Page 39 of 40

Re: Solomani Confederation (Military)

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:08 pm
by Condottiere
Member World Ground Forces: 10 Worst Sci-Fi Armies You Can Join

Science Fiction Armies are usually not the most well though organizations here are 10 you really want to avoid.

Localized carnage.

And recruitment.

Re: Solomani Confederation (Military)

Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2019 8:21 pm
by Condottiere
Logistics and Biological Warfare: Hogs in History - Creator and Destroyer - Extra History

In 1494, among the colonization forces from Spain, eight pigs arrived in Cuba. With multiple uses in culinary and craft trades, as well as their general top-tier hardiness, pigs would naturally propagate themselves throughout the Caribbean, and then to Central, South, and North America--but they were also incredibly destructive.

And chickens.

There should be porkers everywhere where the Solomani stepped foot. And possibly dropped on planets they just passed by.

And cats .

And rabbits.

The Vilani never saw it coming.

Pigs used to be Overpowered

Makes you wonder why there are no uplifted Porcs Waaughing their way across the galaxy.

Re: Solomani Confederation (Military)

Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:34 am
by Moppy

Re: Solomani Confederation (Military)

Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:40 pm
by Condottiere
Aporkaribs Nouvelle cuisine.

Coincidentally, I have to empty my freezer.

Re: Solomani Confederation (Military)

Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:24 am
by Condottiere
Confederation Navy: Ship Building Policy

One possible rationale for a small ship universe is that the capacity, rather than the capability, of building larger than five kay tonne starships is limited.

Building huge ass jump drives may require inordinately large and expensive manufacturing base, as well as being regulated.

Thus, it may be that per capita, you don't have, and possibly, don't need that many starships exceeding five kay tonnes.

For the Confederation, the capacity to manufacture starships exceeding two kay tonnes may be even more constrained.

Rather than trying to kickstart manufacturing capabilities across the board to cater to all ship volumes, it could be decided only to expand those that could build starships a hundred kay tonnes and over, relying on economies of scale on a less flexible but larger numbers of a specific weight class.

Re: Solomani Confederation (Military)

Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:57 am
by Sigtrygg
Member states building the 'small ships' makes sense when considering that the Confed gov concentrates on the big ships - battleships, carriers and heavy cruisers.

we have found the construction and maintainance of a large, effective fleet to be an incredible expense - especially give our tendency to build large ships of the line such as carriers, battle-ships, and heavy cruisers.

Re: Solomani Confederation (Military)

Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 9:38 pm
by Condottiere
I don't disagree with that, I'm just trying to rationalize the facts as presented.

Defensive leagues, something that wouldn't be permitted in the Imperium, do have the resources to build up sizable numbers, in rather more sizable volumes.

Re: Solomani Confederation (Military)

Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2020 12:57 pm
by Condottiere
Inspiration: Every Stellaris run in a Nutshell

I've always wanted to use this song for something. And Paradox gave me the chance!

Always happy to plug one of my favorite genres of music, filk. Soundtrack is "Xenophobia" By Bill Sutton, which I found on this channel:

Let's be xenophobic! It's really in this year
Let's find a nasty, slimy, ugly alien to fear
There's no more cutesy stories 'bout E.T. phoning home
Let's learn to love our neighbors,
like the Christians learned in Rome!
We know we ought to hate 'em; they're different, you see
We've seen they're mean and ugly on movies and TV
The folks that ought to know have told us how it's got to be
The gospel truth is found in scenes from Alien and V
Let's wipe out any lifeform that seems to be a threat
We'll serve 'em up a genocide they never will forget
'Cause if we miss a couple, they'll breed a couple more!
And soon we'll all be hating twice as many as before
You see, aliens can never be as good as humankind
A more delightful race than us you'll never, ever find
So step aside, you star slime, we're ready for your worst!
We know you want to beat us, enslave us and defeat us,
Oppress us and browbeat us, unless we get you first!

Xenophobia (or, A Considered Opinion On the Attitude Which Should Be Possessed By Terran Star Fleet), music and lyrics ©1984 by Bill Sutton. Originally published on "Past Due", Off Centaur, 1986.

