Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through September 26, 2026	25		09/28 01:30am

Alan, just as a thought, you might build the CVA as well as or instead of the CPA. It would be extremely expensive for the Tholians to do so, but it brings much more to the battlefield even outside of webs.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, September 26, 2026 - 07:18 pm: Edit

John,

Well, maybe. But I'm not convinced.

From (R7.43) HEAVY PHASER CRUISER (CPA) in the Tholian Master Starship Book:

---

Quote:

This ship was a relatively rare conversion of the heavy cruiser (R7.20) designed for the specialized role of defending bases behind large web arrays. As ships of this type were intended to fight behind the webs of bases, they never received the web caster refit, but were given the snare refit as they might be engaged in combat while moving between bases.

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, September 26, 2026 - 07:32 pm: Edit

One final point on the CPA: Even if I grant your argument that only one was built historically, there seems to be no reason why the Tholians couldn't have built more had they chosen to do so. I can certainly understand limits (apart from their small economy) on their ability to build many photon ships, or X-ships, or "fast" ships", or web caster ships. But I still see no reason why they couldn't have built larger numbers of CPAs, had they chosen to do so. The key issue there is; would it have been a good idea? Would it have been a wise use of resources? On that question, I'm not... convinced... the Tholians made the right choice.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Sunday, September 27, 2026 - 11:58 am: Edit

I continue to wonder when, if ever the WC becomes more widely available. Fighting a small squadron with (maybe 3) WC would be a real task.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, September 28, 2026 - 01:30 am: Edit

OK, the CVA (in the context of whether the Tholians might cease building all CA-based hulls except for CPAS and X-cruisers).

I'm not a fan of the Tholian CVA (which is the equivalent ship to what other empires call their "interdiction carrier") because I don't think the Tholian single-space fighters are very good as "general purpose" fighters. But they are the least expensive of all the late-war / ISC Pacification period single-space fighters and can therefor be very cost-effective in some specialized roles in which their weaknesses are not a major issue. I also note that while I don't particularly like the Tholian single-space fighters, their "Fast Heavy Fighter", the Spider-V is actually pretty good and is cost-effective in a much wider range of missions that the Spider-II and Spider-III.

Now, while the "standard" Tholian CVA carries 24 standard sized fighters (10 Spider-IIs, 2 Spider-IIE EW fighters, and 12 Spider-IIIs seems to be the "standard" complement), there is a version of the CVA that replaces 12 of the standard sized fighters with a squadron of 6 heavy fighters. (This version is referred to as the CVH in Module R4T.) If I were going to build a Tholian CVA in some SFB campaign, I would build it as the CVH version because I believe 6 Spider-Vs are generally a lot better than a 12-fighter mixed squadron of Spider-IIs and Spider-IIIs.

But should I build the CVA/CVH at all? Well, it's possible I would do so. But there are other possibilities that may be better choices. If I want the ship specifically for base defense, I believe using auxiliary carriers is a better (because cheaper - and Tholians have a small economy) option. Of course, any empire can deploy auxiliary ships to strengthen the defense of a base. But the weak shields and slow speed mean that for other empires, the aux CV will probably die pretty quickly. For the Tholians, it is protected by web and has an excellent chance of surviving the battle. That aux CV is therefor a more useful base defense ship for the Tholians than for other empires.

But an aux CV is not suitable for supporting mobile fleets, which the CVA (or, better, the CVH) can do. But for mobile fleet support, I would also strongly consider the CW-based CWV or CSV, instead. The CWV deploys a mixed Spider-II/Spider-III squadron as a standard complement, but 6 Spider-Vs is legal as an alternative. And while the CWV does not have the mixed Spider-II/Spider-III squadron, it does retain the disruptors of the basic CW. So the CWV option is cheaper (because I'm not buying the Spider-II/Spider-III squadron) but actually has better total firepower at long and medium ranges. The CVA (CVH) group doesn't really outgun the CVW (with Spider-Vs) group until the enemy is within effective phaser-III range. And if my carrier group is acting in support of a fleet that also includes web caster ships, it will be hard for said enemy to close to that range unless, for some reason, I want a close range fight.

The CSV option has the same Spider-V squadron but the ship's disruptors are swapped out for special sensors. It has less total firepower but provides much more EW support.

So that's where I stand on the CVA/CVH under the stated hypothesis. I believe that aux carriers are better (weaker overall but more cost-effective) choices for a dedicated base defense ship, the CWV or CSV is probably better overall, supporting a battle fleet in "open space", but the CVH just might be the best choice for a ship that can be used effectively in either role. My decision to build CVH ships will depend on the overall strategic situation and the specific conditions of the campaign. Note, for example, that under this hypothesis we are in the period where PFs and X-ships are available. Do I want to build lots of fighters and carriers at all?

