This would be a place to post such suggestions.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, May 14, 2022 - 12:11 am: Edit

I glad to see the FC, Starmada, and ACtA:SF versions posted alongside the SFB SSD.

Would it be worth consolidating this and other Alpha Octant simulator empire threads over at the "Module C4R" section of the BBS? Or is it better to wait until the "for real" Prax are done before considering such a thing?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, May 13, 2022 - 11:11 pm: Edit

I doubt this would be either of these: but in terms of Alpha Octant variants, I wonder if one or more of the "lost empires" of Module C6 might make or interesting Frax derivations.

As in, a Carnivon-based variant with disruptor cannons in place of disruptor bolts; death bolts in place of drones; and L and R arc heel nippers in place of the AFD.

And of course, I'd be happy to see a would-be QWT-armed variant "borrowed" for use in Omega simulators - or, in Ship Card terms, for the FC Omega playtest project.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, May 14, 2022 - 04:23 am: Edit

Gary, if this ever becomes something beyond newsletter stuff, I would suggest it all be C4F FRIENDS OF THE FRAX.

By Eric Silverman (Ericsilverman) on Saturday, May 14, 2022 - 05:34 am: Edit

Seconding the QWAX -- QWT-based -- and the CARNAX -- DCs/DBs/Heel Nippers.

Some off-the-cuff ideas:

The WAX -- web casters/web fists and web snares galore.

The BORAX -- turret-mounted Megaphasers, Phaser Cannons, and Phaser-Gs for defence.

The PELAX -- an unholy combination of the FRAX and the PRAX, carpeting the board with plasma and drones.

The ANDRAX -- Andro-like FRAX with TRs, DisDevs, etc.

The ANTHRAX -- a nightmarish Tholian/Andro alliance in one package! They'll web-cast in front of you, DisDev behind you, and riddle you with phaser-holes from all directions at once.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, May 14, 2022 - 08:43 am: Edit

"Module C4F" works for me.

Might such a product have room for would-be Omega Frax variants also, or ought those be best kept over in the Omega simulator thread linked to above?

(On a side note, I wonder if "Module C4W" would work as a potential designation for such a file...)

-----

Given the choice of names for the "lost empire" Paravian fighters and bombers in Module C6, a "Qwax" (or "Quax?") designation seems appropriate.

Of course, one could also deploy the "Echelax": with PPDs in the fore and aft turrets, plus banks of side-launching plasma-Fs operating under the kind of targeting restrictions seen in (R13.1C).

I'm not sure if I'd go so far as to give a would-be "Borax" variant phaser-Gs. Perhaps L and R arc phaser cannon mounts might be "different enough" for them - on hulls large enough to install megaphaser turrets, at least.

By Eric Silverman (Ericsilverman) on Saturday, May 14, 2022 - 08:51 am: Edit

Yes, I like QWAX as the name for the QWT-armed FRAXians Personally I prefer QWAX to QUAX, given the link to QWT, and both still read as 'Quacks'.

The ECHELAX is another great idea! Heck, maybe the proposed Plasmatic Pulsar Carbine (light PPD) could show up there too. The PPC seemed controversial as an ISC add-on, but they could be fun in the simulators.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, May 14, 2022 - 09:02 am: Edit

That might depend on which "light PPD" proposal one were to select.

Personally, I might favour a scaled-down version of the PPD stuck in "underload" mode (E11.25): a 2+2 arming weapon producing two "standard" wave pulses, or 2+4 for a three-pulse overload. (A would-be FC version would not need the overload function, of course.)

Although, this is probably not be the best place to argue over such details...

-----

On a side note, I'd be okay with keeping the axion torpedo more or less as-is for most Frax variants.

This weapon is distinct enough from other Frax weapons to suit its intended purpose. Plus, keeping it would avoid having to cook up some other kind of weapon for Frax-variant subs to fire while cloaked.

By Eric Silverman (Ericsilverman) on Saturday, May 14, 2022 - 09:52 am: Edit

Hmm, personally I agree with Jim Davies' posts in the PPC thread though -- the PPD is distinct because of the splash damage, multi-shot Mizia effect and wavelock aspects in combination. Dropping the PPC down to two pulses loses a lot of that.

For the Axions, I agree with you for the most part, though I'd find it more fun to use alternates in certain situations. For PRAX/other Plasma-using variants, using the cloaked plasma launch rules from SSJ could be fun, for example, and the rules already exist.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, May 14, 2022 - 11:32 am: Edit

I would keep the Omegans in a separate product.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, May 14, 2022 - 06:22 pm: Edit

Qwax? Would they also use the ThunderDuck fighter?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, May 14, 2022 - 06:50 pm: Edit

Hummmm.... I wonder if there will be a... Dangerous Duck Destroyer Variant?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, May 14, 2022 - 07:46 pm: Edit

The main missing weapon would be a version based on photons. Not sure you want to go there, but that's the main obvious one.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, May 14, 2022 - 09:01 pm: Edit

Once upon a time, back in the days of GEnie, I proposed a stretched FRAX ship, perhaps a Heavy Cruiser, that had another set of weapons mounted mid-ship. They would be on 360-deg turents, but because the FA & RA arcs are blocked by the ship's superstructure, the available arc would be limited to L+R.

Thoughts? Opinions?