Re: Solomani Confederation (Military)

Posted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:33 pm
by Condottiere
Confederation Navy: Battlestar Galactica Deadlock

After a minor skirmish a short time ago, in a forum, far, far way, and looking for some tactical information, I reflected on the rather top heavy nature of the Confederation Navy.

Jupiter Mark Twos represent the pinnacle of Colony military technology and power projection, despite WiFi issues.

I believe the twenty seven hundred points were deliberately set so you couldn't squeeze in three of them, not that three in one battle group would necessarily be either a smart allocation of resources or a wise approach by putting your eggs all in three baskets, it's just that at this point I have eighteen of them hanging around.

In theory, supporting elements should be an attached flotilla of scouts and frigates, but being somewhat lazy, and the fact that the game designers didn't create a set formation option, I think I found the perfect combination of adding an Artemis class compact battlestar, and a Ranger missile cruiser, which adds up perfectly to eighty hundred points; and then that's repeated for the other eight battle groups, though since now I'm ahead of the game, I'll be experimenting with other combinations, just to see the results.

So what did I learn?

Handled properly, both the Jupiter Twos and support elements, they can chew through Artificial Intelligence controlled Toasters; while one school of thought might prefer to spread out capabilities amongst more hulls, battlestars, and I mean specifically Jupiter Twos, have a complete range of capabilities that can adjust to most, if not all, tactical situations that can occur, housed within a heavily protected hull that can absorb a great deal of damage.

That's important, since that not only tends to preserve the ship in intense combat, it also preserves the crew and any experience they accumulate.

The integral really heavy artillery should be considered the primary offensive weapon system, since combined with heavy protection afforded by flak screen and heavy armour, but weighed down by a slow sublight speed, you probably want them as close to the opposing forces as viable, where it can bring to bear it's cannons.

This is rounded off by four squadrons, which can be varied somewhat depending on how the commander thinks the aerospace group can be best leveraged to achieve the mission's goal, and a missile slot.

Two Jupiter Twos tend to have between them enough integral firepower to mission kill, if not outright blow up, most opponents in a single turn, not accounting for the two missile slots and eight squadrons.

Confederation Navy Fleet Squadrons are composed of six fast dreadnoughts, which I always thought from the start they'd make three divisions of two fast dreadnoughts each, rather than split them into two three ship divisions, since they'd outnumber any single opposing battleship they'd encounter if they are separated from the rest of the squadron, and two tended to be the default formerly for unreinforced Fleet Squadrons, much like six fast dreadnoughts would outnumber four battleships, which I assume is now the default establishment of Imperium Navy battle squadrons.

Having so much firepower concentrated in a small number of large starwarships allows defeat in detail, since you can concentrate on part of the enemy force, assuming you've positioned yourself not to be in (immediate) danger of getting outflanked.

Re: Solomani Confederation (Military)

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 1:46 pm
by Condottiere
Confederation Navy: Battlestar Galactica Deadlock

Also, early jump penalty that a battle group has to pay in fuel before cooldown is completed is based per ship, unrelated to actual ship size; you could assume that keeping track of a smaller though less number of warships is organizationally easier, and therefore turnover with a smaller number of battle groups is actually quite affordable; cooldown time itself is by default on ship size.

At the other end of the scale, the Manticore corvette is probably overpriced at five hundred points, being fragile and only a single missile slot, it's armament being somewhat insignificant for either damaging a capital ship or smallcraft squadrons, at least in my experience; strategically, power projection with an onboard commander, as a garrison to exert political pressure it's as persuasive as an eighty hundred point battle group. Other than that, more used to plug a five to seven hundred forty nine point gap in the line up.

You could use it for tactical reconnaissance, though if the option were available, I'd rather use a Raptor squadron. The other use would be as a missile platform, though with the default cooldown of three rounds, not that useful once things heat up. Making a bombing run is generally suicidal, because if I saw that, my first suspicion would be that it's carrying a one shot nuke.

In Confederation terms, having a two kilotonne frigate parked in orbit of a member world may be enough of reminder as to who's actually in charge, and that the certainties in life, death and taxes, still prevail.

