Dramatic SFB: Convoy Battles

Sat May 25 14:04:50 PDT 2019

Depends on matt

I am RTA

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 1:42 PM Randy Blair <randyblair2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> All that being said, are we ready to advance the turn?
>
> On Sat, May 25, 2019, 1:41 PM Matt via SFBdrama <
> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Sorry it's 2 issues
>> > 1. Speed
>> > 2. Power
>> >
>> > It's not just speed, its any power loss is catastrophic, make sense?
>>
>>
>> Sure, the CS has less static power. But with any batteries, the CS has
>> much more power than the FT.
>>
>>
>> Power curves:
>>
>> The CS has 8 static power and 30 (!) reserve power. After Panels and
>> Life Support the CS has 4.5 static pwr left. So it can run at speed 12
>> and run LPFC without dipping into it's batts.
>>
>> The FT has 14 static power and no (!) reserve power. After Shields, Life
>> Support, LPFC, and 20 movement, it has 3 power left.
>>
>>
>> Damage Tolerance:
>>
>> Presuming that the CS doesn't dip into batts for reinforcing it's panels
>> (an unlikely situation, but run with it) then the CS being chased will
>> suck up 18 damage before internals. If someone manages the 5% chance and
>> tags a panel, the power dumps to the fronts and becomes a non-issue in
>> the short-term. Otherwise, it's greater than 18 perfect-roll internals
>> before all batteries are hit (averages make it more like 28 internals)
>> and the CS is then unable to clear the panels or run the ship. This
>> makes for 46 damage before the CS becomes a wreck.
>>
>> The FT has 12 shields on the flanks and roughly 6 more internals
>> (depending on how kind the DAC is to one ship or another.) The less
>> shielding and greater volume balance out, leaving them both at
>> approximately the same durability levels when taking a single volley.
>>
>> Things change in the favor of PA panels when taking several hits, as the
>> panels can be cleared while the shields cannot be. Additionally, the
>> Panels can be made to absorb 12 more damage if the CS is willing to
>> spend a couple of battery power - the FT can only add 3 in order to do
>> the same.
>>
>> Panel leakage happens when the CS takes 6 disruptor damage or 9 damage
>> while reinforced, on the rear panels. This hits hull (3) and then cargo
>> (12) before it can hit anything else. The chances of this hitting
>> something important over the course of the game is very slight and
>> requires that the opponent not use large volleys. Small volleys
>> constitute a best case for the Andromedans because of a host of other
>> interactions - In short, don't use small volleys if you want to kill CSs.
>>
>>
>> Seeker Defense:
>>
>> The FT has a pair of Ph-3s (good to kill off 1-2 drones) and a drone
>> rack (if running LPFC, you would have to silence a Ph-3 to use anything
>> else in the Option mount) that could kill another drone.
>>
>> The CS has a pair of Ph-2s and a pair of mines. Because a Ph-2 won't
>> auto-kill a drone, you'd be better off using them as Ph-3s against
>> drones and letting the capacitor give you a second shot for no extra
>> power. If the drones aren't bunched up, then the CS could kill the same
>> 2-3 drones that the FT can kill. Otherwise it comes out in favor of the
>> CS when stopping a Scatterpack.
>>
>> When speaking of plasma, they are both in a similar pickle as their
>> phaser arrays are roughly the same (best case at LPFC is that the FT has
>> a Ph-2 and Ph-3, the CS has a pair of Ph-2s. 7.833 average damage vs
>> 8.333 average damage, respectively.)
>>
>>
>> Other bits:
>>
>> Electronic Warfare is an important piece of the puzzle. If willing to
>> forgo bricking the shield, the FT can put 3 into ECM. Without batteries,
>> this has to be allocated and the opponent can see and overcome this
>> level before firing. The CS can go all the way to 6 ECM (for 4-6 turns),
>> and in a fashion that leaves the opponent doubt as to how to allocate
>> their own counter-EW.
>>
>> Disengagement rules for the scenario won't let anyone leave by
>> accelleration until the end of turn 7. The CS's can't do this at all,
>> and the FTs are generally either mostly dead or mostly untouched by this
>> point. Disengagement by distance is possible before this point -
>> something that the higher FT speeds make into a reasonable hope by
>> turn-5-ish. Disengagement by sublight evasion is certainly possible
>> except that the scenario victory conditions will turn into an Attacker
>> Victory, as crippled freighters don't give the defender any victory
>> benefit.
>>
>>
>> Wrapping it up:
>>
>> The Free Trader can hit a higher speed - speed 20 (maximum allowed by
>> the scenario), while the CS is stuck at speed 12. This makes a late-game
>> disengagement a possibility for the FTs. In order to do that, it becomes
>> incumbant on the defensive Galactic ships to screen the freighters until
>> the freighters can get some significant distance from the attacker
>> weapons. In the case of the Andromedan defenders, they would have to go
>> more aggressive than a galactic defense would need to be. Considering
>> the Andromedan need for short-but-not-point-blank ranges, this dovetails
>> with their normal strategy fairly nicely.
>>
>> The Cargo Sleds have more durability in almost every situation. When
>> using reinforced panels, they can absorb 9 more damage. When using EW,
>> they can often get a shift. When setting up the opponent to hit a
>> different bank of panels, they can set up fresh "shields" for the next
>> attack. The only case that they can "merely" get parity to the Free
>> Trader is if they are dry of battery power and at the same time unable
>> to maneuver the opponent on a different bank (presuming the attacker
>> isn't simply dry of weapons for the next 10 or so impulses.)
>>
>>
>> Different fleets and different systems employed by those fleets will
>> require different tactics. This applies to the defensive fleets and
>> their systems as well as the systems employed by the attacking fleets.
>>
>> Since the Andromedans have slower freighters, then they need to adjust
>> their tactics accordingly: screen the vulnerable freighters with "naval"
>> ships. Since the Andromedans have close-in weapon systems, they need to
>> get aggressive. Since their panels make them class-for-class much harder
>> to score internals on, they can push harder to get that short attack
>> range.
>>
>> The Galactics have their own challenges. Their freighters cannot stand
>> long-range sniping for long. Nor can they (on their own) dissuade an
>> opponent from chasing them by using (hidden) mines. This lends itself to
>> the Galactics needing to screen their freighters (as with the Andros.)
>>
>> The result (generally speaking) is a wash. Both sets of defenses screen
>> the freighters with the naval units to get the freighters outside the
>> envelope of the battle. The Free Traders are better at getting away on
>> their own and the Cargo Sleds are better at withstanding the barrage
>> until their screening units becomes to dangerous for the attackers to
>> simply chase the freighters.
>>
>> --Matt
>>
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20190525/aae7c737/attachment-0002.html>