> At 07:58 AM 9/9/98 -0500, Doug Evans wrote:
<snip battle report>
It's good to hear that the FSE _can_ win a battle...at our group, so far
they are 0 for 2 in recent games.
We played our first engagement two weeks ago. FSE vs. ESU. (~1000 pts) An FSE
BC, CA and 4x DD vs. an ESU BB, CA and escorts.
This was our first attempt at the new Fleet Book stuff, so we were mostly
experimenting with the rules.
The ESU came in on a high speed pass at 24 while the FSE loped along at about
8 or so. The first salvo of missiles for both sides was indecisive (maybe one
or two of the escorts got capped, don't remember), while ESU beam fire
resulted in bridge hits on both of the FSE's big ships.
Rather than start a new game, we decided that the ESU ships would be turning
around for a second pass while the FSE bridges were being repaired. After
about 6 turns of damage control, we tried again. The FSE ships were at
significant disadvantage due to heavy damage from the first pass. They came in
very slow, while the ESU had to accelerate constantly to close the range. In
this second pass we used 3" range for SLMs rather than 6" as we had in the
first round. The FSE got off 3 salvoes, but due to the tight formation flying
of the ESU, both of the ones in range were sucked off by one of the ESU
fleet's escorts.
ESU beam fire proceeded to maul the FSE and by some miracle, their BC's FTL
drive survived all 3 threshold rolls and was put to good use the following
turn.
Last weekend, we tried again with NSL vs. FSE at ~1500 pts. The FSE was under
the command of the previous week's ESU admiral and the NSL under the previous
week's FSE admiral.
IIRC, the FSE brought a Foch class DN, a Jerez CA, a Milan, and a couple of
Ibizas to play while the NSL brought 2 Maria V.B. BB's, 2 CL's and 4 missile
DD's.
Partly as a joke, we put a single asteroid drifting at about a half inch per
turn diagonally across the center of the board.
The NSL ships charted a course for the center of the board at speed 12. Other
than rotation, they did almost no other maneuvering the whole game. They
maintained a tight formation up until one of the DD's was disabled and drifted
off. It looked something like this:
CL CL DD DD DD DD
BB BB
The escort ships were in base-to-base contact with about an inch between
the two destroyers in the middle.
The FSE, unfortunately decided to get cute. The Milan and one of the
Ibizas tried a high-speed flanking maneuver around the NSL's port side,
while the remainder of their ships crossed the NSL "T" diagonally from port to
starboard at about speed 8.
The flanking force was going way too fast due to a vice admiral unfamiliar
with the new vector movement. They never came within 36" of the NSL ships
during the entire game and narrowly avoided zooming of the end of the table at
speed 32.
To make a long, sad story short; the remaining FSE ships got mauled by a
combination of heavy beam fire and 7 on-target SLM salvoes, while
narrowly avoiding collision with the "joke" asteroid.
To pharaphrase one description of the battle of Tsushima: An FSE fleet which
could do nothing right was destroyed by an NSL fleet which did nothing serious
wrong.
In the end, the Jerez struck her colors rather than face the concentrated fire
of the largely unscathed NSL fleet. The Foch was probably abandoned and
scuttled by its acting commander. The flanking force FTL'ed out without firing
a shot.
One of the Marias suffered a threshold check and a destroyer was lost due to
core collapse. One of the light cruisers suffered moderate damage.
Having both won and lost an SLM duel, I think that SLMs are pretty decent
weapons after all. At first, they seemed a bit too "twitchy" for use as a
serious weapon. We went back and forth over the 6" vs 3" attack radius and
will probably use 3" after all.
We did find the "attacks closest target" rule to be a bit limiting and so
we've adopted a house rule that allows the firing player to nominate his
target if he dedicates one active firecon to guidance. Otherwise, it attacks
the closest target as usual. This will also give us the option of
later adopting ECM rules with EFSB-Minbari-style jamming systems to
counter the guiding firecon.
> We did find the "attacks closest target" rule to be a bit limiting
Oops, forgot to mention the other house rule we adopted; in order to avoid the
problem with a firing ship "overrunning" its own emplaced SLMs, we are now
placing salvoes within 24" (or 36" for ER) of the projected endpoint of the
firing ship's vector and dropping the limitation on firing arcs.
This is what we used in our second game and it seemed to work very nicely with
the vector movement system. We dropped the firing arcs part way through the
game when it became obvious that keeping them with the new vectored salvoes
was both unwieldy and unnecessary.
> You wrote:
> It's good to hear that the FSE _can_ win a battle...at our group, so
I've played around a bit with both book designs and some of my own, and my
comments on SLMs are as follows:
Mass: You gotta have a LOT of SLMs to be worthwhile. If you have one or two
racks, forget it. You gotta a lot of salvos to blanket the enemy's projected
endpoints.
