hiding one of those MB is that if the attacker REALLY wants to kill it, he has to go against all your bases at fall strength.
I forget if you can change which is hidden from round to round, if you can change it then I wouldn't hide either MB in your situation on the first round.
(I wouldn't have put two over the capital in the first place, with only one, you can hide it and force your opponent to fight your full defenses if he wants to destroy it).
Generally, your starting (alliance) MB are more valuable than using as defense over planets (imo) unless you intend to upgrade them to SB. Anything smaller is too vulnerable to Coalition maulers. But do assume that the Coalition will destroy them before you can upgrade to a starbase if they have bigger fleets than you in range; in which case it's better not to spend the money on this.
Building new MBs is expensive and generally the alliance is better off using money to pay for ships, at least in most cases.
There are some exceptions, generally the Feds and Gorns should try to put a second SB over their respective capital planet, the Feds need to start doing this on turn seven if they are at full war, the Gorns should too, but the Coalition might get to the BATs step and destroy it before you can finish... but perhaps not.
You xan also use MB as surprise retrograde / supply points, see my game with Ted Fay and Bill Steel (turn 14-15) for an example.
Anywho, I could go on for pages so I'll stop now.
Soren
Do you have a total of how many option points each side spent - as on the face of it - the Coalition got a huge amount more (the No-Tholian Option is perhaps too cheap at 30 points, hence why both sides have to agree to it) - as it appears you gave the Alliance one major benefit (Barony starts in the capital), but the Coalition three major benefits (Blitz, Battleships and No Tholians) and then played with Romulans attacking earlier.
Also, was it more Kestrals (huge benefit) or Early Kestrals (modest) you played with?
As your learning the game, it's easy to add things - but perhaps you have added too much. which perversely will not help you learn the game (as the add on bits alter how the game is played).
I would suggest you treat this game as a learning game - and re-start with so many option points - as at some point, your opponent will get very disheartened as it will become clear he has no chance of winning and the add on benefits he has (early carriers for example), don't really add anything to his game.
Making minor tweaks will not adjust the fact, the Coalition got given all the goodies and the rules played wrong which has hurt the Alliance.
I think you will find it will be much more fun!
…..although adding the ISC to the Alliance might be interesting - that will not help understand the game 
RYAN:
Please archive by year: 2011 through 2017.
Post a note here when complete.
Thanks,
FEDS
FEDS
Archived available posts: 2011 through 2017.
Seems a large numbers of posts are missing.
Ryan
FEAST
Delete them when you're ready. ADB approves and salutes the accomplishment.
Deleted
Quote:By chris upson (Misanthropope) on Tuesday, July 16, 2019 - 12:01 am: Edit
killing the battle tug would have added an entire battle round to the siege, you can't forget.
it feels like trading damage with the coalition on so close to an equal basis almost has to be a losing proposition. if you'd bagged the sb, so his ships would take significantly longer to get repaired than yours... maybe?
but without knowing anything about the strategic situation other than the turn number, it seems like the coalition almost have to get a starbase's weregild (even if it had gone down) in savings on CT11 as they assault newly under-defended federation targets.
Chris, The Kzintis lost a starbase to the Carnivon fleet in Empires of the Dead. The Kzintis forced the Carnivons to cripple about half of their available fleet in exchange for the starbase. Granted the exchange probably favors the Carnivons in the long run However their economy can't repair everything or build everything it wants to at the moment. The Kzintis let the damage drop every round except for the round right before they retreated. That round they killed a CC.
The reasoning for just letting the damage drop like that was they couldn't keep the starbase and then defend their capital properly on the next turn. The Kzintis still had a 7 or 8 ships crippled in the exchange. Mostly escorts that will be assigned new carriers on the next turn.
Paul, the Feds can build ECLs as long as they want in place of the NAC or NEC. Both the NAC and NEC are in 2010 rules and counters. You can in Y172 replace the ECL with the NEC if you want. In Y175 the NAC is available to replace either the ECL or NEC.
You cite the Romulans with no heavy escorts and Kzintis losing the FKE in 2010. Yes they do, no they don't. The Romulans have always been without a heavy escort in 2010 and before. Regardless of the carrier group. Carrier War/Fighter Operations corrects that to make them more competitive in that area.
The Kzintis lose the FKE. No they don't. The old carrier groups were always based on the EFF not the FKE. What changed in 2010 was the MECs were replaced, correctly, by the CLEs. Even then you aren't stuck with the CLE for the entire game for carrier groups. The FKE itself was not introduced into the game until Advanced Operations.
