Norman,

Some ideas to consider when playing the Borak.

1) They do not need to close in with their opponent to start inflicting damage. By maintaining a high speed (30) they can continue to fire just the megaphasers at the 9-15 range and whittle down shields each turn. This could be managed for as many as 10 turns before phaser capacitors and battery power drop to low levels.

2) HK-Ds could be deployed with tractor beams attached to them. This would allow the ship, traveling as high as speed 30, to gain an additional four phasers which would not be dependent on the ship's phaser capacitor system to operate. Also if EW was allowed, the fighters could carry EW pods to increase their built-in ECM capabilities to make them harder targets for sniping.

3) If playing the Borak by using oblique attacks and keeping the distance open, you can force the opponent to chase you at a higher speed to catch up. Thereby allowing you to turn the tables on him with a planned HET and an overrun.
[Don't forget to drop the tractor beams on your fighters just prior to doing that, if they were already "on the hook" as it were. Also have the turret set up so that it could fire after you complete the overrun. It will protect the Megaphasers going in and give you a chance to drop another shield and do even more damage as you flew by.]

By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Wednesday, December 04, 2013 - 11:39 pm: Edit

Hi George. Its funny that you bring up these points, because I was just about to post that I had arrived at the same conclusions through my own reasoning.

My reasoning went like this:

1) I was trying to figure out how to get the Turret and Megaphasers into Firing Arc on the enermy ship. In the last Playtest Report, the Gorn was always moving faster than the Borak. This enabled the Gorn to easily avoid the Megaphaser Firing Arc.

2) If this were reversed, leaving the Borak going extremely fast and the enemy ship going slow, then it would be possible to bring the Megaphasers into Firing Arc on the enemy ship. Speed would be essential to the Borak so that it could circle the enemy and gain the exact angle needed to fire the Megaphasers.

3) Suddenly the design of 3/4 Movement Cost for the Borak CA made sense. I realized why it was there.

4) I recalled what SPP said about Total Power when I asked him if he thought the Borak had too little Total Power. He gave me a reply which listed the Borak's Top Speed and how much power the Borak would have left. This hinted at what the Borak's Energy Allocation would look like at top speed (to bring the Megaphasers into Firing Arc).

5) I realized the Borak CA would only be able to fire one or two of its Megaphasers while going at top speed. All other non-essential costs (including Phaser-Cannons and Phasers) would have to be dropped to make the strategy successful.

6) The overall tactic would then revolve around slowly whittling down the enemy ship's shields. That was when I realized that the Borak could later move in for the kill with the close-range Phaser-Cannons and HK-D Fighters. Suddenly I realized why they were included in the ship design the way they were.

7) The entire strategy would depend on the Borak being faster than the enemy ship (to be able to bring the Megaphasers into Firing Arc). The enemy ship would counter the Borak by maintaining a high speed too and catching up to the Borak. If the enemy ship was also going fast, it could avoid the Borak's Megaphasers, thereby nullifying the Borak's High Speed Strategy. The question was: what weapons would an enemy ship be able to fire while traveling so fast to catch the Borak? Maybe one or two weapons or maybe no weapons at all. For some reason I still haven't figured out, Klingons came to mind...?

8) I still had not figured out how to use the HK-D Fighters effectively. I thought about using SPP's strategy: overrun the enemy ship, launch your other shuttles (non HK-D Fighters) to confuse your enemy, and then launch the HK-D Fighters after, perhaps even after you have completed the overrun attack.

But your Borak advice is brilliant and clearly comes from experience. Here are my thoughts:

a) I had not (and probably would not have) thought of using tractor beams to hold the HK-D Fighters while moving at high speed. Now I see why the HK-D Fighters have two extra phasers each. It didn't seem like much to have a single PH-2 and a single PH-3 when you just throw the HK-D Fighter at an enemy ship and the HK-D Fighter gets shot down after firing a couple of shots. But using your tractor beam approach, the Borak makes much better use of the two HK-D Fighters.

b) The idea of using EW pods to protect the fighters is a great idea (if allowed, that is).

c) I believe I would have come to the same conclusion about using a HET to setup an overrun, once the enemy ship had been worn down by the Megaphasers. But you saved me some time by noting to release the tractor beams just prior to the overrun (thanks!)

d) I knew the Turret could protect the Megaphasers, depending on which direction the Turret was facing when the Borak ship took damage. But I couldn't see the use of it. Now that you mention to overrun, keep the Turret pointed away (so the Megaphasers will be preserved if the Borak takes damage while closing for the overrun), and then use the Megaphasers After Completing the Overrun (since the Megaphasers are already pointed that direction), the Turret suddenly makes a lot of sense.

I greatly appreciate all your Borak Advice. Thank you very much. We will incorporate these strategies into the next Borak Playtest Duel.

