Archive through September 26, 2026
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Ships:
R07: THOLIAN PROPOSALS:
Phaser heavy Tholian fleet without Heavy Weapons?:
Archive through September 26, 2026
Imagine, if you would, Tholians without heavy weapons. No Disruptors. No Photon Torpedoes. Just Web generators, the occasional Web Caster (and upgraded Web generator/Snares), and Phasers.
LOTS of Phasers.
The justification, such as it is, comes from the ship description for the Tholian Destroyer; "With considerable difficulty (and perhaps with clandestine Federation technical support and certainly with captured Klingon disruptors that they were able to copy)..."
Initially, building disruptors for them was NOT easy.
We also have alternate histories where the Federation was, shall we say, NOT so friendly. Unfriendly in a way that makes them NOT offering the technical support a bit of a no-brainer.
Same would hold true for them NOT giving the Tholians Photon Torpedo technology later on.
Replacing any and all heavy weapons with Phaser-1s felt like such a natural course. I mean, they also have their Arachnid-P (R7.PF3) and their Heavy Phaser Cruiser (CPA; R7.43).
Heck, they even have Phaser versions of their assault fighter (S-IIP; R7.F6) and heavy fighters (S-IVS; R7.F9 and S-VS; R7.F10).
What about purely phaser (and Web) armed versions of ALL their ship types? Destroyers, Dreadnoughts, War Cruisers, Neo-Tholians; Everything!
Replace all Disruptors with Phaser-1s on the same firing arcs. Weapon charts are already on the SSD sheets, so there isn't any real need for a new SSD to explore the idea.
Does this seem... Not too unreasonable... To anyone else?
It might be worth noting that the R-section note being referred to above was written before the home galaxy was first outlined in Module C3; before the Early Years Holdfast was provided with greater detail in the three SFB Y-modules; before all of the above was consolidated in the Tholian Master Starship Book; and before the Tholian preview articles for Prime Directive were compiled and presented in Away Team Log.
In light of the data provided in these more recent dips into the Air Force data tapes, I would discount any suggestion of the Federation being involved in the early Holdfast's acquisition of disruptor bolt technology.
Although, I would perhaps agree that, over in the Reflection Universe, it's likely that the Holdfast never acquired photon torpedo technology from a "hostile" Federal Imperium. (But then, seeing the Klingons conquer the Tholians - or rather, conquer them first - would not be in the interest of the Federal-Imperials, so who knows...)
-----
Indeed, I might argue that the very concept of the Holdfast Tholians using disruptor bolt technology is itself an artifact of the "real-world" development of the SFU as a game setting.
In hindsight, perhaps it would have been more interesting for the Holdfast Tholians to have retained the use of particle cannons, rather than adopting Alpha Octant heavy weapon types.
Or, how about this for a case of "future-hindsight": what if there is an alternate timeline in which the Tholians - in any galaxy - never used particle cannons at all, but instead used the "web lance" (the web fist mode of a web caster spun off into its own weapon, as proposed for X2-ships by Alan Trevor elsewhere on the BBS) as a unique heavy weapon type instead?
But, by the time such things were decoded from the data tapes, too much time had passed - and too many SSDs committed to print - to walk back the use of disruptor bolts and photon torpedoes by the "standard" timeline Holdfast.
But then, that does leave the door ajar for "threat file" Tholians in other places to adopt "local" technologies in turn.
-----
By and large, I admit to not being overly excited about the prospect of all-phaser-1 Holdfast Tholian fleets.
While it would perhaps suit Tholian forces nestled behind a base's defensive web, it might not be quite so helpful in open space combat.
I'd see it as more of an emergency measure for certain Tholian exile groups - say, those in Draco prior to the Holdfast expedition in Y206.
But even then, I personally think it would be welcome if the Dracos were the ones to have brought prototype samples of "stand-alone" web lance technology with them from M81, and thus were the ones to introduce the concept to the Holdfast via the arrival of the survey ship Sojourner in Y195...
-----
That said, I suppose one could offer a "what-if" in which the Holdfast Sphere crashed through the Galactic Barrier over in the Delta Sector, and thus gained access to Borak megaphaser and/or phaser-cannon technology.
At least that would be more interesting, in that Tholian ships (lacking the Borak use of turrets) would have to make the most of their comparative agility, in order to try and leverage the mauler firing arcs on any megaphasers installed in their heavy weapon mounts.
Speaking of which: while it's noted in Module E3 that a pair of "centerline-adjacent" option mounts would be required for the installation of each phaser-cannon, I might suggest the same be true for any Borak-type megaphasers being installed on Tholian ships.
I wonder if the Tholians ever get more WC availability...
This would benefit the Tholians defending a base or other structure inside of webs. Any Tholians traveling between points thereby lacking a web defense during transit would find themselves outgunned in their DF firepower by their enemies using overloads, especially when combined with UIM use or by enemies sniping with DERFACS.
The Tholians have uses for heavy weapons.
Even photon torpedoes can be useful in web defenses as the Tholian ships in question can use their phasers while arming the photons. They then can attempt to maneuver into a position to use their photon torps at close range while minimizing their risk of return fire.
I believe there are sufficient classes of units with phaser only weapons suites to satisfy the Tholians' needs.
I'm thinking big picture here. Those bases and ships behind their webs need supplies that are obtained from outside those webs. The Tholians cannot afford to turtle up behind their webs permanently. Someone has to collect and/or deliver raw materials and supplies, and those convoys need protection.
John,
You and I disagree pretty thoroughly about Tholian bases and wedding cake versus buzzsaw. But your analysis here is right on the money. The Tholians deploy phaser-only ships like the Patrol Corvette, Heavy Phaser Cruiser, and Arachnid-P as specialized web defenders. But their ships intended for more general defense of Tholian space often have substantial heavy weapon firepower. That makes complete sense, given Tholian technology.
I might have a minor quibble with your statement that:
Quote:I believe there are sufficient classes of units with phaser only weapons suites to satisfy the Tholians' needs.
There are a couple of ship classes the Tholians have which I think would be improved by swapping their disruptors for heavy weapons and deploying them as pure web defenders. But that's due to the specific idiosyncratic features of those classes. And Tholian Tactics would be the appropriate forum to discuss those specifics.
A all-phaser fleet would be great in web defense. In open space not that good. A full fleet would be in big trouble. Even a squadron would be in a disadvantage.
A Klingon group of 3-D class hulls and a variant. Such as A DSD. 12 Dirs. at range 15 can do 30 damage. Even with the extra reinforcement because of no heavy weapons to arm. Will still be very bad. As heavy weapons will do more damage then phasers on overload at close range. Yes, costs more power. That one turn punch.
Phasers would have to kill of a lot of drones to close. A few turns of range 15 fire sorry dead Tholiams
There is one other part of John Christiansen’ analysis that is true:
The part about Tholians not able to turtle up behind their web permanently.
Perhaps I am reading his post incorrectly, but it sounds like he is advocating splitting the Tholian fleet between phaser only boats whose primary duty is web defense, and a general class of war ships with direct fire heavy weapons for convoy protection.
Great theory, but I am not sure it would stand up in play testing.
My gut is telling me this is a “rock, paper, scissors” game mechanism, that might work for a star fleet battles campaign, but is a “distinction without a difference” in F&E game scale.
Jeff, look at their ships again. There's the regular PC, then the PC+, the DPC, and the PPC. This is backwards from their normal pattern and shows their understanding of the need for heavy weapons. Their CA has the CPA. Their Arachnid PF has the Arachnid-P. In any case, I didn't suggest a 50:50 split.
Not every class of unit needs a phaser armed variant. Quoting myself, "I believe there are sufficient classes of units with phaser only weapons suites to satisfy the Tholians' needs."
Alan, if we agreed the conversation would be boring. I'll look for you over there.
John, I really wasn’t focusing on the Phaser mix, but rather on the scale difference between Star Fleet Battles and Federation and Empire.
And, in any event, I did not assign a 50:50 split between types. You assumed that 50% split, and it may have been implied by the choice of phrase, but it was my intention to leave the split up to players choices, could have various levels from 1:99 to 99:1 or any level in between.
The point I attempted to make was to support your observation that not all missions for Tholian ships involve base defense behind established webs. Ships armed with heavy weapons (photons or disrupter etc.) would be of more value than phaser only boats.
Jeff, there would seem to be a misunderstanding. It happens.
Thinking with brain cells that understand both SFB and F&E, I would expect any web defenders to be with tight turning radii so they could readily and quickly move within a web to support other units, or escape deeper within the web. Those ships that trade heavy weapons for phasers on a 1:1 might have either higher or lower attack values depending on whether the combat round happens at a base or planet, or happens as an approach battle or in a battle hex without a base.
For example, a CPA simply trades the CA's disruptors for phasers one for one. the Tholian CA has its combat factors of 8/4. In a battle inside a web it could have combat factors of 10/4, while away from a webbed defense its combat factors could be 6/4. Something similar might be considered for PFs assigned to bases or PDUs. Instead of each having combat factors of 2/0, each could have factors of 3-2/0. If anyone from ADB reads this, I'm not making suggestions.
The Tholian DPC trades two phasers with one disruptors just as the PPC trades two phasers with one photon tube, so the PC doesn't fit the pattern.
Hopefully as a humorous observation, the Tholian fleet doesn't have enough ships for a 99:1 ratio.
Been enjoying the conversation, and some postings have gotten me thinking (or as close to thinking as I occasionally, if VERY rarely, do)...
Just "Running the Numbers," I took a Tholian ship at random, in this case, the CA (R7.20) and, based on the comments about how they need Disruptors at range, figured out what the average damage is with the Canon design and with a design where all four Disruptors are replaced with Phaser-1s at different ranges.
A full strike with all six Phaser-1s, at range 15, from a Canon CA will do six points of damage. The Disruptors, assuming average die rolls will do eight points of damage, AVERAGE per turn. Fourteen damage points total.
Again, at range 15, the "All Phaser" CA would only average ten points of damage.
Now, what if the two ships were facing a +1 ECM penalty? In that case, the all Phaser ship will do, on average, only FIVE points of damage and the Canon design will do three points of damage from Phasers and six points of damage from Disruptors on average. Five versus nine.
HOWEVER, the "All Phaser" CA uses four points of power less than the Canon, so what if those four points of power are enough to keep it from having that +1 ECM penalty? It's doing ten points of damage against the nine for the Canon CA with the penalty.
Taking a look closer in, and yes, I'm cherry-picking the range here (
), but at five hexes, the Canon CA, with full overloads on its disruptors, will do, on average, twenty one points of damage from its phasers and sixteen points of damage, on average, from a full spread of disruptors for a total of thirty seven damage points.
Meanwhile, the "All Phaser" CA will do thirty five points of damage from phasers at range five.
Two points less damage while using twelve points fewer power for the combat systems.
For this reason, I would respectfully submit that the "All Phaser" Tholians wouldn't be quite as weak in open-space combat as a first glance might suggest.
I do admit, as I posted above, that I am Cherry-Picking the range here. At the six to eight hex range, the Canon CA will see its Phaser damage reduced to thirteen points (for a total of twenty nine damage points, when added to the sixteen average from the Disruptors) which is ten points more than the average damage from the "All Phaser" Tholians (nineteen) at that range.
At Range 3, the Canon CA, again, assuming full overloads, will do, on average, twenty one points of damage with its Disruptors and twenty six points of damage from its phasers. Forty seven. The "All Phaser" will do, on average, only thirty six points of damage.
HOWEVER, both of these are assuming that the disruptors CAN be overloaded; something that, at the very least, will slow the Tholian down and leave far less power available for other uses (EW, and just shield reinforcement); a good TWELVE fewer units of power on a ship with thirty one with three batteries.
Anyhow, it's just something that I was thinking about while sitting here, under the weather. If it looks like I've taken too much of the Nyquil, I do ask for your tolerance of my rambling...
Sigh...
Cleared up my head for a fraction of a second...
Had a couple bad numbers in my last post. Ironically, they were against me!
The "All Phaser" CA would, with average die rolls, do twenty one points of damage at ranges six to eight, and while that IS eight points less than what a Canon CA would do, it's not quite so bad as I had posted.
Similarly, at Range Three, the "All Phaser" CA would do forty two points of damage. Again, that is still less than the Canon CA, but that's also assuming that the Canon CA is able to power all Disruptors to overload status.
In both cases, if the Canon CA is only able to overload half its Disruptors each turn, the "All Phaser" CA is able to match the raw damage done, at the six to eight hex range the "All Phaser" is only three points of damage less, and at the Magic Range of five hexes, the "All Phaser" will actually do two points of damage more.
That's all with the Canon CA using eight points more power for weapons than the "All Phaser" variant.
If the Canon CA is unable to do ANY overloads, at range three, its damage potential is reduced to thirty six; a match for the "All Phaser" CA while STILL needing four more units of power to arm its weapons. At the six to eight hex range, it's doing twenty one points of damage, again matching the "All Phaser" while needing more power to do so, and at the "Magic" Range five, it'll do seven points LESS damage than the "All Phaser" variant.
