I know there has been some talk going on about FB2, but I haven't really had
too much time to follow it due to busy home life, etc., so if any of what I'm
going to say has been said already, I apologize in advance:). Up until
yesterday, I had only played one game with my burgeoning Kra'vak fleet. I had
the chance to play two games with it yesterday, once against my old NSL foe,
and one against the Sa'vasku.
The first game against the NSL went pretty well. At the outset of the game, I
was outnumbered 3 to 1 (we played a 3200 pt. game, and I was a bit heavy on
capital ships since I don't yet own too many smaller ones). I had two carriers
(a light and fleet carrier), and a variety of smaller ships; the smallest
being one destroyer. My opponent had, among
the 21 ships at his disposal, frigates, Waldburg and Waldburg/M
destroyers, two Markgrafs, a Maria Von Burgund, three Kronprinz Wilhelm
cruisers configured for escort duty, and a Von Tegetthoff SD. I had a total of
11 squadrons of fighters, he had none. I let my fighters work for six full
turns before engaging him with my battle line. They neutralized the escort
cruisers first, then went after the missile destroyers and other small ships.
Finally, they went after the Von Burgund and one of the Markgrafs, before
having to return to the carriers to rearm and reorganize. I lost my light
carrier before I could relaunch the two groups of fighters that I had
embarked, but my fleet carrier was able to relaunch three groups of fighters,
which promptly went after the SD. By the end of the game, I had obliterated
the NSL fleet. All he had left were a frigate and a couple of destroyers,
while I had lost my light carrier, and a adestroyer, and suffered moderate
damage to several other ships. Although I did win the game, the outcome
concerned me, because it appeared as though the Kra'vak have a hard time
standing up to other fleets unless they use large amounts of fighters. Also,
the disparity in ship cost seems to make it prohibitive for the Kra'vak to
even want to close the range, due also in part to their basic fragility when
compared to ships of other races.
During the second game, I played against a Sa'vasku fleet. I had nine ships,
he had eleven (including six destroyers; it was a somewhat smaller game). I
had no fighters, and he had two escort carriers, although he didn't use them
to launch fighters. He began firing with his SD at 72" range, chiming in with
his other ships as the range closed. I managed to kill a couple of destroyers,
but then lost a destroyer and a heavy cruiser on the way in. On the last turn
of the game, my battledreadnought ended up within 6" of his SD. He had coasted
in, and so used all of his power points to fire weapons at me. 40 dice later,
my BDN had suffered over 30 points of damage, and lost most of its weapons. At
that point, I called the game, since my remaining ships couldn't hope to dent
what was left of the Sa'vasku.
In looking at that game, it was pretty apparent that the fact that the
Sa'vasku don't need to allocate any power to defense is a pretty overwhelming
advantage against the Kra'vak. Also, the fact that we don't play with Damage
Control rules tends to give them a strange advantage as well. Admittedly, I
haven't had the chance to use my ESU or NAC fleets against them, but it does
seem that they have a tremendous advantage, at least over the Kra'vak. I do
like the Kra'vak, but in my (admittedly limited) experience with them, they
seem to be overpriced for what they do.
So, what I'd like to know is: Have any of you who have more experience with
one or both of these alien fleets seen the same thing, or am just being whiny?
And second, if I am being whiny, what sort of tactics can you suggest for
playing the Kra'vak effectively without having to rely
too much on fighters, and/or countering the advantages of the Sa'vasku,
particularly when playing Kra'vak.
Thanks,
Preface: I have not had the chance to play Kra'Vak very much yet so take my
opionions with a grain of salt.
KV have 2 big advantages over human fleets: 1) Maneuverability. 2) Range for
even small guns.
One strategy that seems like it would work would be to use the superior
maneuverability to keep the range at about 25-30tu. At these ranges you
should out-gun your opponents. Granted, I think that this would be
easier in vector, since you don't have to be moving toward your opponent to
use your
forward facing K-Guns.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehalbe/ft/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
Hello Mark, listers,
I played a Kra'Vak v. ESU game right after buying FB2. Without screens or
their old armored hulls (a la MT), the new KV are vulnerable to the beamish
weapons of the Hu'Mans. Maintaining that glory zone range as Mr.Bell
suggested is of utmost import. My battle was a 1500-point cinematic
game, and I got closer than I wanted to get. The victory points were so close
that we agreed to call the outcome a draw. The best advice I can give to you
and myself is practice maneuvering to maintain the range where you have arms
advantage.
I have not dealt with the SV yet. <cringe>
Bill
In a message dated 7/17/00 12:39:22 PM Central Daylight Time,
> mreindl@pacbell.net writes:
> So, what I'd like to know is: Have any of you who have more
> the outcome concerned me, because it appeared as though the
The KV have average or better hull strength so they aren't that fragile, they
just don't have defenses against beams, other than maneuverability. One thing
you did stumble on was a weakness the KV have against a fleet of lots of small
ships and from your description, that is what you faced. The KGuns can do some
massive damage, but if your target is a frigate, that could lead to lots of
wasted overkill.
> During the second game, I played against a Sa'vasku fleet. I had nine
I'll ask why did you let that happen? Your opponent was able to predict where
you would end up and you let him save power by not using thrust
> In looking at that game, it was pretty apparent that the fact that the
True, it is a rock/paper/scissors type of thing, benefit against one
race, bane against another. But also remember that the KV never had to use
mass for screen generators or screen nodes. That mass was used elsewhere (more
guns, more hull, etc) so these strengths to your advantage.
> Also, the fact that we
Ouch, that would hurt as well, especially with larger ships
> what sort of tactics can
Anyone playing against the SV has to create multiple threats so the SV can't
pile all of their power in one bucket, and then hit them when they don't
expect it. If the SV guess where you will be and what you plan correctly, they
can optimize for that situation, so don't be predictable. If you can surprise
them and hit them when they planned for something else, the can be easy
targets. Force the SV to use power maneuvering, the KV have a better chance of
doing this than the Human or Phalon fleets. You can't force the SV to add
power to the Defensive pool, but that is a KV thing, but you can take away
attack dice aimed towards your ships by making the SV fire at fighters (and
also create their own fighters which takes more power). The fleet you took
against the NSL might have faired much better than what you did take. Don't
get too close to the SV, their beam firepower doubles each range band you get
closer while the SV pods have less range and a worse
to-hit than KGuns. I would not get within 12" if I could help it, or at
least force the SV to thrust in order to get that close.
