Federation Commander

Nerroth wrote:I can't speak for anyone else, but the idea of the "seeker-stack" existing in FC feels like an oversight that really ought to be addressed, rather than be left as a trick that seeking weapon empires ought to have over direct-fire ones.

What do you mean?

Are you talking about the stacking penalty? I assumed the stacking penalty applied to all attacks, does it not apply to launches? I was assuming the term 'fire' in 4A3 was a generic term, meaning direct fire and launch.

mojo jojo, I must remind you that it is bad form to continue to argue a point after a moderator has suggested you take it elsewhere. A simple reply that you were taking it to email so that storeylf would be alerted to incoming email would have been sufficient to the cause.

Do not force me to wield the #8 Griswold cast-iron frying pan today as I have a horrid cold and my aim might be off and when it is, it tends to be low ...

Please return the discussion back to the scenario at hand.

Thanks for your cooperation,

Jean
WebMom
(Who wouldn't mean to carry on biological warfare, but this cold has put each of us who caught it out of work for two days and if you don't behave I might sneeze on you!)

storeylf wrote:What do you mean?

Are you talking about the stacking penalty? I assumed the stacking penalty applied to all attacks, does it not apply to launches? I was assuming the term 'fire' in 4A3 was a generic term, meaning direct fire and launch.

To be honest, I had too; but the rule as written is only in the DF section and only mentions firings, but is not in the seeking weapon rules to cover launches.

The thought only occurred to me when reading mojo's "seeker-stack" plan; if the way the rule is currently comprised allows for that kind of distinction, it would do with being fixed in the upcoming revision.

As with DF, the idea of the "seeker-stack", in my mind, goes against the principle of maneuver that FC is supposed to emphasize over SFB (where, regrettably, there are stacks a-plenty.)

mojo jojo wrote:... Unlike direct fire, there is no limit on the amount of seeking weapons that can be launched from 1 hex in 1 impulse...

Really!?! If this is the case, then we've been playing it wrong for years.
Ever since the pre-release playtesting, our group has assumed the superstack firing limits also applied to launches, too. No more than three units allowed to launch seeking weapons through a single hex face in a single impulse.

Now, will we take 4 Kzinti ships and launch seekers through 2 hex faces in a single impulse at the same target... sure. But then one is required to maneuver them in separate stacks until normal movement allows them to be combined... and since the opponent is usually crossing the arc rather than travelling head-on towards the launching unit - this is sometimes easier said than done.

It is very difficult for a Lyran force to use its ESGs on the same target at the same time, mostly because ESGs interact with each other (5N2f), and also the target can launch some shuttles manned and just have them sit in the SB's hex, which will dilute the ESG damage. Or have a defending ship in the same hex. Another direct fire empire like Feds for example, will not have that issue. I suppose you could have a conga line of ships flying through the SB's hex, but then you have (potentially) multiple opportunities for shield reinforcement.

I think that disruptors are "naff" against most big bases (BATS and larger) because the target has thick shields, lots of batteries, and plenty of power. It's hard to chew your way through those thick shields with disruptors at range. Massed drones or plasma hitting the same shield on the same impulse can do it though, because it's all one volley. Meanwhile, the defenders' weapons are punching through the shields on the attacking ships and damaging them, reducing your firepower.

There is one type of base that massed disruptor fire would be quite useful against: Andromedan ones.

With every tenth point of damage on PA Panels scoring internals, disruptor-armed fleets can rack up more leak damage than others can; as the PBEM game involving the Python can show, even these drip-drip internals can cause trouble for an unlucky Andro's weapons suite.

It seems pretty clear that you can launch as much as possible. 4A3 specifically refers to "fire" and the intro to 4F specifically notes that Direct-Fire Weapons are "fired" while Seeking Weapons are "launched".

One loophole in the rules is that 4A3 refers to fire "out of the hex". Does that mean that there is no limit to same hex shots? So a Fed fleet can have 6 ships in the same hex with the SB and have all 6 fire at the SB?

Mojo, no loophole: "...or at any single
target or targets in any single hex..." in the same sentence.