Re: Solomani Confederation (Military)

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:08 pm
by Condottiere
Confederation Navy: Battlestar Galactica Deadlock

Next step up would be either a light assault carrier, or a hybrid compact light cruiser/frigate carrier.

While it's recommended that you use Manticores as a pack, Adam Ants (I only figured that out two days ago) should be stacked three high to create a wall of light cannon flak, that can be pretty effective attritionally, but only slightly less fragile than Manticores.

An Adamant could be described as having the best bang for buck at seven hundred and fifty points, with a missile slot and a squadron, it looks like a mini battlestar, and Toasters are like dogs, they chase anything. So you run like hell, slowdown when launching guided missile salvoes for maximum size and accuracy, and send the Vipers back to identify targets and initially run interference against Raiders, and if enough are leftover, shoot up Cylon capital ships.

Adamants would be described as true general purpose frigates, as you can assign any type of squadron or missile type, and perform the fleet reconnaissance and close escort roles quite efficiently.

It's been recommended to pair them with Berzerk assault carriers, though I've never bothered to buy any; presumably, the assault descriptor is for it's armament of medium cannons, though if you have to use them against anything really threatening, it's already too late; the extra hundred points for an Adamant is well worth it.

In this category, you have to mention the Talons and the Arachnes.

The Arachnes have been described as the closest Cylon equivalent to a battlestar, but I tend to think of it more as an upscaled Adamant super frigate (in Age of Sail terms); it's dangerous due to it's fast missile reload rate and ability to take a lot of punishment, allowing it to persist in close quarter combat, making it ideal for detached duty and commerce raiding.

The Talon is variously described a carrier frigate, or even support element. It's very vulnerable front and back, since essentially it's an armoured box hosting a squadron, though good luck trying to spitroast them. Despite a light broadside, the relatively thick armour gives them a persistence, if an engagement is forced.

I don't think that hulls configured as light (fleet) carriers are efficient, because costs tend to rack up when you have them give them appropriate command and control electronics, and protective components, active (point defence) and passive (armour); you might as well incorporate one or two squadrons directly into the line of battle starwarships.

Hulls playing hosts to larger aerospace groups provide economies of scale in a variety of configurations, and if primarily tasked as a carrier of smallcraft, have to stay behind the line of battle in any case; you can always leg it, if things heat up.

Resources are better utilized if you upscale carriers to a larger size that can carry more more squadrons, inclining Naval Staff to upgrade onboard protection and the task force commander to prioritize more escorts to get between you and harm's way, or downscale it to a much smaller aerospace group housed in a barebones hull making it Combustible and Vulnerable, at least you're Expendable.

Comparing the various designs and related costs attached to them, a slightly armoured box based on a commercial hull, with point defence, and a sympathetic task force commander.

Re: Solomani Confederation (Military)

Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:39 pm
by Condottiere
Confederation Navy: Battlestar Galactica Deadlock

The battlestar is the apex predator of gunships, added features.

The Cerastes is a speedy little gunship with only point defence that the Toasters came up with to deal with Viper swarms, proofing that the close escort mission is viable, and despite having elite crews, the battlestars have trouble getting a bead on them. It's been described as a fast defensive and anti fighter, but they can be offensively used, and have gone after my Celestras.

The unarmed Celestras supply support ships have to be included in this category, proving that they'd benefit from a point defence armament, being a general magnet for missiles, gunfire and fighters; great for a skirmish game for anything that could be aimed in the direction of your combat units gets diverted, less so for campaign, when crews appreciate getting fed regularly.

Creating the Honoresque wall of battle, I consider a viable option, having done so with two Jupiter Twos and an Artemis (you could do it with a Jupiter One, but I'd rather have an extra cruiser along, or carrier, with a Jupiter One you can't even squeeze in a Manticore) allowing an overlap of flak screens, the first viable time would be with three Adamants, since they only have light cannons on their broadsides, but are attritionally effective when concentrating on the same target, though I wouldn't really consider them gunships.