> "Bell, Brian K" wrote:
> One strategy that seems like it would work would be to use the
If I didn't mention it, we play cinematic. I thought that'd be a viable tactic
also, although it's difficult to do, particularly if the playing surface is
somewhat limited. Still, that was one of the things that I did that seemed to
work well against the humans, but the abilities of the Sa'vasku (such as
having weapons that have the capacity to outrange anything else, and being
just as maneuverable as the KV) nullify that tactic rather easily.
Mark
> -----
Hello Mark, (and everyone else!)
> From: Mark Reindl <mreindl@pacbell.net>
> So, what I'd like to know is: Have any of you who have more experience
I've written to the list on this very subject before. In the battles Kra'Vak
vs Sa'Vasku, and Phalon's vs Sa'Vasku, the Sa'Vasku were victorious due to the
opponents becoming despondent about the whole thing and having no hope of
victory. Movement method was cinematic and ships were FB2 designs. The
Sa'Vasku would apply max power to thrust, then cruise at speed with sufficient
power to make turns of up to 3 with the remaining power being applied to the
offensive pool. The Sa'Vasku player did not even fire a single pod, as there
was simply no need. He just coasted around using his stingers to great effect.
My Kra'Vak forces were decimated and i put this down to a redundent defensive
pool when playing Kra'Vak. With the Phalons, advanced drives and long range
fire were the name of the game which favoured the Sa'Vasku.
Beth suggested that the spicules draw from the defensive pool which while
being a good suggestion, only applies when fighters and missiles get a look
in. Neither of the two battles mentioned featured fighters or drone groups.
IMHO, I find that Sa'Vasku have a tremendous advantage in that extremely
variable thrust leads to greater unpredictability when trying to figure out
where their movement may end. Learning to predict movement is important
especially when cinematic rules are used (as we do) and you're using Kra'Vak.
I can't suggest a method for using Kra'Vak to beat Sa'Vasku, and I for one
would like to hear what other list members think about this.
Cheers,
> So, what I'd like to know is: Have any of you who have more
The SV are too powerful vs the KV. You're not being too whiny, the
play-testing
was inadequate.
I speak as one of the play-testers.
All I can say is that there was a shipload of playtesting, but this didn't
come out.
OK, so what is the solution? Things currently being tried are:
a) Spicules come from the Defensive energy allocation pile. (Good as far as it
goes, but not enough) b) Cost of Stinger fire increased by 1 pt per die ( so
at range 36" it costs
4+1 = 5, at 12" it is 1+1 = 2) *OR*
c) Range brackets for Stingers decreased to 8" or even 6" instread of 12". So
it costs 1 pt at 6, 2 at 12, 4 at 18 etc.
I play exclusivly vector and have found in both the games of FB2, that I have
played, that the KV die really easily. The first game I made a big tactical
error, and went after the humans, this being a three sided game, and the SV
picked at both of us at long range. The second game I ran KV against PH and
found that again, I died, but suprisingly, my fellow KV player did fairly well
against the PH. I came charging straight at the PH, and learned how costly
this was. The PH area effect weapon is very deadly, and the fact that my
fellow KV player had to manuver through an asteriod field probably helped him.
Also, one other point, is that he ran four identical Ti'Daks while I ran one
Lo'Vok, one Ko'Tek's, and one Vo'bok. So my ideas for playing with the KV are:
1. Again, keep the optimum range 2. Spread your fleet out, so that the one PH
bolt cannot hit more than one ship 3. Maybe running the four identical
cruisers was a good thing, but I will have to try this. 4. SV have no staying
power, and once you start killing them, they cannot stick around cause all
their good weapons use biomass
What do you think?
[quoted original message omitted]
One, seemingly simple, fix may be to mandate that if a SV construct has screen
nodes, that ONE be powered at all times. AND mandate that all SV at mass 91
and above must carry a screen node.
I have not playtested this, but it seems to be worth looking at. I looked at
making all screen nodes manditory, but that usually takes half (or more) of
the available power. The second part about mandating a screen node on SV
constructs larger than 91 mass was added as an after-thought to help
when
custom fleets are brought to a one-off game. I chose 91 for 2 reasons:
1) It covered all the ships in FB2. 2) It is a seperation point between
Capital ships and Cruisers.
This would go a long way to lowering the effectiveness of SV fleets against
all species fleets. It tops the power curve. On average a screen node takes
about 25% of the available power (give or take a point using the FB2 ships).
Thus, the SV construct would have only about 75% of power to apply to weapons
or drive.
I also like this because it does not take any changing of existing rules (just
adding two new rules).
I would, lastly, suggest one exception to this rule. A SV construct may
unpower the screen if it is engaging (writing orders to use) the FTL node.
Situations not handled by this rule:
- Constructs under 91 mass. Smaller ships are generally less powerful
in comparison to larger ships, so have thier own drawbacks.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> -----Original Message-----
> -----Original Message-----
After being thouroughly trashed by the Savasku a few times I've learned that
you HAVE to make them use their power for manouvering to be able to
survive.... But another thing I find really bad with the Savasku is the fact
that they can still dish out immense amounts of damage after taking a few hits
in ANY arc. They can still put 40beam dice in their rear arc, and mostly all
the Savasku ships have enough stingers to mean the only real "damage" you do
to Savasku is the PowerGen, as they've got enough redundency to punch darn
hard even after losing almost every stinger...And they are effectively never
out of arc, which again means forcing them to manouver is darn hard... Though
this might be because of the "low" (at least compared to
Ãrjan) speeds we normally use (10-15ish).