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Monday, September 28, 2026 - 11:21 am: Edit

The beauty of the Tholian CVA (and really, of all of their non-auxiliary carriers) is in the external shuttle bays: effectively 24 separate bays. They can launch and/or recover as many fighters in an impulse as they care to do, making for a far more effective carrier than any auxiliary you may opt to try.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, September 28, 2026 - 11:43 am: Edit

Jessica;

I'm afraid I have to disagree - a little bit. External bays are nice, as you say. But I've already expressed my opinion that the fighters themselves (except for the Spider-V fast heavy fighters) aren't that great in "open space" (although that is scenario-dependent).

The Tholian standard-sized fighters can be very cost-effective and useful supporting a web defense; a tactical situation which maximizes their strengths and minimizes their weaknesses. But a web defense is a battle in which the faster launch rate is far less important than it is in open space.

Note that in my previous post I was not advocating for the Tholians to use aux carriers in open space battles. I was advocating they at least consider using aux carriers as base defense ships and CW-based carriers (which do have external bays) as their primary "fleet support" carriers.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, September 28, 2026 - 08:10 pm: Edit

Alan, I'm not arguing that more CPAs couldn't have been built. They could have.

When you point out the names, I would argue that the names are not limited to just the Federation's records. If that were the case, Lyran and old Carnivon ship names would be seriously lacking. The same goes for Seltorian ship names. I'll withdraw this argument when someone tells me where it says the names are those known to Federation intelligence.

In the description, singular terms arguably outnumber plural ones. I'll consider this a wash as one singular is the known name, and the other is that there is one counter. Minus these, the count is even.

As for the CVA or CVH, or other carriers, your apprehension could be that you're more of a SFB player and less of a F&E player. In F&E, the cost of fighters is for the setup of replacement fighter production lines for a particular carrier ship. This makes carriers initially expensive investments, but quite cost effective when the fighters absorb damage, over and over, not received by a ship. A crippled ship stays crippled until repaired, and (usually) requires money to repair, and (usually) only after it gets to a repair point. It takes time and money. Fighters are replaced for free, quickly, and often (usually). I say usually because there are special exception rules. Also, fighters increase the firepower of a battleforce without increasing the ship count within the command ship's command rating (again, usually).

An argument in favor of your position are the years in service for the CA and the CPA. The CA's YIS is Y160, and the CPA's YIS is Y179. The timing of the CPA seems to be in response to Operation Nutcracker, so the timing itself supports only one was built, but I'm pretty sure the technological base for replacing disruptors with phasers existed in Y160, so if the Klingons ever tried a massive assault on Tholia after Y160, like the one in Y98, the CPA may have been considered sooner.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, September 29, 2026 - 12:17 pm: Edit

Alan? I know the Tholian fighters appear pathetically undergunned, but even that can be an advantage; as rugged as they are, many enemies can deprioritize their destruction; something that would be a terrible mistake.

The wing aboard the CVA can, with average die roll distribution, be expected to do twenty four points of damage from Disruptors at Range Twelve, plus an additional six points of damage from the Phasers, assuming no Mega-Fighter Packs.

(And I'll not be figuring the additional guns of using Mega-Packs for the rest of this number crunch.)

Over the turn break, they close. While at four hexes, the improvement is not significant (thirty two points for Disruptors and twelve from Phasers), if they push through to Range Two, suddenly they're doing forty points from disruptors and a staggering fifty four points of Phaser damage; ninety four points.

Things get even better with the "Phaser Heavy But Without Heavy Weapon" Tholians that're what I started up this conversation thread. At the twelve hex range, they may only be doing fourteen points of damage, but at eight hexes, it jumps up to twenty six points of damage.

Then at three hexes, it jumps again to fifty seven damage points, at two it's up to a full one HUNDRED points of damage!

Overruns will, on average, do one hundred seventy one points of damage.

Mind you, that's assuming no fighter is crippled, but think about it; how much damage has to be done to cripple a Tholian Spider? How much to cripple a dozen? Flying in with the four normal EW points all in ECM, plus potential erratic maneuvers, AND with ships flying nearby, who's going to throw all that fire at the "Weak, Undergunned" Tholian fighters?

Anyhow, I'll go take my meds now. Thanks for letting me blather/rant...