Next up are the Minotaurs, which I might describe as an eight inch heavy cruiser, compared to the older Hercules, which would be more correctly termed as a first class armoured cruiser.

Since I have a vast reserve of oil, I bought a bunch of Herculii, Atlases and Januses, and have been trying them out; you can't exhaust eighty hundred points in campaign, and whereas you can win, you usually lose a bunch of ships; I think they would be a viable option at forty hundred. Anyway, the Hercules have an impressive amount of heavy guns and armour, with a flak screen, but you have to close fast, and fast is not descriptive of a Hercules. Nor an Atlas or Janus.

I understand the temptation to add a large gun armament on carriers and missile trucks, giving them a capability that can contribute to the general firepower of the battle group, which might be worthwhile in skirmish, less so in campaign sine you wouldn't want to risk non gunship assets unnecessarily; in real life, putting guns or missiles on a carrier is possible, but wastes space that could have gone to have a larger aerospace group, and fleet carriers are fast, they should be able to outrun battleships, and keep their distance from cruisers. They should have enough armament to deal with fighters or destroyers that manage to slip through the line of battle.

It's possible to mass Herculii, though I suspect this may be unhealthy, since it would be at the expense of the other two parts of the triad, carriers and missile trucks, and at a minimum, you want CAP to keep Raiders and bombers busy. As far as I can tell, a flak screen will detonate a nuke at a safe distance, but Vespid bombers may be as crazy as the Resistance StarFortresses.

The Herculii don't really cut it in large engagements, and need to be heavily supported; probably overpriced, but I could also be using them wrong.

The Cylon Revenants used to be dangerous in the early game, but after I've dealt with the Arachnes, they tend to enjoy the full attention of the battlestars and missile trucks.

The Confederation Navy has that cruiser gap, so you aren't going to be seeing assault carriers, or gun cruisers, or arsenal ships, unless they're part of the local militia (or distant member world navy) that gets levied, making their quality, quantity and general effectiveness vary. With a single Fleet Squadron, I doubt you'll ever see a Solomani commander try a double envelopement, except with auxiliary units.

Adding guns to a carrier doesn't help unless it's well armoured, and then during the later stages of the battle, have them slip through and attack the flanks, since I assume one reason the Celestras get all that attention is due to their squishiness, which means that anything that can be fairly easily and fast taken out, will be, and priority gets shifted higher, the more dangerous you potentially can be.

That's not to say you can't add offensive armament to non battle line units, to increase their relevancy, but in the game mechanics of Traveller, that's always at the expense of something else.

Re: Solomani Confederation (Military)

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:44 pm
by Condottiere
Confederation Navy: Battlestar Galactica Deadlock

1. Using twinned Herculii, Atlases and Januses as the base, you have the inconvenient fifteen hundred spare points; in skirmish, upgrades cost extra. whereas in campaign, they're considered as part of the resupply and operating costs, if they need to be replaced due to combat damage.

2. So I spawned a third each to fill in the gap.

3. I wondered where some of my missile salvoes had disappeared to, than realized I had packed the ships into the same tight formations I used for the battlestar variants, and had been upkilting the immediate ship in front of the Januses.

4. These old ships tend to be stretched and thin, except for the Atlases that are just long and flat, that nose to tail really isn't a good idea, since the more modern ones tend towards short and fat, giving you more space to manoeuvre.

5. I think you have to stagger them like American bomber formations; probably preferable for battlestars as well, but so far they haven't gotten in each other's way using a wall.

6. The Atlases have one squadron per three hundred and fifty points, have some heavy guns on broadside that can shoot up, and really thick armour on top, indicating that they're meant to hit the deck, though if the guide can be trusted, their squadrons are less agile than those of Berzerks, but can be faster repaired; most furballs become existential without the luxury of recall, and as the Toasters tend to have better facilities and bonuses for repair, I rather attritonally try and wipe out their smallcraft with overwhelming numbers than attempt rotations, mini missile equipped Raptors being an exception when feasible.

7. Atlases might be quite viable alternatives to the Ranger missile cruiser for battlestar centric groups, as they cost the same.