Just thought I'd add my own problems with the Savasku, though I must condition
it with the fact that I've only played like 3 battles against
them...
> -----Original Message-----
I don't have the FB2 with me here, but you are right I assume, but I can limit
my point a bit and then it still stands....Except rear arc, you can be in
mostly any arc with the Savasku (except mostly rear) and they can still hit
you darn hard, often beam damage similar to the heavy NSL ships....
> 2. Only 2 of the designs have 40+ power.
Still the smaller ones can when they get all concentrated on weapon deal out
heavier damage than a beam-heavy NSL in ALL arcs (except rear), while
most
other weapons pay through their nose for all-arc weapons the the Savasku
get
away VERY cheap with really only 2 stingers one FP/F/FS and one AP/A/AS
and they can fire anywhere....
> 3. Yes, the designs have redundant arcs, but so do most other
Well the point is if you loose weapons as any other species/nation you
loose firepower too...up until the last stinger the Savasku keeps pumping out
the same level of damage and as such they are almost invulverable to threshold
damage with power not lost during the round... You have to be able to actually
blow away ALL stingers to be able to affect the Savasku's ability to damage,
while on all the others any system lost at threshold means they function at
lesser capacity, for the Savasku the effect first comes the next round...
Which makes them a lot better able to face losing the iniative...
> However, on the 4 largest SV ships your comments about losses to
Possible but in the tournament we had for a few weeks ago the Savasku beated
all the other players in around 4 or 5 matches, against widely different
oppononts, and the Savasku player is not even a very experienced FT player..
But I'm not saying they are inbeatable, just darn hard:(
> -----
> -----Original Message-----
[snip]
> After being thouroughly trashed by the Savasku a few times I've
There are some difficulties in your post.
1. Of the published designs, only 3 SV have rear arc capability.
2. Only 2 of the designs have 40+ power.
3. Yes, the designs have redundant arcs, but so do most other species ships.
However, on the 4 largest SV ships your comments about losses to thresholds
are valid. Unless you get a power center, a loss of a stinger node will not be
noticed (if it is concentrating power on one ship at a time).
And your comments on makeing the SV maneuver is correct. The way to defeat the
SV is to draw them into splitting thier power between several power
categories. Now, how to do this is another problem.
I would think that the NAC would be the best opponent for the SV from the
human side. The combination of beam and torpedo weapons should keep the SV
off-guard somewhat. They should have to provide points to screens or
maneuver. A combination fleet of NAC/FSE would be even harder, as they
would also have to use power for the spicules. But any way you look at it the
SV are tough opponents.
I recently observed a game which included some 4000 points of Sa'vasku. I did
think the Sa'vasku had a strong advantage, and didn't have to face their
normal disadvantages.
Their advantage is that their firepower can be a match for or exceed that of a
comparable sized ship of any other race in each of the range bands. In
addition, if they are willing to target only one enemy ship, they usually can
act like they have all their stingers in a 300 degree or 360 degree mount. By
comparison, Kra'vak opponents are very sensitive to arc restrictions and
Phalons tend to need to carefully select the range and
/ or
arc to engage.
The disadvantage is that the Sa'vasku, once they lose a generator, are hard
pressed to repair, maneouvre, and screen themselves. Damaged Sa'vasku, I
believe, must try to escape / widen the range, then repair themselves.
The trick is this; if the Sa'vasku stick close together and don't maneouvre
much, they can concentrate fire in truly scary amounts and you won't force
many checks on them.
I will agree that the Sa'vasku seem particularly well suited to frustrate the
Kra'vak players. They have the maneouvrability to avoid those
K-guns,
the fire arcs to move in unpredictable ways and still attack, and some extra
power because they don't need to power screens or spicules most turns against
Kra'vak. If they can get away with not powering the thrust node either, they
will eat Kra'vak alive.
Good news everyone!
I just thought I'd add my two cents on this. Recently I played in a FT
tournament here in Norway. I fought my way to the finals with my trusty NSL
fleet, squaring off against the Savasku there. I played a good battle, my
opponent made several mistakes, including a rather big one (on which I
capitalized), but he still managed to beat me, even if not by much. Now, this
was a small game so my first thought was that he had an amazing fleet for a
1000 pt game. Four fighter groups and shitloads of firepower is not too bad in
such a small engagement. Later, I've thought about it and it seems to me the
Savasku are really good, perhaps even overpowered. Hearing a playtester saying
the very same thing confirms this. They require a
little book-keeping but they're not really hard to play. Oh well, I
assume there will be some sort of errata if the designers agree. Until then
I'll try my best to give the Savasku a good spanking.
I also suspect the points concerning Kravak vs. Savasku are valid. I'm in the
process of assembling a Kravak fleet and the Savasku will be quite a
challenge, but the fact that one race does very well against one particular
other race doesn't bother me. It's when one race is amazingly good against
most everything else that I start to worry.
Oh well. It's not the end of the world. On another note I would like to
express my concern that certain Norwegian players *cough*Sindre*cough* will
soon have their Phalon fleets "up" and running. Woe the day that I look across
the table and see those horrid ships bearing down on me. Btw,
do Phalons have special rules for ramming? ;-)
Have a nice day,
HansA
"That man has missed something who has never left a brothel at dawn feeling
like throwing himself into the river out of pure disgust."
-Gustave Flaubert
I would have to agree with earlier posts in that Sa'vasku seem to be quite
hard for the opposition to deal with.
I think that i have played about 3 games at most as Sa'vasku against Kra'vak
and Phalons and i won against both of them, however at the time both facing
the Sa'vasku was new to the opponents and the fleets they were using were also
new to them. If i had played against their normal FB1 fleets, NAC and FSE, i'm
sure i would have had a lot harder time.
Having read what other people have said about evening up the Sa'vasku i would
agree that you have to force them into manouvering and using power against
fighters and missiles. Also they have a bigger advantage when given more
playing space, they can use it better than other races, and a smaller playing
space say 5ft x 5ft means that they will need power to manouver or run off the
board.