Gary: The Andromedan BATS has a fair amount of "stuffing" and an excellent repair rating, so it's not that bad. It's the drones that the Klingons and Kzintis can bring that cause problems.

terryoc wrote:Mojo, no loophole: "...or at any single
target or targets in any single hex..." in the same sentence.

I missed that. Thanks!

terryoc wrote:It is very difficult for a Lyran force to use its ESGs on the same target at the same time, mostly because ESGs interact with each other (5N2f), and also the target can launch some shuttles manned and just have them sit in the SB's hex, which will dilute the ESG damage. Or have a defending ship in the same hex.

The need to spread out the ESGs does make a little more awkward, but not that much. The target is static, so getting the same shield isn't an issue, and even the rotation doesn't help that much - a final slip left will keep subsequent ships on the same shield. Even Feds (or who ever) will find them selves staggering somewhat to avoid stacking issues and split shields.

It should also be noted that spreading your fire over multiple impulses is actually useful against a sensor equiped SB. The sensor effect only lasts for the 1 impulse. Feds (or anyone else) firing as one big strike is making the SB sensor officers job very easy - 1 sensor and 4 power to neuter the entire enemy fleet. Against Lyrans whose attack run may naturally fall into a series of ships over 5 or 6 impulses requires more sensors and 20+ power to achieve a similar effect. Thats may well be 16+ extra damage the base took due to less reinforcing power, and less sensors to use for anti seeker purposes etc.

I was planning on launching shuttles to help against ESGs, but that may not help all that much, given the sensor penalty on other weapons it may be worth the Lyran ships shooting them the impulse before they arrive rather than take the +2 against the base, freeing up the ESG for full effect. Depends on ranges and the like. Chews up some weapons off the lyran at least though.

Defending ships in the same hex was also a possible plan I had considered against an ESG charge. However, it seemed more useful to intercept them several impulses before impact, nobbling a ship or 2 before it even got to fire on the base seems more useful than letting it get to point blank range and fire everything. That not only removes ESGs, but also other weapons. It also offers tractor chances, again stopping ships even reaching ESG range in the first place, or drawing power out of them which would have gone to weapons (or accels required to reach range 0/1). Of course once the suicide freighters were in the picture that altered things even more.

Another direct fire empire like Feds for example, will not have that issue. I suppose you could have a conga line of ships flying through the SB's hex, but then you have (potentially) multiple opportunities for shield reinforcement.

Any one else, though, has the +2 sensor shift. That really hurts the likes of Feds. ESGs may be a little harder to use, but the immunity to sensor shift and energy efficiency makes up for it, a lot. The Lyran DNH I faced could be hitting you with 80 damage that required zero power on the turn it was first used, and an average ~110 extra = ~190 total average damage. Compared to a Fed DNH that cost ~15% more and only reaches ~130 total. Whats more, the Lyran can be pulsing those shift ignoring ESGs again the next turn, that makes even nearby lyran wrecks quite nasty as even a single repaired ESG can possbly hit you for 20 damage. The last ship in the conga line that arrived on imp 8 (probably when you are out of weapons to shoot it), fired then pulsed again on imp 1 before you got chance to kill it is particularly nasty.

The Fed has the drones to follow up with potentially, but they are a little more awkward to rely on, at least until you reach some critical mass when they really start to hurt. ADDs, phasers, tractors and sensors make a few secondary drones a little unreliable.

Don't get to concerned about multiple shield reinforcement chances, they already get that anyway - every ship is a seperate reinforecable volley whether it fired at the same time or not. Plus the SB will run out of reinforce power pretty quick. 120 power doesn't go as far as you think once the crap hits the fan.

I think that disruptors are "naff" against most big bases (BATS and larger) because the target has thick shields, lots of batteries, and plenty of power. It's hard to chew your way through those thick shields with disruptors at range. Massed drones or plasma hitting the same shield on the same impulse can do it though, because it's all one volley. Meanwhile, the defenders' weapons are punching through the shields on the attacking ships and damaging them, reducing your firepower.