(p.s. - I wonder if the Imperium can also use these strategies to be successful with its Turret? Sorry, can't help but cross-think into Triangulum since we are Playtesting them too)

By Michael Kenyon (Mikek) on Thursday, December 05, 2013 - 12:12 am: Edit

I would point out that one of the hidden pluses of the Borak is that because of the turret, you can close with the enemy without actually having the weapon in arc. Since all of your weapons are phasers, direction damage applies. If you can keep your main weapon out of arc till you fire and take it out of arc again soon after you do, you make it effectively immune to damage until very late in the DAC.

Also, while the Megaphaser has great heavy damage at medium range, at range 3, those phaser cannons do similar damage! It's a very, very flexible weapon both in being able to knock down seeking weapons, long-range punch as a P1, and massed damage as 3 phaser 2's.

By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Thursday, December 05, 2013 - 12:25 am: Edit

Thanks Mike. We appreciate the additional Borak advice.

It seems there is much more to the Borak than one initially sees on the surface!

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, December 05, 2013 - 11:35 am: Edit

George Duffy:

As long as the hunter-killers are held in the tractor beam they can only use their phasers against seeking weapons and shuttles launched by the enemy (G7.91).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, December 05, 2013 - 01:43 pm: Edit

Michael Kenyon:

For what it is worth, I did mention that tactic earlier in this topic as it was obvious even to someone as divorced from operating a Borak ship as I am (nothing wrong with you stating it, I just sort of assumed that as short as this topic is so far that Norman Dizon might have read it all and already seen that little nugget and thus thought I knew more about the Borak than I do, which was why he asked advice I did not feel qualified to give).

I would hope that others would discuss tactics and their experiences, but I again acknowledge that I have not flown any Borak ships and would consider any advice I might be tempted to give on tactics as "suspect" due to that lack of experience.

By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Thursday, December 05, 2013 - 02:25 pm: Edit

Hi SPP. I had reviewed the entire Borak Thread before I posted the first Playtest Duel results, so I was aware that the Turret turned away could save the Megaphasers from directional damage. However, I really do appreciate everyone's comments and advice, and I always try to be as polite as possible.

When I asked you for Borak tactical advice earlier, it was more from a brainstorming perspective to draw on your years of experience as both a Designer and Gamer. It didn't really matter to me if you had flown the Borak before or not.

For example, if there was a new empire someone created which had regenerating shields, I might ask (casually), "So what do you think would be the best approach to beat that?"

Or perhaps a new empire had a weapon that ignored shields, but cost a lot to fire and only worked at really close range. I might ask (casually), "So what could a Federation CA do to counter that weapon?"

Or maybe a new empire had remote controlled fighters, PH-4s mounted in a rotating turret, and no torpedoes. I might ask (casually), "Do you have any ideas how to bring that turret into firing arc, because it never seems to be able to hit anything?"

So whatever advice you would give would not perceived as a tactic that was tried and true from years of testing, but rather something like, "Here, why don't you try this? Based on some similar past experiences of mine, it seems like it might work, but maybe not. Tell me how it goes in your next Playtest Duel."

Sorry if I was not clear in my original questions to you. I don't think, when just casually brainstorming about ideas, that it is necessary to have first flown a new ship before giving suggestions about things to try that might (or might not) work. As long as the other person understands this is not an "official" tactic that has been tested over and over, but rather just a suggestion about something to try the next time you play the ship.

Of course, if I asked for a tactic that had been proven to work by many players over the years, that would be completely different. But that is where I failed to be clear in my question. I apologize for that.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, December 05, 2013 - 02:51 pm: Edit

Norman Dizon:

I do normally try to be polite myself. I normally enter the name of the person I am addressing when I start not to be "stiff and formal" (quotes are my own, not directed at anyone else) but just to make sure everyone knows specifically who I am addressing when I am addressing someone specific (as opposed to a general comment).

However, I spent a decade of my life "writing Army" when I was on active duty, and years in "Catholic School" and "ROTC" before that. It has very much impacted the way I express myself in written prose. Over time I have learned that many people "take offense" or "assume a tone" from my text that, if they were in my presence, would not hear. Thus I have become somewhat "gunshy" and have a tendency to add explanation to my writing in an effort to avoid giving offense.

Yes, I do tend to be "verbose," to give long explanations and try to cover all of the angles. If you have enough of the more recent "Captain's Logs" you will find articles by SVC more or less titled "To Kill a Mockingdrone." SVC does these (I think there are only two) in good humor (and I take them that way) that I very much do try to cover all of the bases when I start talking about something. Particularly tactics.