One more point of course is that when the Sa'vasku loses a power generator
they
become really disadvantaged as no other race loses 1/4 of their fire
power just from losing a row of hull boxes, in fact i would sugest that other
races would be at an advantage over Sa'vasku after losing a row of hull boxes,
and it does not seem as simple to repair the Sa'vsku as it is to repair
systems for the other races.
I can envisage the Sa'vasku taking a serious beating from the NAC or FSE with
SML's, fighters and P'torps all used together, in a concerted attack on the
larger Sa'vasku ships.
> Alan Brain wrote:
> The SV are too powerful vs the KV. You're not being too whiny, the
This is one of the surprisingly few FB2 issues where I and Alan actually agree
<g>
> OK, so what is the solution? Things currently being tried are:
a2) Pods come from the R pool, just like the other activities which
consume biomass (ie., repair and drone-growing).
Since the Interceptor Pods are the main SV line of defence against
enemy fighters/missiles/plasma bolts, these two modifications together
force the SV to think a bit more about their power allocation when faced by
these weapons. (Missiles and plasma bolts can of course be defeated by using
extreme thrust levels as well, but that also reduces the power available for
the A pool quite a bit.). The drawback with a2) is that it makes Lance and
Leech pods weaker.
> b) Cost of Stinger fire increased by 1 pt per die ( so at range 36" it
b) pretty much locks the SV into the "fast long-range sniper" box.
c) looks promising. During the past few weeks I've also been trying out an
idea we had early during the FB2 design:
d) Require the SV to readjust their power pools *immediately* whenever they
lose a Power Generator, reducing the amount of unused power by the amount
supplied by the PG (or to 0, whichever comes first). "Unused"
power is power which has not been used during the battle - ie., power
used for movement, to activate screen nodes or Spicules (or even Interceptor
Pods), all of which happens before the ship can take damage
- cannot be discarded in this way. It is usually the A pool which takes
the hit (or possibly the R pool, if the ship has planned repairs or drone
growing).
This change addresses exactly the problem Sindre brought up earlier today, ie.
that the larger SV ships usually don't lose much firepower from threshold hits
until the *next* turn. It swings the other way
instead - the first threshold becomes even nastier for the SV than it
is for the other races. The main drawback with it, and IIRC the reason
it was dropped, is that it increases the paperwork further - but there
have been several other simplifications as well since then.
Regards,
> Hans Arne Toverud Georgsen wrote:
> On another note I would like to express my concern that certain
"Running"?
> Woe the day that I look across the table and see those horrid ships
Stay out of his chosen combat range for as long as possible, concentrate fire
against one ship at a time, and use a sprinkling of
fighters and/or missiles to force him to divert his Pulsers (and
sometimes his PBLs as well) from your ships. Avoiding his plasma bolts is
optional but recommended.
And don't allow yourself to be distracted by the visual appearence of
the ships, of course :-)
> Btw, do Phalons have special rules for ramming? ;-)
They may only ram Sa'Vasku ships with drone wombs. If rammed by any other
ships, they take an automatic Bridge hit in addition to the
normal damage inflicted. (*Why*? Have you never had something hard -
someone's knee, for example - rammed into your little friend...?)
;-)
> Paul Radford wrote:
> I've written to the list on this very subject before. In the battles
That's the easiest way to win any battle, and the only way to win a war
:-/
> Movement method was cinematic and ships were FB2 designs. The
They were never hit by plasma bolts, then?
> He just coasted around using his stingers to great effect. My Kra'Vak
Depends a bit on the Pulser mix the Phalons use though, and as usual on the
table size. You need a fairly large (or floating) table in order to stay
outside range 36mu all the time, and only the SV BCs and bigger
are able of firing in the 36-48mu range band while simultaneously
powering their engines.
'Course, a Phalon fleet with most or all of its Pulsers set to "L" will be
vulnerable if the Sa'Vasku charge in close instead, but charging in close
requires the SV to maneuver (which reduces their firepower) and makes their
end locations a lot more predictable (you know where you're going, so you know
where they need to be if they want to close the range to outgun you, and so
you've got a decent chance to hit them with plasma bolts if they try). And, of
course, having a couple of spare Pulsers set to "C" may come as a nasty
surprise for SV that get too close <g>
> Beth suggested that the spicules draw from the defensive pool which
> get a look in. Neither of the two battles mentioned featured fighters
Spicules "rolls one die with exactly the same effects as a standard PDS",
which means that they also work against Plasma Bolts. At least
the Phalons ought to have had *some* of those :-/
> IMHO, I find that Sa'Vasku have a tremendous advantage in that
The most important in the SV case is to figure out where they'll end up
if they coast or use very little thrust - that's where you *don't* want
to end up yourself. If they make any more radical maneuvers, their
firepower drops to more managable levels; even thrust-3 soaks up around
25-30% of the power available to an undamaged SV ship. (OK, 37.5% for
the Thy'Sa'Teth and only 17.7% for the Fo'Sath'Aan, but those are
extreme cases :-/ )
> Learning to predict movement is important especially when cinematic
Predict movement has always been important for FSE players or other
missile users, or anyone using (F)-arc weapons, but now everyone needs
to do it :-/
Regards,
> Mark Reindl wrote:
> The first game against the NSL went pretty well. At the outset of the
IOW the carriers and their fighters made up over half of your entire fleet,
both in mass and in points. Out of curiousity, what were your other
ships - I'm guessing at BB+2xCS+CL?
> My opponent had, among the 21 ships at his disposal, frigates,
He didn't carry anything in the fighter bay aboard the von Tegetthoff, then?
OK, both of you wasted one fighter bay so I guess it evened out.
(Bringing empty fighter bays to a battle is IMO a waste of points - the
effective cost of the bay is around 40-50 points depending on the ship
you use, and you can usually use those points in a more profitable way
:-/)
> I let my fighters work for six full turns before engaging him
Given how fighter-heavy your force was, you had no other choice. You
don't seem to have used the fighter morale rules, though? If you did use them,
you must've been extremely lucky not to have most of your fighters go berserk
and spend all their endurance early on...
> They neutralized the escort cruisers first,
OK so far
> then went after the missile destroyers and other small ships.
Um... Why go after his *missile* destroyers, unless you had already killed all
of his other small ships (which it seems you hadn't, since one FF survived)?
Given the number of scatterguns on your ships, his salvo missiles were by far
the least of your worries.
[snip]
> Although I did win the game, the outcome concerned me, because it
Considering that you don't seem to have actually used any of the KV's
advantages against human fleets in general and the NSL in particular,
that sounds as a somewhat hasty conclusion :-/
NSL ships are favourite targets for the Kra'Vak: slow (which means easy
both to target with K-guns and to outmaneuver) and lots of armour
(which doesn't give much protection against the bigger K-guns). They do
however have quite heavy beam batteries, and tend to outgun the KV in
the (F) arc in the 0-12mu range band (and also in the 30-36mu range
band where their B3s can hit you and you can't hit back). Because of
this, trying to attack NSL ships head-on at point-blank range is
usually a bad idea for the Kra'Vak. In fact, trying to attack *anyone*
head-on at point-blank range is usually a bad idea for the Kra'Vak.
However, if the KV are able to attack the NSL ships from the 12-30
range band, or are able to attack from other angles than the NSL (F) arc
(preferrably the rear 180 degree arc), the tables are turned. Which of the two
attack options is easiest depends on the movement system you
use - IME it is easier for the KV to control the range in Vector, while
in Cinematic it is easier for them to control the arc (unless the enemy slows
to a standstill and spins in place, in which case you're close to the Vector
situation again). Unless the table is so small that the NSL can sit still in
the middle and cover *all* of it with their beams, the KV should be able to
carry out their first attack, or even the first few attacks, from positions of
their own choosing.
If the enemy ships have heavy human-style (single-layer) armour, and
NSL ships do, remember to use your K1s+fighters against different
targets as your heavier K-guns to avoid destroying armour unnecessarily
- NSL ships in particular can be destroyed without losing all their
hull boxes when hit by heavy K-guns. DDs and smaller are generally good
K1 and fighter targets due to their weaker armour. Against multi-layer
- ie., Phalon - armour, K1 plinking and fighter attacks can wear down
the outer armour layers enough to let the big guns inflict more hull damage.
> Also, the disparity in ship cost seems to make it prohibitive for the
Why on Earth - sorry, "why in space", or possibly "why on Zha'Vak" -
*would* they want to close the range? Closing from range 14 to range 11 will
increase *your* firepower by 33%, but it'll increase *their* firepower by 100%
or more (often much more). In addition you increase the risk of having the
intended target end up outside your (F) arc if you go closer.
The only times you should attempt to attack up close is when you *know* that
you're going to outgun them (eg. when attacking carriers, or when you can
attack into their (A) arc and you're certain that they aren't
going to coast and thus be able to shoot back with their all-arc
weapons), and when they're threatening you with fighters/missiles/
plasma bolts and you need to end the battle before you run out of scatterguns.
> During the second game, I played against a Sa'vasku fleet.
...so against the one enemy where you really, *really* want fighters to give
him something else than your ships to spend his power on, you
didn't have any :-(
> He began firing with his SD at 72" range, chiming in with his other
Hm. With the big K-guns you needed about as much damage to kill two DDs
as you need to knock the first power generator off the SD. Did they maneuver
enough to stay out of your (F) arc, so you could only use the K1s?
> but then lost a destroyer and a heavy cruiser on the way in. On the
I hope the reason you allowed it to *coast* to within 6mu of your ship was to
line up your main guns against it! If he wants to get close to your ships, at
least force him to allocate power to his engines...
> In looking at that game, it was pretty apparent that the fact that
The only KV weapon able to force the SV to allocate power to defence (ie. to
defensive weapons, not the D pool) are their fighters.
> Also, the fact that we don't play with Damage Control rules tends to
More importantly for you, it gives the Kra'Vak a disadvantage against
*everyone*, since their main weapons tend to be larger than those of most
other races (ie., they get more firepower back for each successful repair
roll).
> I do like the Kra'vak, but in my (admittedly limited) experience with
That was a pretty common reaction for new KV players during the playtests.
Those who faced experienced KV players for the first time
seemed to consider the KV quite *under*priced instead, though :-/
> So, what I'd like to know is: Have any of you who have more
The SV are overpowered against everyone, but the KV gets a worse deal than
most. You're not *just* whiny; the odds were rather heavily
stacked against you - and they would've been so even if you had chosen
a better fleet mix and been more observant about where coasting SV
ships would end up :-/
> And second, if I am being whiny, what sort of tactics can you suggest
Against the NSL I think you *are* whiny <g> The KV have three advantages in
this matchup:
1) a firepower advantage at medium ranges even in the NSL's (F) arc,
2) weapons which bypass much of the NSL ships' passive protection
3) the maneuverability to make sure that the KV *aren't* in the NSL's
(F)
arc (or at the very least that they are at medium range, if you're playing
Vector), and that their own weapons are trained at the enemy.
Against the NSL, the KV fighters don't figure in any of these three advantages
(though against anyone with screens, and the ESU in particular, they can be
included in 2)).
Unfortunately your carrier fleet replaced both 1) and 2) with fighters, and 3)
on its own isn't enough to win battles. When you learn how to use all three of
the above advantages, you'll do much better.
IME the KV's most dangerous FB1 enemy are the NAC, and particularly the
lighter NAC ships (CH and down) - they're fast enough to stay out of
the KV (F) arcs much of the time, and have decent wide-arc beam
batteries (but trying to use those (F)-arc P-torps of theirs against KV
is rather futile!). FSE can be dangerous as well, due to their high
maneuverability and their relatively large number of all-arc weapons,
but their missiles are next to useless against Kra'Vak maneuverability and
scatterguns. Against the ESU you have the same advantages as against the NSL,
with the additions that your fighters too are able to ignore the main passives
(in this case screens) and that it is less
critical to keep K1/fighter and K2+ targetting separate due to the
ESU's lesser use of armour.