Garth L. Getgen

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, May 14, 2022 - 11:22 pm: Edit

Sgt. G, I want to give the idea a try, but my gut is having problems with it.

Maybe it's just me trying to push my philosophies on ship design (and if I am, I do apologize ), but any time I "Add" something, I have to balance it out by reducing something else.

In this case, the only thing that comes to mind is that the extra firepower from the midships turret has to be "Paid For" by either taking something away or by adding some additional price to the ship.

The best examples that come immediately to mind are the Tholian New Heavy Cruisers (R7.50 and R7.51). These ships, to have their extra pair of heavy weapons, were burdened with parasitic mass without additional movement capable power and lost their ability to Pinwheel.

Again, this is me being a jerk, but if I were to try and do a "FRAX Midships Turret Variant," I think I'd go all out with problem after problem for these ships.

Okay, maybe not all, but I think I'd give them at least one of these problems...

... A higher movement cost.
... A more ponderous turn mode.
... Higher breakdown ratings.
... No additional energy/power (Warp, Impulse, APR, BTTY; none of them boosted a single box).

Again, it's probably just me being a jerk, but those are my 0.02 Quatloos worth.*

(* Okay, it's probably worth less than that... )

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, May 14, 2022 - 11:32 pm: Edit

Jeff, I don't see that as "being a jerk". It was pointing out the obvious, which I had thought of (but didn't type). I wasn't suggesting that the additional weapon(s) would be the only change. Adding these weapons would probably change the ship's class, say from CL to NCA or CA to BC. As such, the ship would need more power, etc.


Garth L. Getgen

By Jeffrey Noel Cochran (Jncochran) on Sunday, May 15, 2022 - 06:49 am: Edit

LYRAX with ESGS.

VURAX with Ion Torpedoes/IPG

PLAX - Heavy plasma and ESGs, with ESGs replacing the Pl-F for short range firepower

KRAX with special sensors and Drone-D. Basically ignore the Auto-Reject listing "Combat or strike scouts (scouts equipped with non-blinding weapons)."
Plus I've always wanted to see more Drone-D, e.g. take a carrier and replace the fighters with Drone-D.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, May 16, 2022 - 04:05 pm: Edit

Another option could be the "Jinrax": medium rail guns in the fore and aft turrets (or light rail guns on Size Class 4 and smaller units). Perhaps with the drone racks and/or AFDs swapped out for banks of side-firing prospecting cannons (E19.35)?

As "metal-hull" ships, the heavy rail gun would be off-limits here.

By Jeffrey Noel Cochran (Jncochran) on Monday, May 16, 2022 - 05:51 pm: Edit

Gary, Jinrax could replace AFD with railguns that only fire in defensive mode. Maybe with reduced range for SC4 units.

A unit with lots of L/R prospecting cannon for planetary bombardment might be an interesting tactical challenge

By Soeren Klein (Ogdrklein) on Tuesday, May 17, 2022 - 12:24 am: Edit

Reading the proposals in this discussion, I wonder what a RELAX might look like.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, May 17, 2022 - 03:25 pm: Edit

Should the ISC learn of the FRAX and PLAX, might they be "Inspired" to do explore what might have come if they'd developed the unique heavy weapons used by their constituent peoples during the W-era; GW era versions of Plasma Blasters (YE25.0), Plasma Cannons (YE26.0), the Plasma Vortex Launcher (YE27.0), and/or Plasma Drones (YFD22.0)?

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Tuesday, May 17, 2022 - 05:56 pm: Edit

IRAX - 2xPPD (1 front, 1 rear with FPX/RPX arc). 2xS (1 front, 1 rear, with FPX/RPX arc), 2xF (1 right, 1 left with R/L arc (with 3xF boxes each and ISC launch restrictions i.e. 1 offensive launch per turn, unlimited defensive launches).

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, May 17, 2022 - 09:48 pm: Edit

One potential issue is how much "option mount space" there is in the fore and aft turrets for alternate heavy weapons.

On the one hand, the Frax CA has 2 spaces (for disruptors) per turret. Whereas the proposed Prax CA has three (two for the plasma-S and 1 for the -F) per turret. Which, of course, is akin to how the engine caps on a Klingon D7 are able to make room for a heavier plasma throw-weight when converted into a Romulan K7R.

If one were to infer that direct-fire weapons get two per turret and seeking weapons get 3 (or 1 "small" and 1 "large", more or less), it might be that the fore and aft PPDs on a would-be "Echelax" CA would take up all of the available space in and of themselves.

Which is fine. One could see this as akin to the difference between an ISC light cruiser and a strike cruiser, rather than comparing more directly with the ISC star cruiser and torpedo cruiser.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, May 17, 2022 - 10:26 pm: Edit

SVC has already established that 2xDisr, 2xPhot, and 1xPl-S+1xPl-F all take about the same space. So there is no disparity there.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, May 18, 2022 - 05:29 am: Edit

That is correct. Gary's math is all wrong.

===================
One potential issue is how much "option mount space" there is in the fore and aft turrets for alternate heavy weapons.

On the one hand, the Frax CA has 2 spaces (for disruptors) per turret. Whereas the proposed Prax CA [also has two, 1.3] the plasma-S and [0.7] for the -F) per turret. Which, of course, is [exactly] how the engine caps on a Klingon D7 are able to make room for a heavier plasma throw-weight when converted into a Romulan K7R.