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Tuesday, September 29, 2026 - 02:21 pm: Edit

Jeff, I think you forgot something in your analysis. These are Tholian fighters. They can fire through webs, and therefore may get multiple range 2 or 3 phaser shots in during a base defense without taking any damage in return.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, September 29, 2026 - 07:26 pm: Edit

Jeff,

I'm afraid you've got some incorrect numbers there.

"The wing aboard the CVA can, with average die roll distribution, be expected to do twenty four points of damage from Disruptors at Range Twelve..."

No. Fighter photon torpedoes have a maximum range of 12. Fighter disruptors are limited to a range of 10 hexes.

Also, since you're referencing EW in your post, the "standard" wing for a CVA would consist of 10 Spider-IIs, 2 Spider-IIEs, and 12 Spider-IIIs. So that's 20 points (at range-10, not range-12), not 24. Of course, it would be possible to forego the EW fighters and carry 12 standard Spider-IIs. But that puts the Spider-IIs at an EW disadvantage and their fire probably will be less accurate.

"Things get even better with the "Phaser Heavy But Without Heavy Weapon" Tholians that're what I started up this conversation thread. At the twelve hex range, they may only be doing fourteen points of damage, but at eight hexes, it jumps up to twenty six points of damage."

Wait a moment, though. What kind of phaser suite is that? The 14 points at 12 hexes suggests maybe 14 phaser-1s. But 14 phaser-1s would do 30¹/₃ damage at 8 hexes, rather than 26 damage. Where are you getting these numbers?

"Flying in with the four normal EW points all in ECM..."

No. A fighter (assuming it is not carrying pods and not receiving external lending) has 2 ECM and 2 ECCM, not "four normal EW points" to distribute as it sees fit. One (of several) reasons why I prefer the Spider-V fast heavy fighters to mixed Spider-II/Spider-III squadrons is that heavy fighters do have a built-in EW pod and, even without external pods or EW points lent by the carrier or EWF, have 2 ECM, 2 ECCM, and 2 "swing" points.

Finally, I want to address a number you didn't cover in your post; speed. Most late war fighters, including the Spider-III and the Spider-V, have a base speed of 15. The Spider-II has a speed of only 14. This may not seem like a huge difference. After all, the A-10 has a speed of only 10. But an A-10 squadron has 11 photon torpedoes (assuming one EW fighter) and 22 Type-I drones. It can effectively engage from much further away than can a mixed Spider-II/Spider-III squadron. It is also usually paired with an F-14 squadron, which has a lot of drones. But a Tholian squadron of single-space fighters isn't really effective until it gets into phaser-3 range, and that Tholian squadron is, while faster than the A-10s, still below average in speed for late-war fighters. For web defense (a role in which I have already acknowledged the Tholian fighters can be quite effective) this doesn't matter. It also matters less in, for example, a Tholian attack on an enemy base. But against a mobile enemy, in open space, who wants to "dance" rather than close, I think it's a problem.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, September 29, 2026 - 07:49 pm: Edit

Correction to the previous post. Something was bothering me about my earlier statement about the CVA so I just checked the SSD in Module J. It turns out the standard CVA wing is not 10 Spider-IIs, 2 Spider-IIEs, and 12 Spider-IIIs. It's 11 Spider-IIs, 2 Spider-IIEs, and 11 Spider-IIIs.

So I had some bad numbers too. I apologize for that. I should have checked the SSD before posting, a lesson I need to relearn from time to time. The real expected (in a statistical sense) disruptor damage at range 10 (still not 12 - that part didn't change) is neither 20 nor 24. It's 22. I don't believe that changes the overall point of my post.

As a point of comparison, the 6 Spider-Vs in a squadron could expect 24 from the disruptors, 8 from the phaser-2s, and 2 from the phaser-3s; or 34 total. Outside of effective phaser-3 range, 6 Spider-Vs outgun 24 mixed Spider-II/Spider-IIIs.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, September 29, 2026 - 11:16 pm: Edit

Also Alan, fighters have two points ECM, two points ECCM, and two additional points that may be either ECM or ECCM, IIRC.

As far as not including the EW fighters goes, that was done on my part to make the math easier, plus they are considered an optional rule (even though everyone I know uses it...)

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, September 29, 2026 - 11:38 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Also Alan, fighters have two points ECM, two points ECCM, and two additional points that may be either ECM or ECCM, IIRC.

---

---

Quote:

(J4.47) BUILT-IN EW POINTS: All fighters have two points of built-in ECM (D6.394) and two points of built-in ECCM (D6.393).