8. Rangers pump out more missiles with their two slots, than Januses with their three, that require twice as long to reload.

9. It's possible the only real role that the Januses have is to act as a boomer with missile variants that have really minimal salvoes, like one shot nukes.

10. Even if they can shoot bigger salvoes than Rangers, Rangers are more flexible in that they can distribute their ordnance more evenly, meaning that missiles aren't wasted.

11. Januses have their guns located front and bottom, meaning that they're supposed to be on the ceiling, shooting downwards, so no wall for them.

12. Despite their length and flak screen, Herculiie aren't meant for broadside engagements, having rather thin skin there, but rather head on engagements, preferably higher than what they are shooting at; the broadside flak screens seem more an attempt at protection if you're getting outflanked by missile boats.

13. If you wall three Herculii, at a distance, between the Toasters and the more vulnerable ships behind them, you probably have a very effective shield against missiles, but Herculii with heavy guns need to close in for them to be effective offensively.

Re: Solomani Confederation (Military)

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:58 pm
by Condottiere
Confederation Navy: Battlestar Galactica Deadlock

14. I think you have to figure with about one squadron per thousand points, which indicates you have to build battle groups around carriers.

15. That would mean ideally you have two Artemises, a Minerva or a Jupiter at forty hundred, with an Atlas barely covering it; three Berzerks would cost almost double that of an Atlas and are even more expensive than a Minerva.

16. The Janus missile truck was the first to go; probably what I would target first, if it were an option, since you might be able to do so before it can get off a second salvo; if you think about it, the squadrons are already off the carrier, and will persist if it's there are not; I think my nuke prematurely exploded.

17. I'm pretty sure with carriers it's all or nothing, or at least, really minimal.

18. The Confederation Navy should stick to one super carrier per three Fleet Squadrons, attaching one to act as escort.

19. Fighters are cheap and easy to build, so it seems pragmatic to encourage planetary militias to build up and train aerospace groups, that you can levy when in the neighbourhood, together with their ground crews.

20. Since you have to host them somewhere, escort carriers crewed by more seasoned personnel, built as cheaply as possible, but for morale reasons, with lots of escape and rescue smallcraft.

Re: Solomani Confederation (Military)

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 4:38 pm
by Condottiere
Confederation Navy: Battlestar Galactica Deadlock

21. It could be that I placed a rank nine commander in charge, and the crews have been gaining experience, that the Old Guard seem to have been performing better, doing pretty well with seventy eight hundred fifty points against sixty hundred.

22. I changed the composition of the group to centre around three Atlas carriers, accompanied by three Herculii and a Janus.

23. Centred being the operative word, since the Atlases are dead slow, but have a hefty armoured protection, I stacked them into a wall three high, which seems to work to protect a (centrish) flank, while I use a wall of the three Herculii as the primary combat element either left or right of them, with the Janus behind and centred in the second tier.

24. Experience has made me place the Janus on a higher altitude, but so far, missile ordnance hasn't been anywhere near a decisive factor in combat.

25. It's quite possible that that you have to include a missile prong to this naval trident, but if you wait to get a clearer solution on potential targets, you have something that's not going to make much of an impact for four turns per missile slots.

26. The other option being to to have a slow but steady stream of ordnance over the course of the battle.

27. Nine squadrons appear to be a rather effective size for an aerospace group.

28. Three Herculii appear to be as effective at taking down a Cerberus carrier as two battlestars, but I somehow get the impression you have to move in closer.

29. While ranges differ from this game to Traveller, the principles probably are the same, you have to get your frontline units within effective range, and you have to create a hostile hinterland for minor combatants and fighters that manage to breakthrough and go after your support units.

Re: Solomani Confederation (Military)

Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:45 am
by Condottiere
Confederation Navy: Battlestar Galactica Deadlock

The Celestras have two interesting abilities, one to replenish during combat missile magazines with a dedicated hangar and Raptor squadron (which in the speeds involved in Traveller sounds extremely hard to pull off while in enemy contact).

The second has a dedicated technical bay equipped with drones, that add ablative armour to damaged and undamaged hulls.

