Hi Guys,
Fought a 4,000 point battle last night. I had to mass 180 tenders and 36 mass
10 gunboats. I used two types of guns, based on the same mass 10 hull and cost
37 points each (including weapons). No FTL, Thrust of 4, 1 hull, 1 armor, 1
FC, and 1 PDAF (wasted, he had no fighters). Torp varrient had one single arc
pulse trop. The other had two needle beams. DO NOT USE NEEDLE BEAMS. I had
never tried them before and don't recommend them... I depoloyed the boats in
flotillas of 6, I had 4 flotillas of torp and 2 of needles.
I like the torp varient, it is a little pain in the neck that will kill you in
large numbers... I don't think that a SBM version would be a good idea.
Although it would have the same arc, and massive damage within 6", you have to
get to within 6". My StrikeBoats never ended their movement that close.
I ended up losing the battle (my co-commander had a force of 4 NAC BB's,
opposition had 4 ESU SDN's, 3 ESU CA's (the SMR CA), and 3 ESU DD's...) Are
force came went at the ESU gunline in two waves... Strike Boats and Tenders in
the first, BB's in the second (I wanted it to be one wave,
but my co-commander refused).
1 SDN was crippled, 1 SDN damage, 1 SDN lost 2 FC, and the other suffered no
damage despite having 12 needle beems shooting at it's fire controls. Losses
were 10 strike boats and 1 tender destroyed (Reacter...), and 1 tender damage,
and the ESU expend all his SM's. The 4 NAC BB's went in and were all crippled
and only achieved crippling one DD, and crippling the damaged SDN.
The game was called at this point, the NAC BB's surrendered. My forces
probably wouldn't have been enough to kill the ESU at this point. I would have
reloaded my Strike Boats, and jumped out.
> Fought a 4,000 point battle last night. I had to mass 180 tenders and
Torp
> varrient had one single arc pulse trop. The other had two needle
I'd say that generally anti-fighter weapons are wasted on stikeboat, as
are any weapons that don't do ALOT of damage. They need to deliver a nasty
payload to be effective.
The Thrust of 4 seems low to me. I think that they would have been more
effective with more maneuverability. Does this match with what you saw in this
battle?
> Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> Fought a 4,000 point battle last night.
Which movement system?
> I had to mass 180 tenders and 36 mass 10 gunboats.
The tenders must've carried some light armament, but they can't have had very
much.
> I used two types of guns, based on the same mass 10 hull and cost 37
*Much* too slow for a strikeboat IMO, regardless of which movement system you
used. I consider thrust 6 to be the absolute minimum for
non-missile strike boats attacking a mobile enemy.
> 1 hull, 1 armor, 1 FC, and 1 PDAF (wasted, he had no fighters). Torp
Depends what you're going to shoot at :-/ In this particular case,
I'd've favoured taking out the drives of those Komarovs (since you didn't have
many beam weapons, otherwise screens would've been the priority) in order to
sit in his rear arc for the rest of the battle
:-/
FC shots are good against DDs (mission-killing them with one hit) and
sometimes against cruisers, but doesn't work too well against ships with many
FCs.
'Course, if you can't roll a '6' to save your life needles aren't a very good
deal anyway <g>
> I like the torp varient, it is a little pain in the neck that will
Reasonable damage within 12mu. OK against lighter units, but not enough
against 4 Komarovs.
> I ended up losing the battle (my co-commander had a force of 4 NAC
> Are force came went at the ESU gunline in two waves... Strike Boats
The *tenders* closed with the enemy?? Why? The main reason to use
tender/strikeboat combinations is that you can keep the tender tucked
away somewhere reasonably safe!
> BB's in the second (I wanted it to be one wave, but my co-commander
Two-wave strikes with needle units in the first wave can work OK, but
it depends a lot on which systems you try to target (and what weapons
the follow-up wave use).
> 1 SDN was crippled, 1 SDN damage, 1 SDN lost 2 FC, and the other
No damage at all to the Gorshkovs and Warsaws?
> The 4 NAC BB's went in and were all crippled and only achieved
<chuckle> Sounds like a fairly normal NAC performance to me <g>
Later,
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> The game was called at this point, the NAC BB's surrendered. My
Sound like the Commander of the NAC BB squadron was an ESU plant.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Imre A. Szabo wrote:
Cinematic.
