Federation Commander

[Scoutdad]

That's because Fed Comm doesn't have SSDs.
It has ship cards!!!


_________________
Commander, Battlegroup Murfreesboro
Department Head, ACTASF

[Scharwenka]

[Scoutdad]

It could be worse...

At least you didn't call the Frax a... [looks furtively around for Webmom]... a race!
_________________
Commander, Battlegroup Murfreesboro
Department Head, ACTASF

[Scharwenka]

[Jean]

Bad Tony!
_________________
Business Manager/RPG Line Editor
Amarillo Design Bureau, Inc.

[Scoutdad]

[Neon]

I'm going to be giving the Frax a whirl in the next iteration of my campaign (well, someone else will play them, but I'll be letting them in.) I've played them a bunch of times in a tourney setting, and find them enjoyable and fairly easy to play (they die pretty easily to people who are willing to wear down the shields. If it were me, I'd base their tourney ship on the CA, not the CC.)

But back to the campaign play stuff; I had some questions about them. In the Frax's Section-R area (R51.1C), there is mention of swapping out the Disruptor mounts for plasma mounts (Pl-S up front, Pl-F in the rear mounts.) What do you think that would cost in BPV? What would happen to the drone racks and missile racks?

On the other side, I wonder if there has been any discussion of modifying the Missile racks to carry (probably 2) Type-H drones, instead of 4x Type-IV drones. The reasoning for doing this is that the Type-Hs have a similar operational profile to the intent of the missile racks, and Type-Hs probably had not been published when the Frax came out. I don't see that this would change the BPV of the ship, so the question would be that of balance.
_________________

[mjwest]

Be aware that when a rule talks about swapping out weapons, it is with the understanding that the ships in question are "in a simulator", if not outright simulator empires. As such, on a scenario-by-scenario basis you can pretty much do what you want.

However, if the idea is to treat them as a full empire, then they really should have an established technology base. So, if you were to have "plasma Frax" instead of "standard Frax", you would end up with their whole fleet using plasmas instead of disruptors. And that would require a pretty serious change to everything, and might end up with something unworkable.

So, if you are looking at some kind of campaign system, I strongly recommend just using the Frax as they are without trying to replace their weapons with something else.

To actually answer the question:

For BPV, going by the old golden list I still have around, a good basis is:
- Disruptor-40: 6
- Disruptor-30: 5
- Disruptor-22: 4
- Drone Rack B: 5
- Plasma-S (swivel): 18
- Plasma-F (swivel): 6
- Plasma-D: 6
Get points for the weapons you give up; spend points for the weapons you get in return.

As for the weapons, I guess we just swap out weapons one-for-one as follows:
- All FX disruptors on SC3+ ships become FP Pl-S
- All FX disruptors on SC4 ships become FP Pl-G
- All RX disruptors become AP Pl-F
- All drones become Pl-D (since they are already set up to be evenly split LS/RS)
- All AFDs are demoted to Ph-3. (I.e. the AFD and its refit doesn't exist.)

Putting all this in context, let's take an example: The Frax CW. It has the following weapons:
- 2x Disruptor-30 FX
- 2x Ph-1 FX
- 2x Disruptor-30 RX
- 2x Ph-1 RX
- 4x Ph-3 on the corners
- 2x Drone-B
Using the note mentioned below, that would give us:
- 2x Pl-S FP
- 2x Ph-1 FX
- 2x Pl-F AP
- 2x Ph-1 RX
- 4x Ph-3 on the corners
- 2x Pl-D LS/RS
The phasers remain unchanged, but we swap out four disruptor-30s (20) and two drone-B racks (10); replacing them with two Pl-S (36), two Pl-F (12), and two Pl-D (12). That is a net increase of 30 BPV. So, the CW-plasma would cost 150 BPV instead of 120 BPV.