(Okay, I'll pack it in, now; I've probably made too much of a fool of myself for one day...)
Jeff Anderson:
You are overlooking a point about all phaser armament and mixed weapons.
A Federation CAR+ has eight phaser-1s, two phaser-3s, four photons, and a drone rack. If you trade damage with it, the first four weapons hits are likely to knock out a photon, the drone rack, and two phasers (probably the phaser-3s). Your Tholian will lose four phaser-1s.
We can cut the Federation CA to its base hull, and it will lose 1xphoton and 3xphaser-1s. You are still losing four phaser-1s. The Fed can do this twice, but still has two photons. (The CAR+ above can do this three times, but would be down to just one photon.)
Note that the above does not include repairs.
A Klingon D7K will lose on average an ADD rack, a disruptor, and two phaser-1s in the first exchange of fire. The Tholian loses four phaser-1s. The second salve is a disruptor and a drone rack, plus two phasers. Your Tholian again loses four phaser-1s.
The Federation might opt to repair a phaser-1 as a phaser-2 (can do this four times) to be able to fire something fast close in. But it also shields. the remaining phaser-1s. Note, a Tholian can do this also. But the Federation can also use emergency damage repair (G17.0) depending on the damage to the warp engines (power needs) but capitalizing on his large lab spaces. Something that is not a good prospect for the Tholians (smaller lab spaces).
The Klingon can opt to end the scenario with more phasers at the expense of other weapons. What is more, there is an advantage to being abler to launch drones, as some of your phasers are tied up killing them, but that is simply a fact of life which makes it harder to judge the relative value of all phaser Tholian ships.
I did dismiss the drones aspect, but figured they'd be handled with tractors and the Phaser-3s that're present on most Tholian ships
I had also axiomatically accepted that ships with weapons hit on TORP and DRONE hits would lose firepower more quickly; quite a few of those results on the DAC, including Phasers, are "Hit Once Per Volley."
Same amount of damage that might take out two disruptors and four Phasers on a Canon Tholian ship might end up only taking out five Phasers on an "All-Phaser" Tholian. That's still a lot, but it is one less weapon lost in the exchange than the Canon ship.
Also, I posted about the greater power required for arming the Disruptors. With the extra power (compared to the Canon ships), this screwball idea may be able to better mitigate some of the incoming damage; ECM, better mobility to control when the exchanges take place, or just flat out putting power into shield reinforcement.
In short, maybe an "All-Phaser" Tholian might be better able to take a punch than a Canon design.
One other aspect; after damage, the "All-Phaser" Tholian will also have more power available for shield repair as well as more power available for after-damage maneuvers and weapon arming.
Another thing to consider for the "all phaser" Tholian is the phaser capacitor.
If the Tholian player times it right, the capacitors can be fully charged and
allow for a big turn where power normally going to weapons goes to shields,
engines, or whatever. The heavy weapon ships typically can't do that, as most
heavy weapons require either arming energy or holding energy.
Other nice benefits from the "all phaser" are a stronger ability to burn down
plasma torps, and the ability to fire any of the P1 as P3 in point defense mode.
Other heavy weapons really can't do those things.
These points are a bit of a hidden strength of ships like the PC which only
are armed with P1.
--Mike
If I were playing the Tholians in a hypothetical SFB strategic campaign, set in the X-tech era, I might make the CPA "Heavy Phaser Cruiser" the only the only non-X, CA-based cruiser I would build. This may sound bizarre, but hear me out...
The ships I would choose to build in any strategic campaign would depend not only on the tactical capabilities of the individual ships, but on the strategic and economic rules.
Consider "fast cruisers" for example. If fast movement at the strategic scale isn't all that important under the campaign rules, or if I can build plenty of X-ships, fast cruisers may not be worth the cost. But if fast strategic movement is a very significant advantage under the campaign rules, and if the number of X-ships I can build is strictly limited, perhaps through some analogy to F&E's "XTPs" in the campaign's economic rules, then I might want to build a lot of CAFs.
We also know that fast cruisers place an increased logistical burden on an empire's economy, due to special fuel requirements and increased maintenance. Do the campaign rules ignore that factor? Do they address it but the increased logistical burden is a comparatively minor nuisance? Or is it a major headache? That would strongly influence whether I, as a player in the campaign, would choose to build any fast cruisers. And it is completely separate from the CAF's advantages and disadvantages relative to a standard CA in a tactical battle.