> >I had to mass 180 tenders and 36 mass 10 gunboats.
Not true. They could of eaten any CA alive... 4xTorps w/ 3 arcs, 2x
Class 2 360's, 2x Class 1 360's, 3x FC, 1x ADFC, 6x PDAF, weak hulls, 2x
Screens,
9x Armor, Sup. Sensors, FTL+ (for the boats), and a thrust of 2.
> >I used two types of guns, based on the same mass 10 hull and cost 37
Not true. I know my opponent. He likes big ships and prefers low thrust. Even
his Fleet never broke into squadrons, they stayed in a tight formation. So I
had twice the effective thrust of my opponent. It was an open space battle. No
terrain where extra thrust would have been needed.
> >1 hull, 1 armor, 1 FC, and 1 PDAF (wasted, he had no fighters). Torp
Not a bad idea, but I wanted to mission kill the SDN's so the NAC BB's would
have a chance.
> FC shots are good against DDs (mission-killing them with one hit) and
I know, but if I hadn't, the NAC BB's would have been able to go head to head
with the SDN's. Those tenders have good firepower, I expected to lose one, but
then I expected to lose more then half the StrikeBoats so I consisdered it
worth while.
> >BB's in the second (I wanted it to be one wave, but my co-commander
Bad in this case. I knew it would leave us open to defeat in detail which it
did. I want to use are supperior thrust to get behind him and stay there. If
he detached his lighter units, we could kill them before he could support
them.
> >1 SDN was crippled, 1 SDN damage, 1 SDN lost 2 FC, and the other
Insignificant damage. Less then 1 row. I concentrated all firepower on the
SDN's, NAC BB's didn't.
My damage classification: Insignificant < 1 row Light 1 row Heavy 2 rows
Crippled 3 rows
> >The 4 NAC BB's went in and were all crippled and only achieved
I know...
> Later,
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> >Fought a 4,000 point battle last night. I had to mass 180 tenders
Torp
> >varrient had one single arc pulse trop. The other had two needle
I knew he would take capital ships. I expected some combination of 4x SDN or
Attack Carriers... I had no fighters to cover them...
> The Thrust of 4 seems low to me. I think that they would have been
Only a little in this battle. See the reply on Oerjan.
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Ryan M Gill wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Imre A. Szabo wrote:
such a simple error! the Royal Navy Operations Manual clearly states
(paragraph 5, clause 17, chapter 23): "Under no circumstances shall any entity
with leaves be given command of an operational unit larger than a section,
unless Emergency Staffing Plan IX is in operation.". putting vegetative matter
in command of battle squadrons has been the downfall of many a fleet.
tom
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Ryan M Gill wrote:
I
> > > would have reloaded my Strike Boats, and jumped out.
:> There's a scene in one of David Brin's books where one of the main
characters is going into the local public library to find something in a
hurry. He storms into the building, can't see a librarian's desk, and there's
this massive potted plant in the lobby. Starts muttering about where's the
librarian and why's this big plant in the way when the 'potted plant' asks if
he needs help finding something...
Turns out the big 'potted plant' is a particularly impressive specimen of
intelligent, herbiform alien, and very intelligent to boot. Brin always has
done cool aliens.
> Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> I had to mass 180 tenders and 36 mass 10 gunboats.
But they didn't. They damaged two of the SDNs, but didn't knock any of them
out.
> 4xTorps w/ 3 arcs, 2xClass 2 360's 2x Class 1 360's, 3x FC, 1xADFC,
Ah, I thought they had thrust-4 since they went in together with the
strikeboats.
Tenders are a very expensive way of getting FTL capability for those
boats, though - if you had replaced the tenders with average-hulled
battleships (with the same equipment as the tenders except for the tug FTL
drives and having 40 hull boxes instead of 36) and made the
strikeboats Mass 11, cost 40, FTL-equipped, you could've bought another
4 or 5 strikeboats.
> I used two types of guns, based on the same mass 10 hull and cost 37
His ships also had an effective range of 48mu. Thrust-4 strike boats
might have been OK if his ships had had thrust *0*, but it is too slow
otherwise.