Maneuver: If you're facing SLMs and you don't, you're dead. Flying in a
straight line is all well and got, but makes you an easy target. I
can't count the times I've gotten a salvo of SLMs in base-to-base
contact with an enemy capital ship that isn't using it's imagination. This is
where pickup games can be harder to use SLMs in that against your regular
opponents. I can guess 99 times out of 100 what my brother is going to do with
his fleet, total strangers sometimes surprise me.
Escorts: Gotta have 'em.
Variety: SLMs don't kill large ships except in unusual cases. SLMs strip off
the escorts and damage capitals, sometimes inflicting that
all-important first systems check. If you don't have a beam-based
punch to back up the missles, you're dead.
In a message dated 98-09-09 14:01:30 EDT, you write:
<< I've played around a bit with both book designs and some of my own, and my
comments on SLMs are as follows:
Mass: You gotta have a LOT of SLMs to be worthwhile. If you have one or two
racks, forget it. You gotta a lot of salvos to blanket the enemy's projected
endpoints.
Tell that to the Komarov that I killed, in my mind SMLs should be used to kill
the slow ships, hears an idea: use Pulse Torps and Beams to slow ships down so
that they can be picked off by your SMLs, this works, but if the enemy has
fast ships you need a lot of launchers.
Maneuver: If you're facing SLMs and you don't, you're dead. Flying in
a straight line is all well and got, but makes you an easy target. I
can't count the times I've gotten a salvo of SLMs in base-to-base
contact with an enemy capital ship that isn't using it's imagination. This is
where pickup games can be harder to use SLMs in that against your regular
opponents. I can guess 99 times out of 100 what my brother is going to do with
his fleet, total strangers sometimes surprise me.
Not only that but you need fast ships, if using the VMS then if you have a
Komarov, Konstantin, Der Theuerdank, Von Tegetthoff, Szent Istvan or Maria Von
Burgund you will not survive, and some of the others if you get a check on
thrust.
Escorts: Gotta have 'em.
Variety: SLMs don't kill large ships except in unusual cases. SLMs strip off
the escorts and damage capitals, sometimes inflicting that
all-important first systems check. If you don't have a beam-based
punch to back up the missles, you're dead. >>
Bye Stephen
On Wed, 09 Sep 1998 11:00:28 -0500, Jeff Lyon <jefflyon@mail.utexas.edu>
wrote:
> It's good to hear that the FSE _can_ win a battle...at our group, so
Well, since we're talking FSE fleet wins...
Two weeks ago I played with a friend. It was the first time for him using the
Fleet Book rules. I set things up ala the GenCon tournament: 1500 point
fleets, game ends at the end of the turn when a fleet has had half it's points
destroyed, winner is the player to do the most destruction. We were using
standard FT movement, not vector movement.
I took an FSE fleet comprised of 1 Roma class battleships, 1 Ypres class
battlecruiser, 2 Jerez class heavy cruisers, and 2 Ibiza class frigates. On
the other side was a NAC fleet of 2 Excalibur class battledreadnoughts, 2
Huron class light cruisers, 2 Tacoma class heavy frigates and a Minerva class
light frigate.
Starting speed was limited to 6, so I cranked up my fleet and accelerated into
my opponent. I had my fleet as one big mass of ships. My opponent had a Huron
and a Tacoma break away from the main fleet to try to hit me in the flank. We
started off set from each other at a range of 40".
The NAC fleet moved in very slowly, while I wanted to close the gap as soon as
possible. While standing off is a good idea with the NAC fleet, it can be
disastrous against SMLs. The NAC battledreads through up their fighters to
screen the capital ships from missiles. I launched 7 salvos, two from the
Roma, two from each Jerez, and one from the Ypres. All but one found a target
amongst the crawling Anglians. I rolled MAGNIFICENTLY, taking out a Huron and
a Tacoma before they could do anything. Another Huron was lightly damaged, as
was an Excalibur. My opponent started to really sweat at the thought of those
SMLs!
The second turn wasn't as one sided. His beams started to take their toll as
the range closed. The Ypres lost her salvo launcher to a threshold check.
Salvos went after the Excaliburs but with fighters acting as shields, there
was little damage.
The game devolved into a slugging match. I did all the manoeuvring as the NAC
fleet dropped to zero speed and was content to pivot. Beautiful luck with the
initial salvos was offset by rotten luck in threshold checks. One Ibiza was
popped while another lost her bridge and started heading for the board edge.
Likewise, the Ypres lost her bridge while a Jerez had a warp core breech.