SVC, in point of fact, was probably only shocked by me one time. He had become convinced that I could not express anything in a short single phrase. Everytime he would set up a "real world" tactical situation (making me a company commander with a command decision to make) I would start going down a litany of things I "should know" before I made my decision. Things I should know because "I have been in command of this company for X period of time and I should know this about my people, the enemy, the general situation, the etc., etc., etc." One time SVC took the time to actually answer most of the questions I normally start asking before asking me what command I would give "over the radio" to the young Lieutenant, and was stunned when he got a three word response: "Take the bridge."

In SFB terms, I am always thinking about things. That Salvo of damage that just hit the shield of my previously undamaged Klingon D7 will score how many points of internal damage? More than 15, then I must use some or all of the batteries right now for shield reinforcement, because on average 15-18 points of internal damage on a Klingon D7 will destroy its batteries, and better to use the power in the batteries to block some damage than lose it with the batteries. Lots of details to keep in mind.

But Borak ships are just alien to me at this juncture, and I really do want others with more experience on them to discuss them. I know how the rules work (no offense intended to Patrick but as an example see my recent post about dragging the Hunter-Killers in tractor beams to use their phasers, i.e., it only works if your intent is to use their phasers defensively as they cannot be used offensively as long as the tractor link is maintained).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, December 05, 2013 - 04:21 pm: Edit

Norman Dizon:

In answer to your question about whether or not Hunter-Killers can use EW pods, the answer is "yes, but no." They can under (RB100.F0) which notes that Hunter-Killers, except the A and B models, have pod rails. This means that a Borak carrier carrying hunter-killer-Cs or -Ds would have a pod stock pile as given under (J11.13) and these pods could be used by hunter-killers. The "but no" is because the Borak CA with two hunter-killers would be considered a "casual carrier" under (J4.62). Rule (J11.131) only allows "true" carriers to purchase extra pods with Commander's Option points. Rule (J4.621) allows the purchase of "special drones" under Commander's Options, and (J4.75) refers back to (J4.621), so casual carriers cannot purchase pods. (Those operating as escorts can have pods transferred to them from the carrier they are escorting, but cannot purchase pods themselves.)

By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Thursday, December 05, 2013 - 05:11 pm: Edit

Hi SPP. Thank you very much for the clarification about the EW pods. It helps a lot.

We are focusing on the Borak CA right now and I don't see us playtesting the Borak carrier anytime in the near future.

Thanks again for making EW pod usage with the Borak CA clear.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, December 07, 2013 - 10:00 am: Edit

(YR1.1-RB100) Module E3 Borak YDK - The rule text states when the transporters and tractors are upgraded. Tractor-Y's and transporter range 2 have a YIS of 80 which is after the YIS of the unit of 65. Shouldn't all the early year bases have a Y80 refit?

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Saturday, December 07, 2013 - 06:17 pm: Edit

SPP,

I was under the impression that the Borak had followed the same example as the Hydran when it came to having fighters installed. Hydran warships that carry fighters are considered "fully-capable" carriers (J4.623). Their ships carry supplies of fighter pods and can lend EW to their fighters (just like "true" carriers). The Borak ships are also "fully-capable" carriers. There is even a note listed in the 'refit' section (RB100.R) stating that the "Casual Ready Rack" refit (R1.R3) did not apply to any current Borak ship

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, December 08, 2013 - 07:19 am: Edit

The rules (YR1.8F1-YRB100) EARLY GROUND-BASED DEFENSE PHASER-1 (YGBD1) and (YR1.8F2-YRB100) EARLY GROUND-BASED DEFENSE PHASER-2 (YGBD2) have no text following them but (YR1.8F16-YRB100) EARLY GROUND-BASED DEFENSE EARLY MEGAPHASER (YGBDMP) is complete. Was the intent that the text in (YR1.8F16-YRB100) EARLY GROUND-BASED DEFENSE EARLY MEGAPHASER (YGBDMP) is for all three rules?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, December 08, 2013 - 08:05 am: Edit

(YR1.8F16-YRB100) EARLY GROUND-BASED DEFENSE EARLY MEGAPHASER (YGBDMP) - The reference to phaser-4 should be phaser-1. Per YE2.11 bases have ph-1 instead of ph-4. - Ken Kazinski, 8 Dec 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, December 08, 2013 - 12:31 pm: Edit

I just noticed the rule numbers in Annex 4 do not match the rule numbers in the unit descriptions. For example the FD-A rule number is F31 in Annex 4 but when you look at the unit description (pg 38) the rule number is RB100.F11. Which is correct?

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Sunday, December 08, 2013 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Ken Kazinski

The Rule number error for Annex #4 was reported in my January 5 2012 post in this thread. The Annex is wrong by a count of twenty in each listing.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, December 09, 2013 - 11:03 am: Edit

George Duffy:

There is a specific rule for the Hydrans (which you have cited), and many of their ships which would normally be classed as "casual carriers" carry more than two (2) fighters (the Lord Bishop carries three, the Lancer carries four, etc.). Many of their ships that might have been classed as "light carriers" (i.e., they carry at least six fighters, such as the Horseman) are listed as "hybrid carriers" but get treated (as with the ones with fewer fighters) as true carriers under the rule you cited. It is specific to them.