Again you are limiting yourself by thinking only in F&E 89/93/2K terms where the escorts are tied to their carriers by the counters and limitations on the production of counters. Beginning in 93 with the publication of Carrier War, then in 2004 with the publication of Fighter Ops, Carrier groups become much more free flowing in terms of escorts.
Hi Thomas - I think we are agreeing the same thing.
2010 Introduced Flexible Carrier groups and tweaked some OOPs (at start Kzinti MEC's are CLE's or CL's for example).
So the Kzinti in 2010 can happily use a carrier group of CV+MEC+EFF, CV+CLE+EFF or CV+EFF+EFF (or use Ad Hoc ships or with 3 escorts) .
What the Kzinti can't do in 2010 is build a group of CV+MEC+FKE.
Why?
Because the FKE (and FFK) is introduced in AO an therefore does not exist in 2010.
Therefore, although players do have more flexibility in 2010 than say 2000, playing with just the basic rules does reduce the choice and options for all Empires.
In other words, in my game with William, some of the suggested escorts which can replace the ECL or DDE can't be built - as they are not in the rule set we are playing
No Paul. Everything I stated was based on the 2010 rules only. I agree the Kzintis and Romulans are kind of screwed on escort choices but that is what it is and no amount of tinkering with what is available to be built will help them offensively or defensively except to add expansions where they have additional escort options available to them. Where we disagree is on the Federation.
You are still not thinking outside the box. The Federation has the following escorts available to them in Y173: NEC, ECL, DE, and FFE.
Here's the Spring and Fall Y173 schedules side by side with the base hull listed in the third.
| Spring Y173-4 schedule | Fall Y173-4 schedule | base hull |
| CVA | DN | DN |
| ECL | | CL subbed for NCL* |
| 2xDE | | DD subbed for NCL* |
| CC | CA | CA |
| CA | CA | CA |
| 10xNCL | 12xNCL | NCL |
| 12xFF | 12xFF | FF |
*The ECL and DEs are substitutions of substitutions allowed under (702.221). Where you can sub a CL or DD for an NCL.
You do not have to sub a CL or DD for an NCL. You can instead sub a NEC for a NCL. You can downsub a maximum of 2 FFs for NCLs under (702.222) and then sub FFEs for those FFs.
Escorts themselves are built and converted at a rate only limited by the construction schedule, conversion facilities, legal ships to be converted at those facilities and funds available.
Now to save EPs, you can not sub your DEs for NCLs, and convert your existing DDs to needed DEs for 1 EP each. This saves you 2 EPs. You can save a third EP by not subbing the ECL for a NCL, but building the NEC in place of the ECL.
In the Empires of the Dead game I'm building the NEC in place of the ECL and have added them to as many CVS and CVB groups as I can. Overstuffing the groups makes the smallest escort a little tougher to kill, but that generally hasn't been a problem for the coalition if they want to kill outer escorts.
What is the problem for them is that I can keep the carrier group in question on the line for a second round at its normal strength before overstuffing. The CVS/CVB groups with a NEC replacing the FFE are still have the same offensive compot, but are much tougher to kill because of the extra 3 points of defensive compot.
When the NAC becomes available in Y175, then I will begin building them to replace my NECs. I just haven't decided what I'm going to do with my NECs. One option is self kill them, one is to cripple them and send them to Depot Level Repair where they come back as standard NCLs for no cost, and the last option is to pay the 1 EP each to convert them all to NACs. My ECLs are either going to be self killed for salvage or crippled and sent to the DLR to become standard CLs that I'll convert to LSCs. Granted the DLR is not available in the basic game so that option is not available for all games being played currently.
>>You do not have to sub a CL or DD for an NCL. You can instead sub a NEC for a NCL. You can downsub a maximum of 2 FFs for NCLs under (702.222) and then sub FFEs for those FFs.>>
Those rules (702.222) are not in F+E2K10. They are in SO or something. And there is nothing in F+E2K10 that lets you replace the ECL and DEs with NCL builds. Also in later rules.
And in the 2K10 production schedule, the Feds just have [CVA, ECL, 2DE] on the production schedule the whole game. And using just the 2K10 rules, there are no provisions for substituting anything for those ECL, 2DE hulls (well, other than CLs and 2DDs), so just using the F+E2K10 ruleset as written, the Feds can either:
A) Spend 21EPs every 2 turns to build 3 expensive escorts (or, well, 18EPs to build 3 expensive, not real useful ships and swap in NECs and FFs using the NCL and FF hulls they were building anyway. But still.)