Units with range 48 narrow-arc weapons create their own "terrain
features" (aka fire arcs), which makes you want higher thrust ratings to avoid
them (and move at high speeds to reduce the number of times
they get to fire at you - particularly with those needle boats).
> The other had two needle beams. DO NOT USE NEEDLE BEAMS. I >>>had
A Komarov with crippled drives is effectively mission-killed. Once you
get into its rear arc, all it can do is die or flee into FTL. Three FCs is too
much to take out reliably with only 12 needles. To reiterate:
> FC shots are good against DDs (mission-killing them with one hit)
and
> sometimes against cruisers, but doesn't work too well against ships
FCs are counted "one, two, many". Komarovs have many FCs, not one or
two... and since your follow-up wave only seems to have had 4 units,
you'd've needed to take out all three FCs to mission-kill it.
OK, a Gorshkov only has about 1/5 the firepower of a Komarov and a
Warsaw or Volga has even less, but your chances to mission-kill them by
taking out their FCs are much better.
> Are force came went at the ESU gunline in two waves... Strike Boats
You mean "would not have been able to go...", no? OK, they soaked up some fire
which would otherwise have hit the strikeboats, but given how frail the
strikeboats were I don't think that effect was very significant. OTOH going in
together with the Victorias would've given
the ESU a larger number of reasonably hard-to-kill targets to shoot at,
making each of your BBs/ tenders last that much longer.
> Those tenders have good firepower, I expected to lose one, but then I
Tactically, with the tender designs you had, yes. Strategically/
economically, your armed tender designs don't make a lot of sense - you
paid more than twice as much as normal for the FTL drive on those
strikeboats, and you don't gain much in return - the usual gain is the
reduced risk of losing the FTL drive (ie, the tender).
> Two-wave strikes with needle units in the first wave can work OK, but
That is the risk you always run with two-wave strikes, yes. As I said,
it *can* work OK, but it's no sure-fire tactic. Especially not when you
use tender/strikeboat combinations instead of giving the boats their
own FTL drives, since that's a very expensive way of getting FTL
capability - buying an FTL for each of the strikeboats would've cost
you only 108 points, but a battleship with the same stats as your tenders (OK,
39 hull boxes rather than 36) for only
> I want to use are supperior thrust to get behind him and stay
Only possible if the tenders and strikeboats operate as two separate
formations, though. You report suggested otherwise, though it didn't say so
explicitly.
> 1 SDN was crippled, 1 SDN damage, 1 SDN lost 2 FC, and the other
Ie, at least two turns of needle fire wasted. Could you have hit the SDN which
lost 2 FCs with needles a second time (seeing that that way
you'd've had a decent chance of mission-killing it), or was it the one
you hit last?
> Losses were 10 strike boats and 1 tender destroyed (Reacter...), and
Given that the NAC only managed to cripple a DD (and possibly insignificant
damage to some other units), I suspect it wouldn't've
mattered much if it had concentrated its fire anyway :-/
> My damage classification:
Similar to what I use, yes.
Regards,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> You mean "would not have been able to go...", no? OK, they soaked up
No, the problem was the fleet I was in came in two waves. If it was only one
wave, we would have done slightly less damage to the ESU, but recieved much
less damage back.
Combat turn 1 Range apporoximately 30" to the strike boats and tender, about
38" to NAC BB's
Combat turn 2 Range approximately 7" to the strike boats and tenders, about
32" to the NAC BB's
Combat turn 3 Strike boats and tender are approximately 12" behind the ESU,
NAC BB's are 20" in front of the ESU.
Combat turn 4 Stirke boats and tenders are approximately 24" behind the ESU,
NAC BB are about 13" in front of the ESU.
> >Those tenders have good firepower, I expected to lose one, but then I
Problem is, the rules state that the Tender must have the same mass as the
ship or ships they are carrying. In a campaign I wouldn't have to bother with
a lot of escorts for these tenders...
> >>Two-wave strikes with needle units in the first wave can work OK,
Theory here was that the tenders would make only one pass. I expected one to
be destroyed. Strike boats would loop arround and make another pass, but not
the surviving tender. As would the NAC BB's if we had had a tight formation.
The tender couldn't have made the turn and wouldn't have bothered.
> >>>1 SDN was crippled, 1 SDN damage, 1 SDN lost 2 FC, and the other
No, it was a high speed pass. They were out of arc, two turn latter it was
over...
> >>>Losses were 10 strike boats and 1 tender destroyed (Reacter...),
They concentrated Trops on two SDN's and Beams on a couple of lighter units.
Level two shields make beams rather ineffective.
> > My damage classification:
> Tenders are a very expensive way of getting FTL capability for those
I would tend to agree with the idea of building a tender that could stand
in the battle line as well. A light tender is only a target - or wasted
points sitting in the rear.
> His ships also had an effective range of 48mu. Thrust-4 strike boats
Agreed again. The high thrust of SBs is not only to "chase or evade the
enemy," but primarily to close the range as quickly as possible so more of
them survive to deliver their payloads.
> You mean "would not have been able to go...", no? OK, they soaked up
On the other hand. SBs should expect losses - high ones even. Effective
design and deployment can help minimise this, but they are meant to absorb a
certain amount of firepower. Because there are so many of them, the enemy must
waste more beams to insure kills against each individual, as opposed to
lumping them all together against one of your ships.
> Problem is, the rules state that the Tender must have the same mass as
Ummm... where? FTFB1 has the rules for tugs and tenders (p 8), and I'm not
seeing anything like that. Am I missing something?
> Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> You mean "would not have been able to go...", no? OK, they soaked up
I doubt that you'd've inflicted less damage by going in a single wave, at
least up 'til the time your actual battle ended. Fewer of your ships would've
been damaged while they were closing, so more of them would've had a chance to
fire effectively.
> Combat turn 1 Range apporoximately 30" to the strike boats and
Sounds as if the ESU didn't move at all (enabling them to spin in place), or
at least moving extremely slowly?
Strike boat speed = 20-23 mu/turn (depending on the ESU speed and
whether or not they turned). IMO this is low speed for strikeboats,
particularly when facing C4 batteries.
> Combat turn 3 Strike boats and tender are approximately 12" behind
Both they and the ESU accellerated as hard as they could straight towards each
other?
> Combat turn 4 Stirke boats and tenders are approximately 24" behind
Bad place to be when you're facing Komarovs, yes :-/
On tender design:
> Problem is, the rules state that the Tender must have the same mass as
Not in FB1 - the tug design rules there supercede the FT2 tug design
rule you're referring to. Read the tug design example on FB1 p.8, where a Mass
60 tug is designed to tow 100 Mass of ships. I admit that this change could
have been more explicit, though.
In spite of this change, tugs + sublight strikeboats isn't
cost-effective compared to FTL-equipped strikeboats. Sublight
strikeboats are OK for system defence where you don't need the FTL capability
(and more importantly don't have to pay for it), but that's it.
> Ie, at least two turns of needle fire wasted. Could you have hit the
Ah, true. I had forgotten about the other needle strikeboat squadron.
OK, only one turn of needle fire wasted :-)
> Given that the NAC only managed to cripple a DD (and possibly
As I said, it wouldn't have mattered much if the NAC had concentrated
its fire :-) Needled level-2 screens don't make beams ineffective,
though <g>
Regards,
> I doubt that you'd've inflicted less damage by going in a single wave,
Single wave is definitely the way to go, IMO. Otherwise a concentrated enemy
has the chance to defeat your waves in detail.
> In spite of this change, tugs + sublight strikeboats isn't
Price-wise, this is correct. However, if you're trying to pack the
smallest possible package...
----Original Message Follows----
From: Brian Burger <yh728@victoria.tc.ca>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Strike Boats...
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 01:26:13 -0800 (PST)
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Ryan M Gill wrote:
I
> > > would have reloaded my Strike Boats, and jumped out.
:> There's a scene in one of David Brin's books where one of the main
characters is going into the local public library to find something in a
hurry. He storms into the building, can't see a librarian's desk, and there's
this massive potted plant in the lobby. Starts muttering about where's the
librarian and why's this big plant in the way when the 'potted plant' asks if
he needs help finding something...
Turns out the big 'potted plant' is a particularly impressive specimen of
intelligent, herbiform alien, and very intelligent to boot. Brin always has
done cool aliens.