(Note that you would also have to make ship-by-ship decisions, too. Most CWs will have a plasma armament of 1xPl-S + 2xPl-F. So, while the CA would definitely replace both forward disruptors with two Pl-S, the CW might only replace the two forward disruptors with one Pl-S. (In that case the BPV increase would only be 12, meaning the plasma-CW with only one Pl-S would have a BPV of 132. Since 150 BPV is pretty high for a CW, this might be necessary just for cost purposes.)

This only covers the "surface" ships. The sub ships are way more complex and really don't map to plasma technology very well. (Go figure.) While I suppose it is easy enough to just replace axion torpedoes with plasmas (like the disruptors), the missile racks just don't work as plasma-D racks don't fit the purpose, and there is no real good plasma replacement. Plus, by replacing the axion torpedoes and missile racks (which can fire while cloaked) with plasma technologies (which can't fire while cloaked), you pretty much eliminated the entire point of submarines. It might be best just to forget the submarines and live with the surface ships if you want to use plasma in place of their printed weapons.

As for the type-H drones, you have to keep two things in mind:
1) The type-H drones rules explicitly state they cannot be used in ship racks, which would include missile racks. This is a simulator empire, so why not? But, realize this rule is there for a reason, so breaking two rules simultaneously (no firing under cloak; no type-H drones in ship racks) could be a step too far.
2) The type-H drones must use ATG.
Given, those points, sure, go for it. I would never do it for a campaign empire, for for a nasty surprise in a scenario, sure.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy

[Neon]

Plasma Frax
Good point about going to the old (S3.3). I was mostly looking at Annex #8B (as #8H doesn't even treat Plasma-S.) That would put the Plasma-S cost at 7, replacing a disruptor with a cost of 1. Or a Plasma-F with a cost of 1 against the same cost-1 Disruptor. i like your reasoning for for restricting the "war" hulls on thier armament, when compared against a full-sized hull, and would probably advance that through the rest of the war hulls.

I might refund the cost of the drone racks entirely (a rebate of 1 BPV ea.) I agree about removing the AFD refit entirely. The ships with Missile racks (which are really just a couple of variants) I might scrub entirely. Escort variants, which replaced the disruptors with phasers, would probably exchange their drone racks for plasma-D racks (which would mean they have fewer Pl-Ds than their BP counterparts, but likely more phasers.) bombardment variants, I would also scrub (though an all-Plasma-D variant could be temporarily entertaining).

Subs, as you mentioned, may be scrubbed because there is no good way to transfer their technology over. If someone belly-ached hard enough, I might let them have the subs with no missile racks, with Axions converted to Plasma-Fs (which is likely to be an even trade, but I can't find the costs for axions in simulated pirates), and convert the drones to Pl-Ds (with the sorts of arcs you mentioned.) All of those plasma would be the can't-fire-cloaked kind, so the Subs would be the Plasma-Frax's way of being a Romulan and the "surface-ship" hulls would be analogous to the Gorns.

Taking the above into consideration, a Frax CA would have 2x FP Pl-S , 2x RP PL-F, and give up their Drone-Bs, giving them a "refit" cost of +10 BPV (7x2 [Pl-S] + 1x2 [Pl-F] - 1x4 [Disrs] - 1x2 [Drn-B] )
A Frax CW would have 1x Pl-S, 2x Pl-F, and no drones. Cost: +3 BPV. Compared to a Rom SPA+, it has 1 less Ph-1 (but all phaser arcs are about as permissive), no cloak, and is 9 BPV cheaper. Compared to a Gorn HDD+, it has about the same phasers and has a slightly better TM, for 9 more BPV. This thing is probably in the ballpark.

Would that sort of thing work, do you think? Granted, your disclaimers of "Don't try this in a production-environment campaign" makes sense and would be needed in a normal situation. I'm not planning on doing the Plasma-Frax anytime soon, but I have been thinking of what it would take to work. This is another step along that path. My intention for the immediate future is to just run with the Frax as-printed, with the AFD refit only on escorts and big ships.

