Dramatic SFB: Convoy Battles

Sat May 25 20:25:18 PDT 2019

I will quickly build a DNa+ and a DD+ and be RTA. 

    On Sunday, 26 May 2019, 12:06, Francois Lemay via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:

  I'm with Randy, how are we doing for RTAing ?
CheersFrank
    On Saturday, May 25, 2019, 02:42:24 p.m. EDT, Randy Blair via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> 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

____________________________________________________
Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
  ____________________________________________________
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/20190526/e7802881/attachment-0002.html>