> and/or countering the advantages of the Sa'vasku, particularly when
Much harder. Some things which help, but aren't enough:
* Use fighters to draw off fire from your ships.
* Try to keep the range open (ie., outside range 12) - they gain more
than you do by getting close. You know where they'll end up if they coast, so
don't go there yourself unless you have to! * SV ships of cruiser size and up
are heavily enough armoured that you
want to keep K1 and K2+ targetting separate as far as possible.
Various measures to adjust the SV in general have been discussed in other
posts.
Dean Gundberg wrote in reply to Mark, regarding the KV/NSL battle:
> One thing you did stumble on was a weakness the KV have against a
However, only the biggest K-guns do enough damage to overkill frigates
badly - and unless I'm very much mistaken, Mark didn't have more than
two K5s when fighting the NSL. Most of his ship-mounted guns were K3s
and K1s, and they're just the right size for killing escorts :-/
Regards,
> on 7/17/00 19:32, Corey Burger at burgundavia@crosswinds.net wrote:
> 1. Again, keep the optimum range
True. Always a good tactic with any fleet when optimum range means where
your better at dealing damage than the enemy is. ;-)
> 2. Spread your fleet out, so that the one PH bolt cannot hit more than
At times this may be true but remember that closer together means ships may be
able to cover each other. Spreading out makes it easier it more likely that
something gets hit but the hits cause less total damage. If a fleet is tighter
in formation with escorts (or their equivalent) nearby the PB armed fleet
probably needs to throw the PBs a bit denser or the defensive fire eats them
up. Remember fighters that move (using either of primary or
secondary movement to get there as well as non dog-fighting CAP I'd
susper) as well as any ship that's in the area of effect can fire at the PSB.
> 3. Maybe running the four identical cruisers was a good thing, but I
I have to disagree with you on part of this one, respectfully of course
;-]
The Stingers I feel are the primary SV weapon with great range (if enough
energy is around) and incredible fire power potential at closer range -
as well as great arcs when you consider that any functioning stinger can
potentially channel all the A energy if firing at a single target. I agree
with you on the staying power issue - as they loose biomass they
potentially loose PGs, resulting in less energy, making it a tough choice on
whether to spend some of the remaining energy on repairing those PG(s) or
combat systems if their still in the thick of combat.
> What do you think?
Well...you got my comments. I hope their helpful.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Mark Reindl wrote:
Let's see, it was one heavy carrier, one light carrier, one BDN, one CA, 2 CL,
1 DD. I know it goes too much towards the heavy, but given the points and
current makeup of my fleet, I didn't have a whole lot of choice.
> He didn't carry anything in the fighter bay aboard the von Tegetthoff,
I used all fighter bays, he didn' t use his.
> Given how fighter-heavy your force was, you had no other choice. You
Didn't use them. We haven't used them yet, nor have we used Damage Control
rules.
> Um... Why go after his *missile* destroyers, unless you had already
Chalk that up to my previous experiences with salvo missiles. Remember, I'm
still trying to figure out how this fleet works in comparison to my ESU fleet,
which I play on a more regular basis. I didn't truly realize the effectiveness
of scatterguns against missile fire until the game I played last night:).
> Considering that you don't seem to have actually used any of the KV's
Perhaps. That's why I asked:).
> NSL ships are favourite targets for the Kra'Vak: slow (which means
As I am finding out. As I said before, I wrote this to ask for ideas, which
you are very generous in giving. Since FB1 came out, I've been playing ESU.
They are, in many respects, I think, one of the easiest fleets to play given
their relatively good defenses and attack abilities. Plus, they're pretty
straightforward as well. The Kra'vak are certainly a different breed (and not
all of us had the opportunity to playtest them before they came out:). I was
surprised at the changes from MT, most notably the lack of armor or other
defenses on their ships. As I am discovering, they seem to require quite a bit
more finesse than their background would certainly indicate. I'm not
altogether sure that having stronger hulls than equivalent human classes is
*that* great an advantage. The reason I say that is due to threshholds. For
example, a Maria Von Burgund has only 36 hull points, but also mounts 10
points of armor. So, all things being equal, if the Von Burgund takes 12
points of damage (let's
assume for the moment it was all in 1-point increments, with no
penetrating hits) then the ship would be nowhere near a threshhold roll. OTOH,
a
Kra-vak Ko'vol BB has 48 hull points, forcing the KV player to make a
threshold check once it takes 12 points of damage. For the first check on the
Von Burgund, seven points of damage need to be done, while that would put the
KV ship more than halfway to the second check, which the Von Burgund would
have to take twice as much damage as would have to be done to the Ko'vol to
get the VB to the second check (hope that makes sense, my apologies if it did
not).
> However, if the KV are able to attack the NSL ships from the 12-30
Which
> of the two attack options is easiest depends on the movement system
Very true, I just have to learn to maneuver and be patient. My problem is that
I suppose I'm a bit too much like the KV, in that I sometimes have little
patience to setup my attacks (guess I do use morale checks after a fashion:).
> If the enemy ships have heavy human-style (single-layer) armour, and
Great suggestion, I hadn't thought of it in those terms.
> >Also, the disparity in ship cost seems to make it prohibitive for the
> The only times you should attempt to attack up close is when you
I suppose that's good advice. One of the things that I've been thinking about
is splitting up my forces more to be able to hit them with some of my ships at
any given time, rather than all of my ships at once.
> ...so against the one enemy where you really, *really* want fighters
Well, to be fair, we had originally agreed to play a game with CA types and
below, but then he decided he wanted to use his bruisers. Thought I'd try
slightly different mix of ships, for all the good it did me.
> >He began firing with his SD at 72" range, chiming in with his other
No, range was the problem. I wanted to be able to hit something, and by the
time I was close enough to the SD, I had lost initiative and so watched my BDN
get turned into so much space vapor.
> >but then lost a destroyer and a heavy cruiser on the way in. On the
Yeah, that was the plan. Unfortunately......
