Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through April 21, 2010	25		04/21 04:03pm
	Archive through December 27, 2013	25		12/27 01:59pm
	Archive through April 08, 2015	25		04/08 02:17pm
	Archive through March 02, 2016	25		03/02 10:00am
	Archive through March 03, 2020	25		03/04 07:41pm
	Archive through December 13, 2020	25		12/25 12:51pm
	Archive through March 03, 2022	25		03/05 01:00pm
	Archive through March 16, 2022	25		05/23 11:36am
	Archive through July 24, 2023	25		08/05 11:54am
	Archive through September 17, 2023	25		09/23 02:21pm
	Archive through October 08, 2024	25		08/02 08:59pm
	Archive through August 05, 2025	25		08/06 05:41pm
	Archive through August 17, 2025	25		08/24 07:15pm
	Archive through September 30, 2025	25		10/01 11:19am
	Archive through November 16, 2025	25		02/13 02:27am
	Archive through March 05, 2026	25		05/04 01:39am
	Archive through May 10, 2026	25		05/17 12:45pm
	Archive through June 06, 2026	25		06/11 06:12pm

Alan, a "Hail Mary" tactic is simply one that would not be used regularly. I wasn't meaning to belittle the tactic, rather to point out that it wouldn't be an early choice. I even came up with a scenario in which its use would be warranted.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Sunday, June 07, 2026 - 12:43 am: Edit

Greg, (G10.3), (G10.321), and (G10.322) could benefit from rewrites.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Sunday, June 07, 2026 - 03:56 pm: Edit

8 WB is a bit light.

The Tholians are paying 690 BPV for a 2 strand buzzsaw with asteroids at WS=2. 2 minefield packages cost 50 each. (100 BPV) 800 BPV for the web alone. A BATS is 200BPV, HPM 57BPV and a PFM is 12BPV. PF flotilla 4 Ar-PW 152BPV, Ar-L 50BPV and scout 50BPV. This brings You to 1,221 BPV. With no other defending ships.

The wedding cake can save you 200bpv or so from cheaper web setup.

A Seltorian Battle group of 3CL and 3DD 666BPV. 9 WEB breakers. HC costs 142BPV 426BPV for 3. 1,092 BPV 15 Web Breakers. Leaving points for a scout and COs.

The Buzzsaw will put the PF-Pinwheel deep in the web. The Wedding cake must have at least 1 in-between the second and outer web.

Onion Peeling to take out the PF-pinwheel a must do in the wedding cake. The Pinwheel cannot move just rotate.

Higher BPVs would hurt the Seltorians as their CR is at best an 8.

But would even 15 be enough? In the home galaxy they had Battle wagons with 14 Web breakers... OUCH

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Thursday, June 11, 2026 - 02:59 pm: Edit

Gregory, the Selt DNL, a medium hull with 3 booms, has a CR of 9.

The 8 WBs are to weaken the web to allow ships in the web the possibility of proceeding. They only need to weaken a web strand to a maximum strength of 31.

The WBs of a BW are mostly divided left and right.

A heavy cruiser is a CA, not an HC. Let's not be confusing.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Thursday, June 11, 2026 - 06:12 pm: Edit

sorry about the CA HC stuff. Other games and work

I was pointing out that the cost of said defense. If playing an even BPV battle. The attacking force would be much stronger.

I am more interested in can the web be weakened enough for ships to pass thru without breakdown and damage. How long will it take and how much damage can be inflicted on the attacker before this happens. Would the 15 web breakers be enough.

It would not be hard for the BW to fire one side tac or turn to get the other seven in arc in a turn. There is of course no BW in this galaxy.

The DNL does indeed have a CR of 9 and can be built in the milky way.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, June 12, 2026 - 07:40 pm: Edit

Gregory, I think you put way to much emphasis on "... playing an even BPV battle", at least as things currently stand. For one thing, I think the BPV system is "broken" as regards Tholian bases. There are several problems with it but in my opinion the worst, by far, is that the BPV cost of pre-existing web does not change with the year of the scenario. As the Y160 and Y175 improvements go into effect, any given Tholian defense becomes a lot stronger, but is not any more expensive. That's why I have previously proposed that the (G10.82) COST rules be changed so that the BPV cost to buy web increases when the Y160 improvements go into effect, and again when the Y175 improvements go into effect. I don't think that's the only problem with the web BPV costs, but as stated I think it's very much the worst.

More generally, while BPV-based battles are fine for a stand-alone scenario with no past and no future. They aren't really very relevant for strategic campaigns. I will talk about this a bit more in a later post (maybe tomorrow).

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, June 14, 2026 - 01:43 am: Edit

OK, why do I think that examining BPV-based battles isn't really particularly relevant for strategic campaigns? Because when an attacker assaults a fixed position, the attacker is not looking for a "fair fight". The attacker will instead hit the fixed position with however much force he thinks is necessary, while considering the position's strategic importance and what other threats he has to deal with.