B) Just use the NCL/FF hulls as escorts and lose 3 hull builds a turn (but save 18EPs, which is significant).
Which really is the issue that I suspect Paul is addressing here.
He is just using F+E2K10. You can't downsub FFs for CLs in F+E2K10. You never get NAC/DWE on the production schedule in F+E2K10. The Feds (and Kzinti) are significantly disadvantaged, escort wise, relative to the Coalition, who get F5Es and DWEs in F+E2K10 already. Yeah, the Romulans are somewhat disadvantaged as well due to no SPMs, but that is generally pretty minimal, as SKEs are still 5 compot anyway.
Like, the solution here is clearly "Use AO".
>>In the Empires of the Dead game I'm building the NEC in place of the ECL>>
You can't do that in just F+E2K10.
>>One option is self kill them, one is to cripple them and send them to Depot Level Repair where they come back as standard NCLs for no cost>>
Also not things you can do in just F+E2K10.
Peter, again you not looking at it correctly.
The ECL is a sub for a sub. ECL for CL for NCL.
The DE is a sub for a sub. DE for DD for NCL.
If the CL and DD hulls are not subs for NCLs then the non CVA turn would have a CL and 2 DD in place of 3 of the NCLs.
You won't get the DWA, but you do get the NEC and NAC. Look closer at the SIT. The DWA is in Combined Ops. I never said anything about DWAs. The NEC and NAC are in F&E and as such are available.
Thomas
Which rule section are you bringing 702.221 or 702.222 from, as Peter mentioned, they are not in F&E2010.
My (noting there may be different printed versions of the same rule books.....) F&E2010 rule book has 702.2 being the Federation Mothball Reserve rule - and 702.3 is the next rule.
I have looked through :-
F&E2010
CO 2003 (noting I am missing afew front and back pages but 702X rules would not be on the missing ones (I have pages 3 to 48 - which might be the back page....the others are somewhere!)
AO 2003
FO 2004
PO 2004
SO 2006
...and can't see any of them
"The ECL is a sub for a sub. ECL for CL for NCL.
The DE is a sub for a sub. DE for DD for NCL.
If the CL and DD hulls are not subs for NCLs then the non CVA turn would have a CL and 2 DD in place of 3 of the NCLs."
I think this is a logic fallacy. It's logical... but that doesn't make it truth. There is nothing that requires spring and fall build schedules to be automatically equal. Unless you can find specific wording to that effect, or a ruling from Q&A, then the ECL and 2 DE could only be subbed with CL and 2 DD.
(Or presumably, other possible variants of those base hulls, like a CLG and SC perhaps, but I don't know for sure.)
Just looking at the fall build and saying "well, that means the spring build would be such and such" is, well, unsupported assumptions.
>>The ECL is a sub for a sub. ECL for CL for NCL.>>
This is not a rule in F+E2K10.
In 2K10, there is no enabling rule that lets you swap an NCL for the ECL build that the Feds have.
Like, I realize that in the fully expanded rules, there is probably something that lets this happen. But in the base game, F+E2K10, nothing lets this happen.
>>The DE is a sub for a sub. DE for DD for NCL.>>
This either.
>>If the CL and DD hulls are not subs for NCLs then the non CVA turn would have a CL and 2 DD in place of 3 of the NCLs.>>
While I see what you are looking at, the CL and DD hulls are not substitutions in F+E2K10. They are just the build schedule--i.e. in the spring, the Feds build CVA, ECL, 2DE, CC, CA, 10NCL, 12FF; in the fall, they build DN, 2CA, 12NCL, 12FF. There is a specific enabling rule that says "you can substitute CL and DDs for NCLs" (that is in the Fed 2K10 OB notes). There is no specific enabling rule that says "you can substitute NCLs for CLs and DDs in reverse".
Like, the fully expanded rules give you a lot more room to move (although now that I'm looking at it, even in the full 702.222 rule list, you can't sub NCLs for CLs or DDs or even FFs for CLs or DDs), but when just using the 2K10 rules (which what is under discussion here), the Feds are stuck with ECL and DDEs on their production schedule the whole war. Which are expensive and not good (well, the DE is good, but I'd never *build* a DE for 7EPs if I could possibly avoid it; I'll aggressively convert every DD in Fed space into DEs for 1EP each, but if I can avoid building them, I'll avoid building them).
Was just doing some research on this and noted an anomaly.
The current Fed SIT (04/2017) lists the CL as a substitution for an NCL, but 702.222 in the online master OOB (11/2017) states that a CL can only be substituted for a DN, CC, or CA, and not for an NCL.
Clearly, however, no matter what rules set you are using, the Y172, 173, and 174 Fed CVA escorts are listed builds, NOT substitutions for substitutions, since they are explicitly listed as an ECL and 2xDE on the actual schedule, not under substitutions or special construction.
Richard wrote:
Quote:While you can indeed hide an FCR in a small carrier group and this is a use for a Fed FFV, this is not a good use of EPs, as you can hide the FCR in a CVS group or whatever just as easily (and the FCR should probably be stacked with such units).
Yes, you can just as easily hide a FCR in a CVS or CVB group. However, more often than not you want that carrier group on a battle line. If so the FCR causes the group compot, therefore, the battleforce compot to drop as well when utilizing full battle lines.
Hiding the FCR in a FV group or any CVE sized group for that matter does multiple things. It protects the FCR from being the target of infiltration and regular raids because they are part of a carrier group and only the outer escort can be targeted per existing rules. The FCR makes FV and CVE sized groups better at hunting down province holders when they don't have anything better to do. Especially true when the FCR is in a Klingon FV group or other empire group that has a DWV with 4 or more fighter factors. You give up the fighters for 1 casualty, and if all you suffered was 1 then you reload the carrier from the FCR and have more fun.
Even if an enemy reserve fleet shows up all you have to do is leave the outer escort behind and run away to fight another day. Ad-hoc escorts work great here.
Not all FV and CVE groups are waste of EPs. Anytime an empire has the money and get an extra 1/2SE or full SE of fighters on the board they should. Pincount matters at all times for all empires. The Feds on Turns 7-9 can really use the help with FVs even if the Klingons are attacking in force. If the Klingons delay to turn 10 to attack in concert with the Romulans, then you can still get an extra 1.5 SE in fighters from the FV groups along with another 18 replacement fighter factors that are available every turn thereafter.
Sure you can argue the cost of the FV group being high, but only for the turn it is built on. Long term use of those fighters will quickly cause the FV group to pay for itself in terms of ships not being crippled or destroyed because fighters died in their place. The fact that you hide the FCR in the group is the added benefit of building it.
Carrier groups formed during the raid step or infiltration step do not carry over to the combat phase, so hiding an FCR during those steps does not force it to be in a group during combat.
This is to avoid having to track carrier groups throughout the turn.
This being the "strategy" forum, I thought I'd ask people's opinions on Klingon v. Fed offensives going northern route vs southern. I see a lot of advantages to both, bit it seems like most people from what I've seen just go south/7th SB and I'm curious why. Because it's easier?
7th fleet SB is easier as it is less defended. However 4th fleet SB is where the war is won - that axis of advance threatens a large amount of Fed income and the connection between the Kzinti and the Feds, and eventually the Fed connection off-map.
7th fleet SB falling breaks the Feds in the south, allows a connection with the Roms (of dubious cost-benefit), isolates the Tholians, and allows interesting strategies against the Orion province.
A major element of this strategy choice is the timing of the attack on the Feds. It is difficult for the Klingons to attack all three border SBs on Turn 7 (as shown in the history).
As noted, Killing the 7th Fleet SB on T7 is simple and easy; the Feds only have, like, 10 ships there, and no reserves can reach it, so the Klingons can easily just overwhelm and vaporize it on T7.
Once that is dead, defending the South edge of Fed space is generally easy (due to the Neutral Orion province), and keeping the space open for connection between the Klingons and the Romulans is advantageous for both (Commercial Convoys and Strat movement for ships and spare parts if you are using those rules). And building co-located Klingon and Romulan SBs in there somewhere (more than 2 hexes from the Tholians, however) is, again, not that difficult and helpful in general.
Going North in Fed space is a lot harder to pull off, but, also as noted, can result in the Feds losing access to their off map income.
I went pretty hard North in HILTSWALTM, and it worked out (although the Coalition was doing pretty well in that game).
SB2204 is better defended than the more southerly underbelly of Fed space, but that isn't even the issue. The issue is that on Turn 7, SB2204 isn't even the most accessible SB the Coalition needs to kill in the North; SB1704 is. Killing SB1704 is also more likely to result in severing Fed/Kzinti lines without ruining the Coalition's supply situation.
I mean, the Klingons mostly kill the 7th Fleet SB "because it's there." So if you aren't making fast progress in the North I think people go south because there's no reason not to; the Feds can't really defend anything down there and don't have a lot of hardpoints that would justify trying.