Brian (yh728@victoria.tc.ca)
-DS2/SG2/FR!/HOTT-
- http://warbard.iwarp.com/games.html -
-SciFi & Fantasy Wargaming House Rules, Photos, GWAutobasher, & more-
-"Just because it's not nice doesn't mean it's not miraculous."-
- from Terry Pratchett's 'Interesting Times' -
Reminds me a lot of the book Greenthieves, can't remember the author. I'd say
more, but it'd give the book away.
> Schoon wrote:
> In spite of this change, tugs + sublight strikeboats isn't
...the tug + sublight strikeboat option will give you fewer strikeboats
and weaker supporting warships than the non-tug warship + FTL
strikeboat option does. As you pointed out earlier, strikeboats need numbers
to be effective.
Which would you prefer: 41 FTL strikeboats and 2 battleships with 40 hull
boxes each, or 36 sublight strikeboats and 2 "battleships" with 36 hull boxes
each? All strikeboats have the same hull, armour, thrust rating and armament
regardless of the option you choose; the battleships have the same armour,
thrust and armament but not the same hull.
Regards,
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Brian Bilderback wrote:
> From: Brian Burger <yh728@victoria.tc.ca>
putting
> > vegetative matter in command of battle squadrons has been the
-DS2/SG2/FR!/HOTT-
> Reminds me a lot of the book Greenthieves, can't remember the author.
I'd
> say more, but it'd give the book away.
'Greenthieves', Alan Dean Foster, 1994; published by Ace in the US, Orbit in
the UK, with a UK hardback rerelease by Severn House in 1996.
aaah, the Internet Science Fiction Database.
http://www.sfsite.com/isfdb/sfdbase.html
pure class in a glass!
tom
Full Thrust rule book page 27, left hand collumn, 4 paragraph under the FTL
Tugs and Tenders section. I merged this with the Fleet Book tug rules on page
8. I'm not sure if it was a correct interpretation, but I would rather be
safe.
IAS
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> >Problem is, the rules state that the Tender must have the same mass
The ESU started speed 0. They then accelerated to 6, and then started
deccelerating max. I suspect he wanted to play space turrets in the middle of
the room.
> ...the tug + sublight strikeboat option will give you fewer strikeboats
Huh? My comment was about trying to make the smallest possible package, not
necessarily the most cost efficient.
> Which would you prefer: 41 FTL strikeboats and 2 battleships with 40
I'm afraid that I don't always design with the mini-maxing in mind. I
don't disagree that 10% is less than 20% when calculating FTL costs. From a
purely tactical designperspective, you are correct.
However, a non-FTL capable SB can serve the purpose of both SDB and
attack if you throw a couple tenders into your fleet mix. One design fills
both purposes: the procurement officers love that one.
> Schoon wrote:
> However, a non-FTL capable SB can serve the purpose of both SDB and
...while an FTL-capable SB can serve the purpose of both SDB and attack
*without* throwing a couple of expensive tenders into your combat fleet
mix :-/
Regards,
> ...while an FTL-capable SB can serve the purpose of both SDB and attack
But at an increased individual cost. If your whole OOB includes 100 SBs, and
have tenders for 20, you loose MASS in the long run (assuming a single SB
design).
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> >...the tug + sublight strikeboat option will give you fewer
I second this wholeheartedly... there's more to playing FT than designing the
most efficient fleet possible. This discussion about using strikeboats and
tenders (or battleriders and tenders if you make larger versions) is about
exploring another variation on FT's many themes, not necessarily about
designing an uber-fleet.
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Schoon wrote:
plus, if you're living in the Tuffleyverse or the Trekverse, an FTL drive
gives you improved insystem speed as well - not in battle, but
operationally; you can jump around a system much faster than you can
thrust around it. now, you might say that a full-blown FTL drive is too
expensive to justify if you're just using it for insystem travel (a bit like
buying a BMW to nip down the shops in), but mix in the fact that it gives you
a multirole capability and it looks more attractive.
tom
> On 13-Feb-00 at 23:54, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (schoon@aimnet.com) wrote:
Campaign vision versus battle vision. I build monitors in our current campaign
game. Most of the time they sit in a single system as an addition to the local
defense sources. Occasionally, for an important battle that I cannot afford to
lose, I have one of my Tugs grab up a monitor and bring it along. If we were
playing "force the tugs on the board" I would have the Tug FTL out on the
first turn.
> I second this wholeheartedly ... there's more to playing FT than
Here, here, Tony.