Type-H in Missile Racks
I'm not sure that having ATG in the Type-Hs really breaks anything. Type-Hs can already have ATG, and subs already get free ATG (presumably it doesn't affect their drone percentages.) By the same thinking, I don't think the launching of Type-Hs while cloaked would break anything, either. Though I would go far enough to say that there aren't any Type-H Catfish.

I am vacillating between one or two drones in the launcher. With one in the launcher, the Sub gets almost no mileage out of their missile racks. With more than two in the launcher, it turns into something better than if there were type-IVs in there. I wasn't planning on putting any restrictions on loading/launching the second one in the launcher - treating it like a second drone in the rack. However, the normal caveats of the missile rack (e.g. cannot reload except from a tender) still apply.

Thoughts?
_________________

[mjwest]

I would hesitate to use Annex 8B unless you require the Pl-S torpedoes to occupy two boxes. (That's built into the costs.) So, if you are going to replace things one-for-one (like on the CA), then you really need to use the old S3.3 costs. If you don't, then you are in danger of making the plasma conversion too cheap.

On the Type-H drones, I think you misunderstood my concern. My only point about ATG is that you must take it, not that taking it is a problem. My concern is that you are using Type-H drones in a rack at all. Rule (FD21.11) explicitly states "[t]his drone cannot ever appear on any ... ship (except in drogues) ..." That means that outside simulators, it is literally impossible to use a Type-H drone in any kind of drone rack on a ship. Obviously, inside the simulator, you can do anything you want. But, the general idea in the simulator is to only break one (maybe two) rules at any given time. With everything else that Frax submarines break, adding in yet another important limitation being ignored could cause problems. Maybe not; I don't know. But, throwing in yet another "rule break" could be more unbalancing than expected because of all of the other rules being broken.

And if you want to have two drones in the rack, you can't have it be reloaded. It has to be preloaded. Rule (FD21.5) is quite explicit in saying that anything holding a type-H drone cannot be reloaded during a scenario. So, either it is a second "slot" in the rack, or it is only one drone. Again, since you are already in the simulator, you can do whatever you want. But, the more rules you break, the more chances you have to truly break things.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy

[Neon]

Thanks for the help with the Plasma Frax. You're prolly right about the costs for placing in the mounts.

It sounds like the Type-H Missile racks is pretty much a non-workable idea. It's a shame, but better to find out this way, than in the middle of a campaign.
_________________

[Steve Cole]

Not really a shame when something everybody knows is too good runs into a rule that says not to use it because it's too good.

Actually, you can put ONE type-H drone in a silo in the place of one drone rack. No reloads.

Standard rule of thumb is that one plasma-S and one plasma-F occupy the same space of two disruptors/photons. The plasma-S is about 1.33 and the plasma-F about 0.67.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander

[mjwest]

At the risk of contradicting the designer of the game, rule (FP21.11) is quite clear that type-H drones cannot be used on ships in any capacity. Obviously, since this is a simulator, you can do whatever you want, but the base rule says, "No, not ever."

I do vaguely remember the option to mount a type-H drone rack in a silo on a ship, but apparently that was the playtest rule, as the MRB rule outright forbids that.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy

[Steve Cole]

Yea, I'm referring to one of the simulator things, a silo-ship, might be a submarine, too long ago to remember. But for the simulators you might give it a try.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander

[mjwest]

For the whole "Type-H drone in a missile rack" thing, go back to your original idea of having each missile rack effectively hold two ATG equipped type-H drones. However, explain it this way:

Each missile rack is replaced by a pair of silos. However, that pair of silos, while independent, share the same exit port and therefore only a single type-H drone may be fired on any given turn by the pair of silos. Because of the close proximity any hit on a silo will destroy the pair, but cause no other damage to the ship. As a result of this, each pair of missile silos is shown as a single box on the SSD despite being a pair of otherwise independent silos.

There you go! You now get the effect you want, but it is still fairly rules compliant and you don't even have to change the SSD. Technobabble for the win!
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy