When ADB, Inc. released Module E3, one segment, (RB100.1B) dealt specifically with Borak Carrier Operations. One segment in particular (RB100.1B4) presented as an Option, dedicated escorts. This allows specific Borak ships to bypass the policy on "No Aegis" (RB100.1B3).

This was NOT the genesis of this idea, but is more of a fig-leaf excuse.

The purpose of this proposal is the idea of having Borak operate Phaser Cannons (EB101.0) on their turrets (G52.0) in place of Megaphasers (EB100.0)

This will result in a loss of hitting power, especially at range, but IMO may make for a different kind of challenge for players to enjoy.

This is meant in no way to disrespect the artistic vision Jeremy Gray has/had for the Borak.

CLE/CWE/CWA

The first of the two designs that've been crawling around my alleged mind is the Cruiser Escort. It is based on the CL (RB100.31) and its "Wartime Upgrade," the CW (RB100.34). A superficial look at the SSDs for the aforementioned ship shows that the largest differences are a pair of APR on the latter, an upgrade of the side phasers, Phasers #5 and #6, from Phaser-2 to Phaser-1, an increase in shielding, and adding a second Megaphaser to the turret.

Given the "Color Text" on the Light Bombardment Cruiser, in which it talks about the stress of the third Megaphaser causes shock, I believe that a Phaser Cannon is a less hull-stressful weapon than the Megaphaser, and that the upgraded turret on the CW would justify the turret on the earlier Light Cruiser would be able to handle the shock of having its single Megaphaser replaced with twin Phaser Cannons.

Given that this ship would not be built without the Y168 refit, its total weapon load-out would be...

... FOUR Phaser Cannons; two FA mounted, two on the turret
... TWO Phaser-1s, FA mounted
... TWO Phaser-2s, one LS, the other RS
... TWO Phaser-3s, one RA+L. the other RA+R

For its "Long range punch," as a normal part of the "Plus" (Y168) refit, all of the Phaser Cannons would be able to fire as a single Phaser-1.

Oh, and as a dedicated escort before full Aegis was implemented, the CLE would have all its weapons controlled by a limited Aegis rig.

The SSD for the CWE would be easier to convert; it just replaces the Megaphasers (Phasers #9 and #10) on the CW (RB10.34) with Phaser Cannons and has limited Aegis installed, with full Aegis available for the CWA.

Because the Crawford box on the SSD for the CW lists it as entering service in Y172, I would propose that all CLEs would likely have been upgraded to CWEs before full Aegis was installed, hence no reference to a CLA. HOWEVER, it does remain possible for a CLE to be upgraded to full Aegis before being upgraded to CWA standard, so it could exist.

Another aspect is the role escorts play in servicing the fighters from the carriers they escort. Given that the CL and CW both make use of Borak Suicide Fighters (JB100.0) and Borak Fighter-Destroyers don't have carrier-rearmed weapons, I would NOT add any additional "Ready Racks" to any dedicated escorts; if I remember things correctly, the rule for deck crews to repair shuttles does not require a ready rack.

(If I'm wrong, well, maybe I ought to have the full rulebook in front of me when I make a proposal from now on... )

DDE/DDA

Much like the CWE/CWA, the conversion of an SSD for the DDE/DDA would be pretty simple. I'm imagining the ship as a variant of the turreted DDL (RB100.41), with a single Phaser Cannon replacing the Megaphaser and installing limited Aegis (for the DDE, FULL Aegis for the DDA). Pretty much everything else would remain the same.

Of note, as is established in the rules for Phaser Cannons, they are limited to a 120 degree firing arc. As turret mounted weapons, their firing arc would be defined by the position of the turret. This is important for both targets they may fire at and for what angle they, as phasers, might be subject to damage. Their arcs would be limited to 120 degrees centered on the direction the turret is facing, as per rule (G52.21).

Well, that's this proposal. Does this sound reasonable to anyone else, or am I completely off base (as frequently happens )? Please feel free to comment.

jga

By Joseph Jackson (Bonneville) on Wednesday, April 17, 2024 - 11:01 pm: Edit

I fear this question is born of some ignorance, but I'm away from my rule books and have no impulse control.
Are the Qari turrets similar in function and/or design to the Borak turrets? Do they have the ability to "heavy weapon swap" turret mounts? If so, I think that would lend weight to the idea.
Also, I seem to recall a Borak assault ship, it was no turrets and all cannons (I think). That suggests, maybe, some modularity? Or is that taking a leap of logic into a brick wall?

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, April 18, 2024 - 12:26 pm: Edit

The Borak rulebook has a reprint of the Qari turret rules from the Simulator Races Module, so yes, Joseph, the Borak turrets are played just like the Qari turrets.

The Qari used variants of the base hull with different weapons in their turrets, but I've always been left with the impression that the ships are built with their weapon load-outs and swapping them would be like swapping the weapons on any other ship (outside of the possible exception of Orion Option Mounts)

You are also correct with the Borak Assault Cruiser, but if I remember the ship description properly, she was built with the four Phaser Cannon outfit and no turret, so converting her to a standard configuration would be even more extensive than normal, plus she was judged by her builders to be too vulnerable to long range fire to do independent patrols.

(Again, if I remember correctly).

As far as suggesting some kind of modularity, goodness knows I'd LOVE for there to be more ships with it, but at this point, I think there're only the Romulan third generation ships, Heavy War Destroyers (and a trio of oddballs that use the same systems), tugs with pods, and the vessels of a couple of Omega races as modular ships.

Not a leap of logic into a brick wall, just a very reasonable misunderstanding. Pobody's nerfect, and it's also a bit of a misunderstanding that I've had on... Shall we say, "More than once?"