> > In looking at that game, it was pretty apparent that the fact that
Very true.
> >I do like the Kra'vak, but in my (admittedly limited) experience with
Well, hopefully the others in the group will feel that way as I gain more
experience with them.
> >So, what I'd like to know is: Have any of you who have more
Thanks!
> 1) a firepower advantage at medium ranges even in the NSL's (F) arc,
I experienced this one yesterday against the ESU. Vaped a Voroshilev in one
turn with three hits. He wasn't happy about that armor and screen generators
which were really so much junk at that point.
> 3) the maneuverability to make sure that the KV *aren't* in the NSL's
In reading FB1 last night, that's the conclusion that I came to,
particularly the fact that the NAC has high thrust ships with P-Torps.
Those can do a lot of damage. I'll have to keep the training wheels on for
awhile before I go after them.
> >and/or countering the advantages of the Sa'vasku, particularly when
Well, as Sa'vasku bait, I certainly hope that something is done. It's funny, I
can always tell when something in a game is overpowered without even playing
the game. If one particular player in our group plays it, it's a pretty good
bet that it has some benefit. Happens in every game we play in addition to FT.
He happens to be the SV player currently:)
I have yet to try this, but I think I will use needle beams against the SV,
more now, as the person in our group who plays them only has three stinger
nodes on the largest ship, and thus is very vunerable.
One idea that has come from our group is to make the Sa'vasku engines non
advanced, as this would mean more power is needed to keep manouverability,
especialy with the bigger ships and thus cutting down the amount of power free
for weapons fire.
Must credit Mike Flavin for this idea, i quite like it as its fairly easy to
implement. What does the rest of the list think?
> From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
> due to the opponents becoming despondent about the whole thing and
> That's the easiest way to win any battle, and the only way to win a war
This is true, but its never happened before in any of our FT games up until
the SV came along. They usually get fought to the bitter end!
> Movement method was cinematic and ships were FB2 designs. The
Not once! The player using the Phalons was not me, but someone who has played
using FSE fleets for about 80% of his many FT games. My point being that he
has the most experience (in our group) when it comes to placing missile
markers for intercepting and hitting ships. Even with the area effect of the
PBL, he was unable to hit a SV ship.
> Depends a bit on the Pulser mix the Phalons use though, and as usual on
He had a mix of C, M, and L range in case the SV came in close (they never
really did). We always use floating tables, and yes, he always avoided the
PBLs. The range wasn't always greater than 36", but being completely
unpredictable as to where an SV ship will end up, the PBLs were never on
target. He didn't need to use the smaller ships for long range firing. The SV
capital ships chipped away at the Phalons. If the Phalons had gone for all
long range Pulsars, the player felt he might have done better (but he wasn't
to know what would happen with it being his first game against
SV).
On average, the Phalon ships were getting one or two dice to attack with each
turn. The SV were inflicting much more. Incidentally, this battle was on my
web pages (Siege of Lienz: Random Factors). So was the other SV fiasco (Siege
of Lienz: Time To Depart).
> Spicules "rolls one die with exactly the same effects as a standard
The ships were equipped but as mentioned, never came close.
Cheers,
> Mark Reindl wrote:
> IOW the carriers and their fighters made up over half of your entire
...but didn't you say it was a 3200-point battle? The above fleet, with
11 standard KV fighter squadrons, adds up to 3396 points.
> He didn't carry anything in the fighter bay aboard the von
Argh. Yes, of course you did - I had the Draath and Ko'San fighter
groups mixed up; sorry about that.
> You don't seem to have used the fighter morale rules, though? If you
OK.
> Um... Why go after his *missile* destroyers, unless you had already
"Completely differently" is the simplest way to express it :-) The ESU
are like thugs armed with baseball bats; the Kra'Vak are more like fencers
with rapiers.
> NSL ships are favourite targets for the Kra'Vak: slow (which means
They are indeed <g>
> The Kra'vak are certainly a different breed (and not all of us had the
You may have used the MT rules for them, though. The engines and
maneuverability are unchanged from MT, though their virtual
invulnerability to all and sundry has gone :-)
> I was surprised at the changes from MT, most notably the lack of
That's why the Sia'Na are so important <g>
> I'm not altogether sure that having stronger hulls than equivalent
But how do you justify assuming "1-point increments, with no
penetrating hits" when you're flying a *Kra'Vak* fleet? The only time that
comes even close to be true is when you use only fighters, K1s and
scatterguns - even the lowly K2 inflicts more damage on hull than on
armour against human and SV ships.
If you shoot at that MvB with K3s instead, the average damage needed to reach
the first threshold *is* just the 12 points you thought wouldn't be enough. If
you shoot it with a K5, you need just over 10 points to reach the first
threshold (10.33, that last third coming from the
one-in-six chance that the K5 doesn't inflict double damage).
In short, while the Kra'Vak hulls aren't the best possible option against
human weapons, they're at least as good as the human armoured
(not to mention screened!) hulls are against most *Kra'Vak* weapons :-/
> However, if the KV are able to attack the NSL ships from the 12-30
Which
> of the two attack options is easiest depends on the movement >>system
Often you only have to be patient for one turn, though <g>
> If the enemy ships have heavy human-style (single-layer) armour, and
Should of course read "...without losing all their ARMOUR boxes when
hit..." <sigh>
> One of the things that I've been thinking
Attack from opposite directions; if he turns to face one the other group goes
into his (A) arc while the first group turns away (Kra'Vak are *good* at
turning away quickly <g>). The risk of being defeated in detail is quite high,
though.
> ...so against the one enemy where you really, *really* want fighters
Too bad you didn't use the fleet mixes in the other order, though :-(
> I do like the Kra'vak, but in my (admittedly limited) experience
<g>
> And second, if I am being whiny, what sort of tactics can you
...but I think you'll get out of it as you learn how to use the KV
fully :-)
> 2) weapons which bypass much of the NSL ships' passive protection
Exactly :-) I bet he would've liked replacing the screens and some of
the armour with more plain hull boxes <G>
> IME the KV's most dangerous FB1 enemy are the NAC, and >>particularly
Never mind the P-torps - as I wrote above, trying to use them against
Kra'Vak is rather futile - you're much more able to dodge than he is!