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, September 30, 2026 - 12:07 am: Edit

Regarding external pods; a single-space fighter can carry two, buffing its EW capability. But drone-armed fighters like the Klingon Z-YC (also used, N.B., by the Seltorians), have an inherent advantage over fighters like the Tholian Spider fighters. The Tholian fighters can only carry external pods on "pod rails", which reduces both speed and dogfight rating by one per pod carried. Note that the Spider-II is already slightly slower than the Z-YC. And that Z-YC can either carry any external pods like the Tholian does, or it can carry them on drone racks. This reduces the fighter's total drone carriage but does not reduce speed or dogfight rating. (Plasma fighters can do essentially the same thing if they carry plasma-D torpedoes, reducing the number of plasma-D torpedoes they carry but not reducing speed or dogfight rating.)

So the Klingon (and Seltorian) fighters have an option the Tholians do not have. They can carry external EW pods and retain full firepower, thereby reducing speed. Or they can carry those pods and retain full speed, but with fewer drones, if the tactical situation makes that more advantageous. The Spider fighters can only carry the pods by reducing speed. In web defense, the reduced speed will rarely be much of a problem. But in an open space battle, it might be a big problem.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, September 30, 2026 - 01:07 pm: Edit

I think I've been yammering about fighters way too much. So to bring the topic back to phasers-only Tholian ships; for a couple of months now I've been considering, on and off, whether the Tholians should have an X-tech counterpart to the CPA. I've concluded they should not. In my opinion, phaser-only X-ships other than the PCX are probably a poor use of resources. But if the Tholians do decide to field larger phaser-only X-ships, the best choices for the base hull would be either the CWX or the NFX. The latter could be only done as a conversion of course, not a new build.

CWX: A CWX which swaps out all disruptors for phaser-1s would have 12 phaser-1s. A CAX that swaps its disruptors out would have a whopping 17 phaser-1s, as well as more power and better shields than the CWX. Clearly the pure phaser version of the CAX would strengthen a web defense more than the corresponding pure phaser CWX. But in the X-tech era, Tholian base defenses are already very strong. They don't need a huge upgrade there. It's the mobile forces that guard the spaces between the planets and bases that they need to worry about. And removing a CAX from the mobile forces (to convert it to a specialized base defender) weakens those mobile forces a lot more than removing a CWX does.

What about a base defense version of the DDX? That's a possibility. But it would have only 9 phaser-1s and 27 points of power; less than a standard-tech CPA (though it does have X-tech EW advantages and pays lower housekeeping and movement costs than that CPA). And though the DDX is comparatively cheap by X-ship standards, there would never be all that many because of the destroyer engines which are described as difficult to produce and difficult to maintain. And note that you could temporarily assign a standard DDX to base defense if necessary and it would still have 7 phaser-1s.

NFX: The NCX, NLX, and NDX (and their collared versions; the NHX, NMX, and NHDX) all have web casters and are too useful, as currently configured, to be removed from the mobile fleets. But the NFX (and its collared version, the NHFX) not only does not have a web caster, but does not even have a snare. The NFX and NHFX are the only Tholian X-ships without either a web caster or a snare (or both). But a web defense version would have 9 phaser-1s (or 11 for the NHFX) and a web generator for powering the base's webs. Both have less power, worse maneuverability (not nimble), worse weapon arcs, and far worse shields than the DDX. But these matter a lot less in a base defense than in open space. In short, a phaser-only NFX is almost as good as a phaser-only DDX in dedicated base defense, and the corresponding NHFX might be better. But the standard disruptor versions of these ships are nowhere near as good as a standard DDX in open space.

So that's the matter as I see it. The Tholians don't really need an X-tech phaser-only ship (other than the PCX, of course). But if they do decide to field one (or several), they should base the ship(s) on the NFX or the CWX, rather than CAX, DDX, NCX, NLX, or NDX.

YMM. as they say, V.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, October 01, 2026 - 12:22 pm: Edit

I did go through and check, Alan, and you are correct.

I have no idea where I got that idea...

Such is the depth of the game we love.


On the X-ship side of things, when I read that post, I thought of the incredible power and firepower of the PC during the Early Years, when the Tholians were fighting to establish their security in a hostile galaxy.

That they survived is "Proof" that "All-Phasers" works?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, October 01, 2026 - 12:47 pm: Edit

Jeff,

It happens. See my own previous mistake about the fighter complement for a Tholian CVA...


Regarding whether "all-phasers" works... well, it can work. A CPA with 10 phaser-1s, war cruiser power (31 generated power with ²/₃ movement), and the excellent Tholian shields, is certainly not helpless in open space. But it depends a lot on specific conditions and I'd rather have a standard CA for the great majority of those conditions.