In SFB terms, if a particularly important base (for any empire) needs to be destroyed, and the total defensive strength amounts to 1000 BPV, the enemy is not going to bring a 1000 BPV force to attack it. That's a consideration for a stand-alone scenario, not a battle that is part of a strategic campaign. If the attacker has the resources available, he will hit that base with a 1500 BPV force, or more if he can afford it. Of course, the attacker may have other battles to fight, which will limit how many resources he has available to commit to that base's destruction. But if the target base is really important to the overall outcome of the war, the attacker will hit it with enough to ensure success, even if that means shortchanging other, lower priority battles. And if the attacker simply doesn't have the resources to attack the base with anything better than a 50/50 chance of success, maybe it's better to screen the base to prevent it from performing its logistical functions, rather than launch an "iffy" attack that might devastate the attacking forces while failing to take the base.

This isn't to say that BPV considerations per se are unimportant in strategic campaigns. Let's suppose our hypothetical campaign uses BPV (as opposed to EP/XTP, or some "home brew" method) for determining purchase costs of forces. The total cost of the forces necessary to take out a given base (and defenders) is absolutely a consideration - just not on the basis of forces for an individual battle. Especially against the Tholians, any non-Andromedan attacker is likely to have to engage in several "waves" to take down a well defended base. The total cost of all those waves is the relevant factor, rather than the cost of one wave.

More later.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Sunday, June 14, 2026 - 11:39 am: Edit

I agree that in a campaign format. The attacker will be bringing overwhelming force to attack that Thoilian base. The Tholians will need to defend that base with a strong enough force to hold the base until a relief force can be mobilized.

This leaves us with how strong a force cam be brought to bear on the base and to defend the base. The Tholians have a huge advantage.

In F&E as well as SFB. There are command limits. That is why in F&E it takes multiple rounds of combat to take down bases and planets. This is I believe the situation You are trying to set up.

As the Tholians all I need to do is leave enough defensive forces to defend the base against a full fleet. Multiple rounds will still take out the base unless a relief force can be brought in from outside. Or the attacker did not bring enough force even for multiple assaults.

This whole discussion has started with what is better a Buzzsaw are Wedding cake defense.

In this case it becomes which web defensive can bleed the attacker more before the base drops,

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Wednesday, September 16, 2026 - 06:41 pm: Edit

Gregory, the defense and strategy both matter significantly. With decisions made this round of combat affecting future, the attacking and defensive strategies matter enormously.

In either web pattern, if the webs are weak, "(Darn) the torpedoes, full speed ahead."

With a wedding cake, the earlier that any Tholian ships can be destroyed, the better for it will make the outer web layers harder to maintain. For a buzzsaw, the faster that mines can be cleared, the better for subsequent combat rounds.

In short, yeah, whatever makes the attacker bleed more.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Wednesday, September 16, 2026 - 06:48 pm: Edit

Alan, I'm OK with that analysis. BPV becomes less of an overriding concern, and fleet size steps up to the plate. Regardless of the command ship's command rating, a couple command points makes a huge difference.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Wednesday, October 21, 2026 - 11:04 pm: Edit

Been thinking about this for a while now, and just because of the ships involved, I figured Tholian tactics might be the best spot for it, but one thing I don't think I've ever seen in a tactics discussion talks about stacking ships. More than one ship in a hex.

Back during the heady days of the Commander's Edition, the risk of T-Bombs was a lot higher, but how often do we really use them in games? Yeah, I had all the ships carrying two each in both of the Battleforce 550 groups I put together, but I've seen few other people talk about them.

With Tholians, I was picturing two Destroyers flying together in the same hex. Sure, there's a minimal risk of both being damaged by a single T-bomb, but isn't there the same risk if the ships are two hexes apart and one (or both) set off a T-Bomb in the hex between them? Only difference is that the two ships will take the hit on different shields.

Meantime, when flying together, they've doubled their firepower. Eight Phaser-1s and four Disruptors (or Photon Torpedoes, or two of each) instead of four and two. Much heavier potential hit.

Another place where being so close is useful is if one of them gets a swarm of seeking weapons targeted on it, it's companion can side-slip (I know, that breaks the stack) and then has all of its Phaser-1s available to hit the chasing seeking weapons at one hex range as the two ships are running away from them, instead of just the four Phaser-3s from both ships. If/when the problem is handled, the "Lead" ship side-slips and the two stack back up again.

Do the benefits outweigh the risks, or do I need to doublecheck my prescription dosage again...

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, October 26, 2026 - 12:37 pm: Edit

I talked about this in my story in "the once & future echelon" thread.*

ISC Commodore Q'Lever vs the Klingons.

Anyone have it cached or saved? A google search only returns

"In the expanded lore of the Star Fleet Universe (specifically associated with the tactical tabletop games Star Fleet Battles and Federation Commander), the "Q'lever" story refers to a prominent in-universe piece of tactical fiction and analysis centered around the Interstellar Concordium (ISC).
The story is highly recognized among community players for detailing the tactical maneuvers of the ISC fleet and addressing specific ship designs.