In the end, the initial turn's damage was too much for the NAC. The Minerva
flared up, followed a turn later by an Excalibur. At the end of the turn, the
FSE win.
What was interesting is that I didn't do anything horrendously wrong, but
still almost lost. The loss of bridge control resulted in an Ibiza going of
the board edge and being classed as a mission kill. It was from this that I
thought the 1D6 turns of lost control a bit too long. The Ypres was following
in the frigate's footsteps, and a Jerez was near dead. One or two more turns
and the NAC would have won due to a lack of FSE firepower.
Better use of the fighters would have protected a cruiser and the lead
destroyer for a vital turn. That would have thrown the balance of the game in
the NAC's favour. Speed, too, would have helped. SLMs, while a fun system to
play, seem to be all-or-nothing systems. They either decimate a target
or merely annoy it.
Still, an FSE win is an FSE win. As much as I enjoyed using the FSE SLMs (with
Star Frontiers ships as the models) I have decided to build a NAC and NSL
fleet, as opposed to NAC and FSE fleets.
> The game devolved into a slugging match. I did all the manoeuvring as
I've noticed that with the FSE fleet. For some reason they lose their Bridges
and Warp Cores very easily. Both my own FSE vessels that are part of my
Mercenary fleet ans my friend's FSE fleet have Warp Core breaches and
Bridge Brown-outs regularly while our NSL opponent rarely has anything
of the sort!
Is this a fault in the design of FSE vessels?
> At 11:09 PM 9/9/98 EDT, Stephen wrote:
> Not only that but you need fast ships, if using the VMS then if
I'd have to say that if you can't dodge 'em, you'd better be prepared to shoot
'em down.
In our game my Marias survived a combined SLM/torpedo fighter attack by
being paired off with K.P. Wilhelm CLs (equipped with AFDC). The enemy
couldn't decide whether to try and go for the capital ship through the
escort's point defense or kill the CLs first and leave the battleship for
later. (Of course, if we were sticking strictly to the "attacks the closest
ship" rule on SLMs, then he probably would have just capped a DD instead and
the torpedo planes would have had to go in alone.) In the end, he end up
splitting his attacks and succeeded at neither. And this was against an NSL
fleet that was within 1" of their predicted positions through the entire game.
Had the FSE's attacks gone better, it might have been different, so if I had
it to do over again, I would have brought more escort cruisers.
One of my biggest problems now with the FSE and ESU fleets is the lack of
AFDC-equipped ships. Although this can be alleviated to some degree by
assigning fighter squadrons to screening duties, it doesn't see as effective
to me.
In a message dated 98-09-09 23:30:13 EDT, you write:
<< Better use of the fighters would have protected a cruiser and the lead
destroyer for a vital turn. That would have thrown the balance of the game in
the NAC's favour. Speed, too, would have helped. SLMs, while a fun system to
play, seem to be all-or-nothing systems. They either decimate a target
or merely annoy it.
Yes, make the first ones count!
Still, an FSE win is an FSE win. As much as I enjoyed using the FSE SLMs (with
Star Frontiers ships as the models) I have decided to build a NAC and NSL
fleet, as opposed to NAC and FSE fleets. >>
Good choises!
In a message dated 98-09-10 01:15:01 EDT, you write:
<< I've noticed that with the FSE fleet. For some reason they lose their
Bridges and Warp Cores very easily. Both my own FSE vessels that are part of
my Mercenary fleet ans my friend's FSE fleet have Warp Core breaches and
Bridge Brown-outs regularly while our NSL opponent rarely has anything
of the sort!
Is this a fault in the design of FSE vessels? >>
It randome, but it does seem to "feel" rite.
P.S. would any one be willing to GM a PBEM game? Thanks Bye Stephen
> The game devolved into a slugging match. I did all the manoeuvring as
No, just bad luck I think! They should be no more prone to core system hits
than any other ships that reach threshold points, though of course the NSLs
have lots of armour to soak off hits before they start doing hull damage,
which may delay the onset of threshold rolls.
[snipped battle notes]
> One of my biggest problems now with the FSE and ESU fleets is the lack
Some very interesting battle reports coming in here, good to see how the FB
is shaping up with repeated use. Can I just reiterate one point - the
FSE and ESU DON'T lack ADFC ships just because they are not listed in the
FB!!
The FB designs are examples only, and almost all classes will have minor
variants in service - in the case of heavier escorts and cruisers this
will almost certainly include some ADFC variants, you just have to do the mods
yourselves. Want AD cover for your ESU fleet? Ditch some offensive weapons off
a Voroshilev and stick an ADFC and a couple more PDS on!
:)
> P.S. would any one be willing to GM a PBEM game?