I'd lean toward the northern route, since there are more planets to take, it is easier to support activity in both ZTO and FTO simultaneously, it is easier to disrupt support between the Kzinti and Federation, and it is easier to threaten cutting off the Fed off map area.
Even if favoring the north route, I'd recommend destroying the SB at 2915 as early as possible (as Peter also recommends), when the Federation has little to defend it with.
Of course, decisions for the Fed offensive will likely be strongly influenced by how well things have gone in ZTO and HTO previously. Sometimes terrible things happen.
--Mike
This is [obviously] intended as a joke. But it is all true, I promise.
Thinking about the Federation.
I am approaching the seventh turn of my first game as the Alliance, and putting together-as I am on a plane-a draft econ for AT7-Fed. And all I can say is... democracy is a terrible system of government.
"[From: Supreme Commander Allied Forces
To: Federation Council, Patriarch, Some Methane-Breather, and Commanders in Chief, Kzinti, Fed-Klink, Hyd, and Fed-Rom [CINCKLING,CINCKZI,CINCHY,and CINCGO]
Subject: Federation War Readiness]
It has come to my attention that while the Klingons are making preparation for an imminent invasion of the Federation, and we are prepared to conduct joint operations politically, the Federation's war readiness and scientific roadmap are fantastically poorly thought out.
First there is the Order of Battle. Of course by Y171 the Federation is well aware that the Klingons are militaristic, expansionistic, and possessed of a Deep Space Fleet of some four hundred known vessels, some forty of which have been casually hanging out on the Federation border for three years WHILE THE KLINGONS ARE AT WAR ON TWO FRONTS.
The Federation has half as many ships, most of them outmoded, and stations them relatively equally around the Federation presumably to make sure that there are sufficient Starfleet personnel available to consume hamburgers at local restaurants in all sectors to please the various elected officials.
Likewise it makes perfect sense to the drooling morons elected on Earth and Rigel to station basically no fleet at all on the Tholian border to protect that starbase, because 'its just the Tholians', despite the fact that the Klingons are just as close to Starbase 2915 as to Starbase 2211.
Then there is the design philosophy. While every other faction possessing carriers produces functional escorts, the self-styled "Premier Carrier Empire" apparently had its escorts designed by remedial pottery students. The best escort the Federation is likely to have until they finish their first new heavy cruiser half a decade from now is the Size Class Four DE, which has only 5 offensive compot, costs approximately twice what it is worth, and isn't on the build schedule so has to be substituted from superior NCL hulls.
But what about the NCL? I AM GLAD YOU ASKED. The first escort based on the new light cruiser hull is available only in Y173, four years after the introduction of the NCL, one can only assume because the StarFleet design bureau was staffed exclusively with masters students from the Art Institute at Planet 3306, specializing in painting and sketches AND who were too busy figuring out new and interesting ways to waste fighter factors on survey ships to do anything useful before Y173. When it arrives, this marvel of modern engineering StarFleet waited years to have access to will have virtually the same factors as an ad hoc NCL and less combat potential than the DE it was presumably intended to replace.
But wait! Two years later there is another escort design in planning! Surely by then... But no. Despite fighting the Klingon AD5 and wandering around allied Kzinti MECs for four years during strategy meetings, the Feds come up with an NCL escort inferior to both and only a marginal improvement on the prior design.
Then there are the scouts.
The Federation has more starbases (although the outer ring, useful starbases are inexplicably arranged exactly too far from the home worlds to reach under military power by a normal starship) than any other faction. But they are all but two restricted to three point conversions. And the Feds have Three (with another one coming next year!) four point scout designs, and, wait for it, NONE that are two or three points at all. For four years after entering the war. What? Why? We are supposed to be all about mass production and all about EW but thinking up a scout design that could be converted anywhere but Earth or Rigel is a bridge too far? I guess the Kensington High School Drama Club won a contest sponsored by StarFleet as part of their recruitment drive and were allowed to design starships based on their heartfelt dramatic reading of Heinlein's Starship Troopers!
Anyway, having been tasked with defending the Federation despite this incompetence and fooling around (I can only assume that the CVE is some sort of sick joke? ANOTHER survey carrier design, new in Y172, and marked 'obsolete' on arrival? What Vulcan was blackmailed with their half human son to get that thing built?) I am supposed to put together a defensive strategy.
Just don't expect a lot of brilliant offensive operations in the early going."