The big danger with the NAC is that they can stay out of your (F) arc
long enough to wear you down with their broadside-arc beam batteries.
Regards,
G'day guys,
I go away for a week and come back to find everybody hates our spiny little
buddies;) And just when we were getting the hang of coordinating attacks with
their movement so they had nothing to hit us with, sigh. To be fair the SV
probably do need a bit of a nudge - cymbal attacks (hitting hard from
multiple sides all at once and then picking off the 'stunned' victim) probably
aren't everybody's idea of a good cup of tea;)
Just a few razoos worth
1) While they are good (advanced tech and all that) I don't think its to
the extent of 5 for 10 as someone suggested, we've played a few games where
the SV were 75% of the KV force points wise and they got their head handed to
them (as pointed out when they crumple they go down fast so the difference
isn't 2x overall). 2) I'd keep the advanced drives (it fits their overall
flexibility and doesn't mean all the FB2 SSDs would be out of date). 3) I
wouldn't go for enforced screens either, no other race is forced to
have screens at high masses so the SV shouldn't either (they're
bio-constructs so the designers are going to have figured out how to get
around that one anyway). 4) I do find putting spicules into the D pool and
pods into the R pool a
very neat way of trimming the A pool monsters (when given the choice I always
opt for that house rule now), but I guess that only works when
you're in a PB/fighter intensive playing field (like ours) - and yes our
Phalons have been able to hit the SV, though they have also been known to hit
themselves;) 5) We've decided to keep the 'strike the colours' rule for them,
but more
as a morale based thing - you really want to leave before you lose so
many PG you can't FTL anymore. 6) While I'd like to keep the range brackets at
6" or 12" (easier to remember that way) I guess I can manage to remember 8";)
7) I wouldn't put an arbitrary cap on the number of power points you can
put through a stinger
8) If re-costing the shots is absolutely necessary to getting a better
perceived balance then OK, but I'd probably prefer seeing if one of the other
options worked first.
So like I said they need a nudge (and not with a sledge hammer), it did take
us quite a few games to get them sorted and they still don't throw
games that pan out like our more usual games - much more cat and mousey,
but given Mikko's earlier comments on that topic I'm guessing that's not up
everyone's alley;)
Better go before my jet-lag makes me even less coherent than usual ;)
Beth
> On Mon, 24 July 2000, Beth Fulton wrote:
> 2) I'd keep the advanced drives (it fits their overall flexibility and
> doesn't mean all the FB2 SSDs would be out of date).
I agree with this.
> 3) I wouldn't go for enforced screens either, no other race is forced
Same here. I don't like rules that enforce something this arbitrary.
> 4) I do find putting spicules into the D pool and pods into the R pool
> always opt for that house rule now), but I guess that only works when
One comment about this: I have NO problem with the SV being unbalanced unless
fighters are used. Seriously. If the SV ships hammer any
non-fighter equiped fleet, I have no problems with that whatsoever.
First off, the point values, as in any game, are to give you an idea of a
ship's overall value. Maybe it's my playing of SG2 so much, but I rarely play
"meeting engagements" anyway. I much prefer having scenarios. So I have no
problems with saying, "Gee, that FSE fleet doesn't have any fighters. Guess
the scenario will call for X fewer SV or Y more FSE ships to balance things."
Sure, I want the points to be roughly even between ships, but I have no qualms
about saying fighters or salvo missiles are needed to balance the SV. Let's
face it, an FSE carrier is worth far more than its points if it's up against a
NAC fleet with little PDS.
> 5) We've decided to keep the 'strike the colours' rule for them, but
I've always liked the "strike the colours" rule. My scenarios usually
run along the lines of, "if X number of ships are destroyed/heavily
damaged, the fleet gets out of there!". Makes for a more interesting scenario
when you have to manage your resources. It also gets around the tendency to
waste smaller escort ships.
I think for the SV, it may be an even bigger deal. Do these ships actually
think? Feel pain? How hard are they to construct? Losing them may be a huge
deal.
> 6) While I'd like to keep the range brackets at 6" or 12" (easier to
I like the fact that FT (and the other GZG games for that matter) keept things
consistent. I'd prefer 6" to 8" for that reason. If I couldn't go 6, I'd be
more tempted to try 9", as it's half way between 6 and 12. Just a personal
preference.
> 7) I wouldn't put an arbitrary cap on the number of power points you
Agree.
> 8) If re-costing the shots is absolutely necessary to getting a better
> perceived balance then OK, but I'd probably prefer seeing if one of
Agree again. *L*
I'm going to suggest one other thing, too... Let's assume, for a moment, that
the FB1 ships are really at a disadvantage to the SV. That's not surprising,
though, if the FB1 races had never encountered anyone LIKE the SV.
So, the question is: are FB1 systems overpriced compared to SV ships, or are
SV systems underpriced, or is it just the ship designs currently in the books
that are "off kilter"?
I'm guessing it's a bit of both, but I'm wondering if it's possible to build
SV killers. Maybe a fleet of ships heavy on Salvo Missiles and fighters.
Hmmm... Looks like I might have to play a bit...
> So like I said they need a nudge (and not with a sledge hammer), it
That may do it, but I would suggest a mixed fleet would work best against the
SV by forcing them to put power into more categories.
I would suggest a mixed fleet with Beams, P-Torps, Missiles, and
Fighters.
The Beams would encourage points spent on screens, P-Torps would negate
some of the screen effect. Missiles and Fighters would necessitate power used
in the spicules (and mass for interceptor pods) [especially if power for
specules is moved to the defense pool].
And since I use genre weapons, I would suggest adding one Wave Gun. (But
that's just me).
I do like adding "strike the colors" rules to scenarios. I would think the SV
constructs take a long time to grow, so unless they have a huge number just
setting around soaking up the sun, they would be too valuable to loose
unnecessarily.