This can be a lifesaver, since they're additive, and can be used to add protection to that specific area even when there's a gaping hole.

Again, probably harder to accomplish in Traveller; onboard repair drones are more likely to be able to accomplish this, since they're part of the ship, as opposed to a bunch of drones needing to match velocities with the ship they're repairing, while avoiding incoming ordnance.

The Toasters' equivalent, the Hydra directly repairs the hull, and restores hull points, to some degree.

It's its ability to coordinate missile reloading by one turn fleetwide, or at least, all ships within range, which depending on which type of vessels you're facing, would prioritize taking it out once detected and identified.

The Gorgon is a mobile repair base for squadrons, which is not a bad facility having it close to the line of battle, and sensibly placing your vulnerable carriers far to the rear, assuming you have squadrons and doctrines that make this worthwhile.

What becomes alarming is a machine learning capability, that upgrades the evasion software onboard the Raiders, so priority in taking this out depends very much on the number of squadrons the Cylons are fielding.

In theory, the game should permit squadrons from different carriers and battlestars to land on any platform that has space available, and repair and rearm.

In Traveller, this probably isn't feasible if the platform is ducking and weaving, unless it's urgent, so you'd have to place a frontline repair facility far enough away from the frontline so that it's carrier capability isn't unduly impacted.

Having a carrrier directly in the frontline is more that it's aerospace group can be deployed and have an immediate impact on the battle, whether or not the carrier than withdraws to a more sheltered position, which is what I assume assault carrier implies, if it's not optimized for amphibious operations.

Re: Solomani Confederation (Military)

Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:17 pm
by Condottiere
Confederation Navy: Battlestar Galactica Deadlock

The Toasters deploy tech cruisers and warpdriver Raider variants to hack directly into the opposing side's networks.

While I try to knock these out as fast as they appear, I don't really fear them, since battlestars have hefty firewalls, nor the Phobos class capability to do tactical hyperjumps, since it's hard to flank something that has practically all around firepower; the only time that would be a concern would be if the mission was to protect a vulnerable target, and the battle group had moved too far away from it.

I don't think we have rules or options to directly hack another ship's systems during combat.

Re: Solomani Confederation (Military)

Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 2:42 pm
by Condottiere
Confederation Navy: Battlestar Galactica Deadlock

Now, it could be because the ships have started gaining more experience, combined with a rank tier ten commander, but the three Herculii heavy cruisers have managed to keep the Toasters at bay, once you set up the flak wall, making it nigh missile proof, though somehow Heavy Raiders still manage to get close enough to disembark a boarding party, though I'm going to guess, somewhat diminished.

Combined with the wall of Atlases, this combination becomes quite fatal at middleish range; the flak can more or less be kept up indefinitely, unlike with the battlestars, where I would have to drop it if I wanted to shoot off missiles in that direction or launch fighters, as Herculii have neither missiles nor squadrons.

Depending on how many Raider squadrons you see or estimate incoming, the six fighter squadrons can be used either as interceptors or CAP, with the Raptors trying to take out the bombers or Heavy Raiders; if you have numerical superiority, say more than double, you can use your squadrons more aggressively, still keeping track where the Cerasteses are.

I'm going to guess the Cerasteses are more vulnerable to guided missiles, which I have abandoned in favour of faster, mostly unguided, torpedoes.

Another task group consisting of six Rangers and an Artemis, I just loaded up with proximity mines, which with sixteen slots reloaded every two rounds, seems to have made the battlefield a death trap, as you can place them a fair sized difference away from the layer, and set them up in multiple layers, that any ship trying to pass through them, set off multiple explosions.

The Janus still doesn't look to have been decisive, so I've built up another five in reserve, and once I'm through with the Rangers, will experiment with them and a battlestar.

I think that one of the preferred methods of using member world ships, especially those that have less advanced ships and less well trained crews, would be to put them into defensive blocks, with Confederation Navy flag officer to command them, or at least coordinate their actions. Since the Herculii and the Atlases are dead slow, if they are meant to be used (passive) aggressively, they have to be placed as close as possible to the opposing line right from the start, and if defensively, as far as possible away from it; they can neither chase nor run, so if aggressive, they need to be in a position to maximize firepower, and mission kill as many enemy ships as possible in the first few rounds, and if defensive, encourage defeat in detail, as the Toasters come in waves, but separated from their carriers and basestars.