There is no such rule for the Borak stating that their ships are considered to be true carriers, except for the specific reference to (J15.22) which notes they are true carriers for purposes of remote controlled fighters ONLY (JB100.124). If the Borak ships that happen to carry a couple of hunter-killers were to be treated a 'true carriers,' there should have been a rule so stating, at least stating they are treated as Hydran hybrid ships. There just is no such rule. So they are "casual carriers," with no "V" in the notes column of the MSC, and as such are restricted to the stores for casual carriers, which do not include fighter pods (nor can their "carrier" lend them electronic warfare and etc.).

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, December 22, 2013 - 07:42 pm: Edit

(RB100.55) Module E3 Borak BATS - The Special Sensor system has a YIS of 134 and is after the unit was first introduced in Y130; there is no refit. - Ken Kazinski, 22 Dec 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, December 22, 2013 - 07:50 pm: Edit

(RB100.56) Module E3 Borak BS - The Special Sensor system has a YIS of 134 and is after the unit was first introduced in Y120; there is no refit. - Ken Kazinski, 22 Dec 2013.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, December 23, 2013 - 01:36 pm: Edit

Ken Kazinski:

A quick check of Module Y1 shows that the Early Base Station (YIS 65) and Early Dock (YIS 65) have special sensors. A check of the Technology Timeline in Module G3 says that in Y134 special sensors are no longer under the Early Years Restrictions. A check of (YG24.0) in Module Y1 also says the early years restrictions are removed in Y134.

There is no refit. If the scenario is set before Y134 the special sensors are present, but operate under the restrictions of (YG24.0). If the scenario is set after Y133, the special sensors operate normally under (G24.0).

I apologize for the confusion.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, December 27, 2013 - 10:30 am: Edit

(R1.PF1-RB100) Module E3 Borak PF - There is no entry for any of the PF's in Annex 10. - Ken Kazinski, 27 Dec 2013.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, December 27, 2013 - 02:16 pm: Edit

Ken Kazinski:

Uhm . . . the only entry in Annex #10 for any PF in the Alpha Octant, whether Federation, Klingon, Romulan, Kzinti, Gorn, Tholian, Orion, Hydran, Lyran, WYN, ISC, LDR, Seltorian, Jindarian, or Vudar (and also for the Frax, Qari, Triaxians . . . the Sharkhunters, Barbarians, Flivvers, Deltans, Britanians, Canadi'ens, Hispaniolans, Eighth Air Force, and Nicozians do not have PFs . . . yet), is found in the notes, specifically note #2, at the end of Annex #10. That same set of notes was included in Module E3, to include note #2. The same notes also appear in Module E4 for the Peladine PFs, and in Module C6 for the Paravian and Carnivon PFs, and in Module C3A for the Conjectural Andromedan Adder PFs.

The Magellanic Cloud (Module C5) had only one empire using PFs (so far), so that one empire (the Baduvai) included its PFs in its Annex #10 listing since PFs did not apply (at the time of that printing) to any of the other Magellanic Cloud empires.

The Omega Octant PFs were so different from each other and from Alpha Octant PFs that each empire that operated them included them in their Annex #10 listing in Module Omega #5.

The Triangulum Galaxy (Module E2) did not have PFs as of yet, so there was no listing for them at all.

But the fact that the Borak Star League PFs are not included as a separate hull type in Annex #10 is not an error but the standard format for Alpha Octant PFs applying to all empires in the Alpha Octant that operate PFs as of the currently published editions of the rules and annexes, whether in Module G3, or Module C6, or Module E3, or Module E4, or Module C3A.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, December 28, 2013 - 11:21 am: Edit

(R1.PF3-RB100) Module E3 Borak PFG - The minimum crew units should be 2 and not 3. Troop Transports (Units with a T Note) subtract their boarding parties to determine the crew size for use with (G9.41). - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2013.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, December 28, 2013 - 11:53 am: Edit

Ken Kazinski:

Ahem, PF crews are guided by (K1.3), not (G9.41). Under (K1.311) crew assigned to a PF is already the minimum crew. The PFG designs of all Alpha Octant empires have three crew units (the standard including the defensive boarding party for all non-leader PFs except the demilitarized workboat designs) and a capacity to carry five crew units of passengers (ten boarding parties).

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, December 28, 2013 - 05:43 pm: Edit

Steve,

Wouldn't the minimum still be 2 as the 11 boarding crews would take the crew units to 2.5. Would this be rounded down to 2?