Convoy Duty: Some thoughts

[Democratus]

After playing the Convoy Duty mission a few times during the course of a campaign - I've noticed the drastic difference in how these games are played compared to how the more normal missions (ACTA, Annihilation, etc.). I thought it might be interesting to discuss these differences and how they can affect both your fleet selection and tactics.

There are two primary considerations in the Convoy Duty mission for both players. First there are the freighters themselves. These act as nearly free VPs for the attacker if he chooses to target them. The second is that the defender is confined to a small deployment space and is vulnerable to close attack on the first turn from any of a number of directions.

If the attacker can destroy the vulnerable freighters quickly with little return damage then it is an easy win. This puts the burden on the defender of inflicting damage to the attacker in the first turn that is at least equal to the value of all freighters. For example, in a Raid-level battle the defender needs to inflict at least 12 VP of damage to the attacker in the first turn. If not the attacker may be able to kill all the freighters and end the game with an immediate victory.

Different fleets have different capabilities and this can also affect the mission greatly. A Narn force (for example) heavy on e-mines can wreak havok among a freighter convoy without ever risking their ships in close combat. Countering this can be difficult. Spread out your freighters and (if your group allows it) have them Close Blast Doors! With luck you can survive till the second turn when you can punish the slow-loading ships and bring superior numbers to bear.

A Centauri force can fly Vorchans 21" from the edge of the board, guaranteeing a first turn strike at the freighters no matter where they are. But this will put them very close to your escort fleet and make them risk loosing VPs in such close quarters. Manuver and ship selection is the key here, as you will need to put Attack Dice on the enemy and they may fly such that your Forward (let alone Boresight) weapons are not usable in the initial turn.

Fighters are a very important tool here for both attack and defense. Most races can buy a large number of average fighters for a few Patrol FAPs. These can perform Interceptor duty for the freighters quite nicely. Energy mines are, again, unaffected by such measures. In this case get your fighters flying toward the enemy and force them to choose where to place their blasts.

((I'm begining to think that Narn ships are designed with commerce raiding in mind. It certainly matches their fluff.))

Ships that would otherwise not be considered for a standard engagement can shine in these scenarios. For the defender it may be better to choose a ship with weapons to the Aft, Port, and Starbord than one which has massive firepower in the Forward Arc. Ships like the G'Karith, Bimith, Centurion, Nova and others find new purpose in the hectic scrum of a convoy raid. Escorts can prove invaluable in stopping waves of enemy fighters.

And don't forget some of the less used special orders like Manoeuvre to Shield Them!. Even a moderate sized military ship can take a blow that would have killed a freighter without serious loss and, more importantly, without giving up VPs.

It's up to the defender to create an "uphill climb" in VPs for the attacker as soon as possible. This will discourage them from blowing up that last freighter to end the game, and give you more time to bring your larger force to bear. If it can be accomplished in the first turn (second at latest) then the defender has an excellent chance of victory. Likewise the attacker must spend his first turn well, minimising losses so the mission can be brought to an end before enemy numbers close the door on success.

Hope this has been helpful! Please share your thoughts.

 

[Triggy]

Excellent thoughts there. I think a lot of players don't think about the mission nearly enough when picking fleets and more importantly picking their tactics for a mission. You don't always have to kill many enemy ships to win a game and sometimes it's even better to bug out and guarantee the victory rather than try to attempt to inflict maximum damage on enemy ships.

 

[Da Boss]

intersting thoughts - thanks

We have played the scenario a goodly number of times and I don't think the attacker has won yet? They have come close -either with my Centauri or Kens Minbari but always seem to have too much damage inflicted on their ships to take the victory.

It is well worth looking at the type of convoy ships as well - a ship with hull 3 and lots of damage is excellent against the Minbari - the majority of whose ships have beam style weapons which ignore hull. The Liner has served me well on a number of occassions against them - last time the Shadows were protecting them against the Minbari and it was a bit of slaughter of the boneheads.

We don't usually allow the convoy ships to CBD or other SA - simply allowing them to fire their weapons and move in the end phase - their use as IN sinks can be a death nel to some fleets.

The other obvious one for the attacker is don't move on unless you win Iniaitive (unless its so skewed - say Shadows against pak that you can't)

 

[AdrianH]

Cross reference to the CQ check queries thread where there was some discussion about whether civilian ships should be able to act as init sinks or get special actions.

My suggestion there was that all civilian ships must act as a squadron, give just one init sink, and are allowed special actions. Half a dozen freighters will otherwise make a complete nonsense of initiative, which is probably one reason why the defenders keep winning in your games.

Why should the attacker not move on unless he wins initiative? I'd have thought the attacker must get in there as soon as possible or the convoy will simply cruise across the table (especially if they're allowed All Power To Engines) and escape.

 

[Da Boss]

It take the convoy a huge amount of turns to cross given there speed - I would have thought it would be best to wait until you can fire first and try and guarentee those kills?

 

[Democratus]

We've decided in our group that freighters can't be used as init sinks at all. Civilian ships really shouldn't have that much influence over the movement of military ships. Also, there's a scenario in one of the Signs & Portents where raiders have improved their Civ Freighters so that they move in the movment phase. The scenario states that this gives them the ability to act as init sinks - thus implying that they could not before.

We have been allowing SA for the freighters, but maybe we shouldn't.

We've had about 1/2 of the missions go to the defender and (of course) 1/2 to the attacker. So perhaps our interpretation of civilian initiative is a good one?

Da Boss does have a good point about knowing what enemy you will face. Knowing what weapons and abilities you are facing can drastically alter how you play. My Centauri usually face Narn - meaning that Emines are a huge consideration. Thus I space out my freighters. But this would make them more vulnerable against many enemies as it is harder to surround them with defending ships.