Yes, for FB vector movement engagements using some kind of sensor rules
(probably Schoon's). Interested parties respond off list to
In a message dated 98-09-10 03:45:17 EDT, you write:
<< Some very interesting battle reports coming in here, good to see how the FB
is shaping up with repeated use. Can I just reiterate one point - the
FSE and ESU DON'T lack ADFC ships just because they are not listed in the
FB!!
The FB designs are examples only, and almost all classes will have minor
variants in service - in the case of heavier escorts and cruisers this
will almost certainly include some ADFC variants, you just have to do the mods
yourselves. Want AD cover for your ESU fleet? Ditch some offensive weapons off
a Voroshilev and stick an ADFC and a couple more PDS on! >>
Any plans on publishing more human ships? Thanks Bye Stephen P.S. what changes
will get made to the Kra'Vak and the Sa'Vasu? (its some thing like that, but I
cant check now)
The problem is that in many comps do not allow mods or varients. Thus making
the NAC really strong against the SML system (with all their ADAF), and the
ESU really poor. The FSE have miltable fighters, so this is not such a problem
(they can have fighter screens), but a French fleet will proberbly always
loose against a NAC fleet, th reason is point defence.
Darryl
[quoted original message omitted]
> In a message dated 98-09-10 03:45:17 EDT, you write:
Possibly, but we don't want to limit players' own fleet designs by tying
every ship design down exactly - that isn't in the spirit of the game.
> Thanks
There will be changes, but I can't tell you what because they haven't been
written yet!
Well, the FSE did better this weekend; they managed a draw versus a NSL
fleet. I guess that makes them 0-2-1. (We switched commands again)
A Jerez, two Milans and five Ibizas took on a Maximillian, a Markgraf, a
Radetsky and a Walberg and a Walberg/M.
Both forces came in at high speeds in tight formations; speed 18 for the FSE
and 20 for the NSL.
On the third turn, our predicted vectors were within 12" of one another. The
NSL fleet deceleratated hard to keep the range open and take advantage of
their heavier weight of beam weapons. The Ibizas maintained course and speed
while the FSE cruisers dumped four salvoes of missiles and sheared off to port
at full thrust.
The SLMs were distributed in a diamond-shaped pattern with about an inch
between them targeting the Maximillian's predicted vector. One was out of
range, one could only reach the Radetsky and the other two were close enough
to target the Max using our house rule on using a firecon for missile
guidance.
The Ibizas were all within 6-12 inches of the entire NSL force. The
Milans were just within 12" and the Jerez was just outside 12". The cruisers
concentrated all fire on the Markgraf and the Ibizas fired everything they had
at the Maximilian.
Between the two missile salvoes and the concentrated fire of the Ibizas, the
Maximilian was completely destroyed. The missile salvo targeting the Radetsky
failed to score any hits, but did divert two of its PDS from supporting the
Maximilian. The Markgraf took minor damage from the cruisers' beam fire.
FSE lost two Ibizas outright and two others took serious threshold damage; one
lost all weapons and firecon and the other a hit to its drive. They also took
some damage on the Jerez (about half a threshold) and one of the Milans took
about a threshold and a half of damage resulting in a bridge hit.
Both forces were out of range the next 4-5 turns while they decelerated,
brought their bridges back online and repaired some damage. The Ibiza with
damage to its drive was unable to repair it and stay in formation, so it was
declared out of the action. The weaponless Ibiza remained in formation hoping
to possibly draw some fire away from its comrades.
Finally both sides came to stop relative to one another. The NSL force
came head-on at full accel, while the FSE ships struggled to get back in
formation while building up some speed.
In the next firing pass, the FSE cruisers were able to bring two salvoes of
missiles in on the Markgraf and one on the Waldberg. The fourth went astray.
The missiles targeting the Markgraf were very accurate (11? on target) and
while the NSL PDS put in a decent performance, it was not enough. The NSL BC
was destroyed, but not before delivering a deadly salvo
of beams. At the end of that turn's firing (range 12-24 for
everything), both of the FSE's damaged cruisers were destroyed.
The final turn of the game was short. The two fleets sole remaining cruisers
traded salvoes as their momentum carried the two fleets out of range. Since
their magazines were now empty and the NSL force still had a fair number of
beams left, the FSE opted to break off the engagement.
Final score:
NSL - both BCs lost, moderate damage to CE, no damage to the DDs
FSE - CA lost, CE lost, minor damage to CE, 2 FF lost, 2 heavily
damaged, minor damage to the last one.
Analysis: The FSE should never have come back for a second round of firing or
if they did, should have kept the range open with their cruisers. They should
also try the ER salvo missiles instead of standard against such a
beam-heavy opponent as the NSL.