Against SB sensors nothing direct fire wise in a 600 pt fleet is chewing through a base at range. If that is the defintion of 'naff' then all weapons are naff vs a SB. Photons in particular can't even hit beyond range 8 against a +2 shift, and beyond point blank range they drop off so much that they will fail to achieve enough to survive being that close. Even the much vaunted PPD looks a little wimpy in and of itself. I think you can only get 4 in a 600pt fleet which isn't going to trouble a SB with sensors if they stay at range.


Going beyond 600 pts is up for discussion, then you also get into what the SB has to defend itself with. Of course it also comes down to how 'munchkin' you want to go, e.g. mass drone figates for max drones, 12 Miltary police frigates for a cool 24 ESG in 1000 pts. 13 snipes maxing out on plasma quantity etc. Both my opponent and myself prefer slightly more reasonable forces, barring a competitive touney. Mind you, not that maxing out one aspect is always that clever, the above ships are fragile as hell - snipes pop like soap bubbles even during fade out, an equally maxed out 1000 pt kzinti SB force has no great problem surviving and wiping them.

In terms of Disrupter races, Lyrans have ESGs, Kzinti have drones, and Klingons have (less) drones.

storeylf wrote:Going beyond 600 pts is up for discussion, then you also get into what the SB has to defend itself with.

Given the SB point cost for FC is based on no sensors, I wonder if the attacker should be a +10% to +15% bonus on his PV for fleets against Sensor channels.

Do the Sensors take the place of some heavy weapons on the SB or are they additional?

jmt wrote:Do the Sensors take the place of some heavy weapons on the SB or are they additional?

They are pure additions. The information can be found in the CRUL2 in rule (5S7).

One other thing. In the rule (5S4), the "friendly ship" being protected by a special sensor can be the scout itself. So, you really don't need to use the old rules to get this ability if you don't want to.

Against a SB with special sensors and 400 supporting BPV of ships, the best 1000 BPV attacking forces seem to be:

1) A Tholian force with enough WC to keep up a continuous coverage. They'll be immune to the SB and 1000 pts should be enough to massacre any ships that try to go around the web and challenge them.

2) Big plasma. Any reasonable 1000 pt fleet should annihilate the SB with little difficulty. The best plasma fleet seems to be 5 Vultures and 2 Snipes. At range 4, it's 820 pts damage. At range 8, it's 764 pts of damage. At range 12, it's 596 damage. With cloak, the SB can't do much to prevent the fleet from reaching any of these ranges. Even with sensors, the SB dies horribly.

3) A Hydran fusion fleet with max stingers. The SB and escorts can't shoot down every stinger, and the ones remaining plus motherships should be quite enough to gut the SB.

4) A fleet of just Drone ships. 1000 pts of drone ships should be able to overload any SB's defenses except for Tholian.

5) A LDR fleet might have enough gatlings to do the trick. I'm not 100% sure unless I run the math, but they're way better than a regular Lyran fleet.

6) It may be slow, but a fleet of 2 Dominators or 1 Dominator and 2 Intruders can probably wear down the SB since they can dissipate damage extremely quickly. Each time they make an attack run, they displace away and clear damage from their panels during the reload turn at range 26. They make sure they always fire at a range where the SB plus defending ships' damage can't get through their front panels. 8-10 TRH's plus lots of PH-2 should eventually do the trick. They may want to take out the SB's escorts first, but it shouldn't matter either way.

7) Bring a scout along for the attack. A Fed scout plus 7 NCLs is 999 pts and it has 8 special sensors that can counter-jam the SB's sensors. Should be enough to let the 28 fully overloaded photons plus phasers to crush the SB.

mjwest wrote:One other thing. In the rule (5S4), the "friendly ship" being protected by a special sensor can be the scout itself. So, you really don't need to use the old rules to get this ability if you don't want to.

I was wondering that when hydran attack came out, but it doesn't say it can and sounds very much like it can't, the plasma defense usage explicitly states the scout can be its own target, leaving me with the impression that the +1 defense shift only applied to other targets.

Also of course those sensor rules were stated to be for the Fed scout and that other rules would likely apply to other units with sensors.

Like I said the sensor rules are little haphazard at the moment. The one change to the hydran attack +1 version I'd defintaly advocate (whether the +2 version stays or not) is the seeker defense to go with it, ie. seekers miss altogether on a 6.