Re: Solomani Confederation (Military)

Posted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:07 pm
by Condottiere
Confederation Navy: Battlestar Galactica Deadlock

Accumulated six elite Herculii, forgot to include a Manticore and a Celestra, though I suspect both would have gotten missiled to extinction.

A battle for eighty six hundred worth of Toaster hulls popped up, and i thought it was an opportunity to see how they would do.

My feeling is that against a human opponent it would have turned out differently, but I set up two walls of three each which murtually protected themselves and each other, and advanced in parallel right through the middle. The Herculii walls maintained a flak screen right and left simultaneously, which minimized missile penetration, and each side focussed on the nearest vessel on their side.

Three elite Herculii led by an eighth tier commander are really deadly, despite the slow progression caused by being inherently dead slow, not helped by amping up their posture to eight, allowing their crews to concentrate on really dishing it out. I think one Heavy Raider managed to infiltrate a boarding party, but they eventually got wiped out without really disrupting that vessel.

This was pretty much a bulldozer approach, without fighters nor missiles.

I've been sending in seven Minotaur gunships, while I also walled them into two divisions of three each, with the flagship a thousand metres to whichever side was going to be further away from the majority of the Cylons, since the Toasters had a nasty habit of prioritizing the flagship, when they have euql options, and nothing squishy is in range, and charged at full speed up the middle, hoping momentum would prevent the Cylons from having time to reform their defences, compared to the Herculii just toughening it out. The Minotaurs may have been successful so far because their point total may have been greater than the opposition, and again, the opposition being able to be defeated in detail.

If you lose the flagship, you lose both the commander and the bonuses he brings to the table, which is probably why he gets placed in the toughest and most experienced ship automatically, though I would think that there is a case for placing him in something smaller, behind the lines.

The Gunship concept gets represented by the slow, tough and powerful Herculii, the faster and less tough and powerful Minotaur, while on the Cylon side it's the small, speedy Cerastes that's really more of a nuisance than the more powerful Revenant, since the Revenant can be ganged up on, while the Cerastes is hard to target, and really is lethal to your squadrons on one hand, and your poorly armoured warships on the other.

The Cerastes is a great asset to have, as in the early stage of the battle it would act as a forward picket to decimate incoming squadrons, and in the middle, try to sneak behind your main line to get at the more vulnerable support vessels, which would include the Celestras, Berzerks, Adamants, Manticores and Rangers, plus any civilian transports you were meant to escort.

Whether it's this game or Traveller, you will need all three prongs of the naval trident, guns, missiles and combat smallcraft.

Re: Solomani Confederation (Military)

Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 9:49 pm
by Condottiere
Confederation Navy: Battlestar Galactica Deadlock

Set up a new battlestar group of five Artemises, with five squadrons each of Viper Twos and Assault Raptors.

Admittingly, I should have added a Celestra, and should have given them more veterancy, if not outright eliteship.

The problem loops back to the same thing, the Cylons will try to take out the flagship, and the Artemis is relatively thinskinned compared to a Jupiter.

Artemises are great at the beginning of a campaign, being cheap enough to acquire, and considering early opposition, can easily overwhelm them, especially considering their heavy artillery, though being only on top, forced you to make a dive for the deck.

At this point of the campaign their best use would be as artillery support, flanking flak screens, plus the addition of two squadron and one missile slots.

I'd say that Colonials would have them used them as command ships of smaller battle groups, because I doubt that many would survive being in a traditional line of battle. Even if you upgrade them for all their worth, the armour can't sustain either long term bombardment, nor getting concentrated on, and a line of battle, or the wall, relies on participants remaining in place rather than falling out, or worse, blowing up.

I doubt that the Confederation Navy has any starwarships that would fall into this category, since they'll likely dig up a cruiser from somewhere for an independent cruise.