So I can imagine some combinations of strategic and economic rules for the campaign, under which my CA-based production would be entirely given over to X-ships; CAX, PAX, CCX, and CPX; except that I would also build some CPAs to strengthen my web defenses. My "general purpose" cruiser build strategy would be based on the CW and some of its derived variants like the CWL and CWH.
Alan, from the Tholian OOB, "Fast Ships: (525.12)
The Tholians do not have fast ships."
Sorry, but they do. You may cite F&E rules* all you like, but this is an SFB topic and in SFB the Tholians have two fast ships, the CAF and the DDF. They also have a number of "conjectural" fast ships, but historically they actually built one CAF and one DDF. These ships are described in (R7.128) THOLIAN FAST HEAVY CRUISER (CAF) and (R7.130) FAST DESTROYER (DDF) in Module R4T.
*Actually, I suspect the real problem isn't that you're citing an F&E rule, but that you're citing an out of date one. Module R4T is a relatively recent product and I suspect that Fast Ships: (525.12) has not yet been updated to incorporate the new ships the Tholians received in it.
By the way, their (purely conjectural) DLW (Archeo-Tholian Light Dreadnought with web caster refit - (R7.131) LIGHT DREADNOUGHT (DL) in Module R4T) is a Beast! Personally, I think the Tholians should have built one of their (historical) DHWs as a DLW instead. Alas, they did not do so...
Alan, you're correct. They did build those two.
The limiting factor for building fast ships is explained as due to the difficulty of building the special, hot engines. I forget where I read this. R5 maybe. This is why the other empires had so few. I think everyone is limited to three per year, and only one can be SC2.
The Tholian CAF and DDF are both rated warship status RPU: meaning that, while designed as Regular Production Warships, only one was built of each. In theory, in a campaign, a player could build them just like any RPW ship (RPU being campaign unlimited, like RPL and RP2). That said, the write-up of each notes that they had severe maintenance issues with the engines; whether this could be worked out given sufficient space trials with the prototypes or not to be avoided in series production remains unknown.
Tholian fast ships are also in the Tholian MSSB starting on page 73. Includes actual and proposed, old style and neo.
--Mike
Jessica,
Yes, I'm aware of the logistics issues with "fast" ships and did ,in fact, refer to those issues in my 7:50 PM post from 22 September. But note that the main point of that post concerned the viability of a Tholian build plan in which the only non-X, CA-based ships the Tholians build are their CPA "Heavy Phaser Cruisers".
The CPA Status is "RPL", suggesting that more than one was built, but they were still rare. But I can see no technological reason why the Tholians couldn't have built those ships (as opposed to CAFs or X-ships or web caster-equipped ships) in quantity (within the limits of their small economy). Nor do I see it as a bad idea, given the right combination of strategic and economic constraints. So I still stand by my 7:50 PM / 22 September post.
Alan, RPL doesn't suggest that more than one CPA was built. It suggests that more than one could be built. The ship's description only lists one known name. That suggests that only one was built.
Supporting the "only one was built" inference is (D17.3) Level L in which "The name of the enemy ship (but not shuttles) is known." This ability is not known during the first contact with a given ship, but is known thereafter. Since the CPA has a YIS date of Y179, and has only one ship name listed, that is strong evidence that only one was built. Also, at Levels F, G, and H, the ability to recognize the distinctiveness of any CPA would be noticed. This isn't to say others couldn't be made or weren't made, but all but confirms that if more than one was built only one saw combat. That would be a waste of a valuable cruiser hull not to use one.
Tholian territory is small, and every hex of their territory is within reaction movement range from their capital. This gives the Tholians the ability to choose where they use their ships staged at their capital after their enemy commits his forces. If the enemy only attacks one base (hex really), the CPA there would be scanned and recorded if it gets within 12 SFB hexes of an enemy ship. If more than one base is attacked and each has a CPA in the Tholian forces, that would confirm the existence of multiple CPAs. If they approached to within 4 hexes of the enemy, each CPA would be distinguished from any other, and would confirm multiple CPAs if they got close enough
Yet another consideration is the Tholian economy. Before their X-tech introduction date, at their best, any cruiser construction consumes over 1/3 of their semi-annual income, and each CPA built prevents another cruiser hull ship from being built. In your own home group campaign, you can make your own choices. After the introduction of X-tech, the CAX and PAX sacrifice nothing in their behind-the-web firepower, but gain huge benefits from their shields and heavy weapons firepower.
All of this suggests that only 1 CPA was built. More could be built, but it likely didn't historically happen.