The Core Narrative & Elements

• The Protagonist: The narrative is built around Commodore Q'lever, a highly capable operational commander of the Interstellar Concordium (ISC).
• The Tactical Lesson: The story is famous within the Star Fleet Battles community for practically "demolishing" the military efficacy of Kaufman retrogrades (a specific defensive tactical maneuver used by ships to back away while firing).
• The Echelon Strategy: The plot explores why and how the advanced, order-driven ISC fleet would choose to simply bypass a retreating enemy rather than engaging them on the enemy's preferred terms, utilizing precise fleet echelons to break opposing formations."

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, October 26, 2026 - 02:03 pm: Edit

Mike,

Are you sure you posted this in the right thread? What does this have to do with Tholian tactics?

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, October 27, 2026 - 12:04 pm: Edit

The story also mentions "superstacking" IIRC

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, October 30, 2026 - 01:26 pm: Edit

Setting aside the question of whether a discussion of "superstacking" more properly belongs in the General Tactics topic, since I see nothing specifically "Tholian" about the issue, I want to continue the discussion of wedding cake versus buzz saw specifically against Seltorians.

Back on 03 May at 4:14 PM, I posted a description of a tactic the Seltorians could use to get the base assault force through a web, regardless of how much power the Tholians have for reinforcement. Since then, there has been a limited amount of discussion on how many web breakers would be required to make this tactic work. I want to look at that question in more detail. The Selt web breakers need to inflict 91 points of web degradation within a single impulse and the Selt assaulting forces need to have expended 31 movement points within the web over the last 32 impulses. If the attackers can pull that off, the assaulting ships will advance through the web before the Tholians have a chance to reinforce the web back up to strength-32 (or greater).

How many web breakers will be required to accomplish this depends on how close the web breaker ships get to the target web. At 5 hexes from the web, the web breakers cause an average of 10 points each. So with completely average dice rolls, 9 web breakers would fall just short of succeeding. They could accomplish the tactic with 10; but if they roll a bit below average they might still fail. With, say, 12 web breakers, the Seltorians would have an excellent chance of being able to pull this off at five hexes from the target web.

If the web breaker ships are actually in the assaulting force, or only one hex behind it, just outside the web, they will average 15 points apiece. At that range, 7 web breakers would suffice with average dice luck and 9 would come near to guaranteeing success. But the closer the web breaker ships approach the web, the greater the risk that preemptive Tholian phaser fire will knock out a number of breakers before they close to the intended firing range.

I will look at specific tactical implications some more over the next few days. But for now I just wanted to get some numbers out there, so people would have a better idea just how many web breakers would be required. I submit the numbers are not trivial, but are certainly doable.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Friday, October 30, 2026 - 04:20 pm: Edit

Alan, I just had a thought that I think you'd be interested in touching upon. You've touched upon an idea of adjusting the cost of established webs based on the year. What about if the starting forces also have an impact?

Let's look at the forces as listed in (SH6.0). This doesn't include the initial web strengths for this purpose. The beginning cruiser and PCs would require more time to boost the webs to WS-3 than if the reinforcements were also there. Should the starting turn-0 forces affect the beginning web strength BPV cost?

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Friday, October 30, 2026 - 05:52 pm: Edit

I posted the idea of stacking here because I pictured Tholian Destroyers (and PCs) using it to compensate for only having a single P-3 (on each side) covering their backside from potential pursuit seeking weapons.

You are right, though. Other folks can use it as well, and I should have posted it in general tactics.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, November 04, 2026 - 04:56 pm: Edit

Took me a few days to get back here...

John;

I think your idea is worth discussing. The "tempo" of an assault on a Tholian prepared defense is very different than other battle station assaults. And Tholian forces scale in very "non-linear" ways. So I certainly think there's scope for discussions there. But I also still believe the failure of the BPV system to account for reduced energy cost to maintain or reinforce later webs is the biggest problem with the BPV system as it relates to Tholian defenses. But it's not the only problem.

Regarding web breakers against wedding cakes or buzz saws, one of the things I wanted to mention is that to use the method I outlined in my 03 May, 4:14 PM post requires the attacker to commit substantial forces into the web for 31 impulses before the web breakers fire. But if the Selts plan to bring down the web over time from a distance, they don't have to make this commitment. If something goes wrong (Tholian phaser fire from behind the web is degrading the Selt forces faster than the web itself is weakening), the Selts can withdraw with relatively minor damage. Tactically, it's a loss for the Selts. But it's not a catastrophe. The direct assault, with committed ships in the web, has, I believe, a better chance of taking out the Tholian base if things go well. But it also has a better chance of being an absolute disaster for the Selts if things go badly. Using this tactic requires committing a lot of ships, most of which will be destroyed if the tactic doesn't work as planned.

The web breaker-enabled "assault" is a more high risk/high reward tactic while the web breaker-enabled "siege" will see a lot more battles that are not really decisive either way. The base didn't fall but Selt losses were minimal.