I'd love to see discussion like this about all the 'abnormal' missions in ACTA. I believe it's these missions which can teach us how to stretch as tacticians.

 

[Burger]

The scenario states that this gives them the ability to act as init sinks - thus implying that they could not before.

Ah, dangerous implication. There are plenty of examples in the rules where, just because one thing is explicitly stated as true, does not imply the inverse is false. For example, the Minbari section of P&P states that energy mines reduce stealth... but the inverse, that energy mines reduce stealth for non-Minbari ships, is also true, despite getting no explicit mention.

 

[Democratus]

The scenario states that this gives them the ability to act as init sinks - thus implying that they could not before.

Ah, dangerous implication. There are plenty of examples in the rules where, just because one thing is explicitly stated as true, does not imply the inverse is false. For example, the Minbari section of P&P states that energy mines reduce stealth... but the inverse, that energy mines reduce stealth for non-Minbari ships, is also true, despite getting no explicit mention.

Well the FAQ cleared this up, thank goodness.

The most important aspect of our treatment of Civ Freighters is that it brought the scenairos back into balance and made them more fun to play. Surely that counts for a great deal.

Always like to hear from you, Burger. Any tactical notes or observations you'd like to add? I'm not nearly as experienced at this game as some of you and would enjoy advice or notes from long time players.

 

[AdrianH]

Could you tell us which issue of S&P contains the Raiders' improved freighter?

It's difficult to be certain without seeing the exact wording, but I'd guess that this differs from the issue of energy mines and stealth. Partly because the FAQ explicitly states that energy mines break stealth, partly because P&P does not explicitly state that it only breaks Minbari stealth - it's only implicit because of where the rule appears. Whereas if the S&P article explicitly states that it is the Raiders' modification which grants their freighter the ability to act as an init sink, that would indeed be evidence that a regular freighter can not do so - it would be pointless for the Raiders to "improve" a freighter to do something which it could already do anyway.

Narn attacking a Minbari convoy could be interesting. If the Minbari freighters close up, they get energy mined. But they also get to use the "Web of Death" ability from P&P in case any Frazis get past the defending ships and fighters. (Against almost anybody else, the Minbari don't even need to think about this, the freighters will close up. )

 

[Democratus]

S&P 53, in the Masked Malice Campaign. There's a scenario where the Raiders get several Civilian Tankers which are under remote control. In the 'Coriana Revisited' scenario, under the Scenario Rules section: "The tankers are moved at the same time as other warships, giving the raiders a large number of expendable initiative sinks."

 

[Burger]

Hmm, okay...

Firstly it says it gives the Raiders a large number of expendable init sinks. It doesn't say this is different to how it is normally played. Just because something is explicitly stated, doesn't mean that normally it works differently.

Secondly the scenarios are written by Alan Oliver, who despite writing some great stuff, has made rules mistakes in previous articles. So I would not base any kind of wide-reaching implications on that sentence, which may simply have been added for clarification anyway.

Thirdly S&P content is not considered official unless it is marked as such, so any rules mentioned in an S&P scenario cannot affect anythig outside the scope of the article.


Although... the Convoy Duty scenario does specifically state that the convoy ships are moved in the end phase! So I guess that is pretty conclusive They can't be used as init sinks, although I would allow them to use special actions and take a turn in the firing phase as normal.

 

[Democratus]

It wasn't the moving in the End Phase that did it for us, because simply invoking a Special Action might be considered enough to soak up initiative.

However...I didn't really want this thread to devolve into rules semantics. I was hoping some of the more experienced folk like you, Burger, could contribute tactical advice, observations, or even good war stories regarding this mission.

That's much more interesting than taking apart paragraphs in PDFs.

 

[AdrianH]

Is there any clear evidence anywhere, not implications and inferences, which states one way or the other whether freighters act as init sinks?

Meanwhile, we have one report in which freighters do act as init sinks, don't get special actions, and the defender wins all the time. And we have one report in which freighters don't act as init sinks, do get special actions, and the defender wins about half the time. It might be worth different groups trying both ways to see if these results are repeated for varying combinations of players and fleets, but on the evidence of those two reports I'd suggest not allowing freighters to be init sinks for reasons of game balance.

 

[Burger]

The Convoy Duty states that freighters move in the end phase. Therefore they cannot be used as init sinks (since special actions are performed with a ship's movement). But taking apart paragraphs in PDFs is fun :lol:

I think you and Triggy and Da Boss pretty much said everything I could have said... different scenarios really call for different tactics and you should select your fleets and tactics based on the scenario, and how to win it, rather than trying to destroy all your opponent's ships (unless that is your ultimate objective, of course!).

I've found it to be quite a well balanced scenario in the past. The attacker's FAP disadvantage is quite nicely balanced by getting the first shot for free, and the freighter VPs. Work out exactly how much you need to kill to be able to hit and run.

 

[AdrianH]

The Convoy Duty states that freighters move in the end phase. Therefore they cannot be used as init sinks (since special actions are performed with a ship's movement). But taking apart paragraphs in PDFs is fun :lol:

According to the Shadows Physical Disruption thread, ships running adrift can be used as init sinks even though they move in the end phase and even if they're under a "No Special Actions" critical.

However, rules discussion aside, that's two reports in which freighters aren't init sinks and the game is well balanced, versus one in which freighters are init sinks and the defender always wins. It might be worth other people playing it both ways to confirm these results, but on that basis alone I'd suggest that freighters don't act as init sinks regardless of what rules or scenarios may imply, just to keep the game balanced.