The Confederation of the Gorns acquires type-D plasma racks in Y165, the same time as the other plasma-armed Alpha Octant empires. To date, however, the majority of Gorn starships which have this system installed are carrier escorts. Although, to give one example, it is possible to equip a Gorn heavy battle destroyer (or its first-generation X-ship counterpart) with a pair of type-D racks (or type-DX racks), without necessarily configuring the ship as a carrier escort.

To clarify, type-D racks have room for four plasma-D torpedoes; these have one set of reloads prior to Y175, and two sets of reloads after.

Type-DX racks have room for six plasma-D torpedoes; however, while (XFP10.14) states that they have two sets of reloads, (XR4.25) says that they get a third set of reloads; I'm not sure which is the correct version.

As evidenced in the recent 500 BPV tournament battle between the Gorns and the Klingons, the Gorn fleet at present has trouble dealing with large numbers of drones - especially "fast" (Speed 32) ones. Even with such factors as the ability to fire type-F (or type-L) plasma launchers as carronades taken into account.

But, on the other hand, escort ships in the Alpha Octant tend to be tied to the carriers they are formally assigned to. In Star Fleet Battles, that is: escort variants over in Federation Commander are more broadly available for use in Alpha Octant squadron and fleet actions. While even in SFB, most escort types outside of Alpha tend to follow a similarly "loose" deployment pattern; however, a number of those never gain access to any form of Aegis fire control, while most of those which have even "limited" Aegis only get this added as a refit in Y194.

-----

So, I wondered if it might be an idea to consider offering the Gorns a range of fleet support variant hulls, equipped with type-D racks in place of their "standard" plasma torpedo launchers, yet without any form of Aegis fire control.

To give one example: if one were to start with, say, the Gorn HDE (R6.24) from Module R4: one could delete the deck crews and ready racks, and remove limited Aegis.

Alternatively, one could start with a "standard" Gorn HDD: one could swap out the plasma-S and -F launchers for four plasma-D racks; 2 FP, 1 LS, and 1 RS.

Personally, even with the reduced number of phasers in the second option, I find myself favouring it, if only to give this design more conceptual distance from the pre-existing escort variants. Plus, it offers a somewhat more aggressive set of launch arcs.

Indeed, if one were to consider these as "combat variants", in the sense that they replace larger plasma torpedo mounts on a 1:1 (or 2:1, in the case of an S-torp) basis: one could even offer a fleet support variant of the medium cruiser, armed with no fewer than six plasma-D racks (4 FP, 1 LS, and 1 RS)!

Similarly, it might be possible to deploy X1-ship variants which have plasma-DX racks installed - the aforementioned HBDX from Module X1R notwithstanding. (Would it be a bit too clever to try and replace a type-M plasma launcher with three DX-racks, rather than two?)

Indeed, one could take a leaf from the Kzinti playbook, and see if it might be possible to develop a ship-mounted (or pod-mounted) equivalent of the "three magazine" plasma-D racks used on Gorn battle stations under (FD3.46)?

Although, even without one, a would-be "fleet support pod" variant of the Gorn heavy battle pod could still, theoretically at least, swap out the three G/S torps for six D-racks, with each pair of racks retaining the arcs of the launcher they replace. Whether it ought to retain the Flag bridge boxes is another matter.

-----

The question would then be: what use might the Gorns get out of such variant hulls?

In the historical timeline, they would be of use when faced with enemy fighters and fast patrol ships on the Romulan front. Plus, in those "expeditionary" campaigns later in the General War, such as Operation Cavalry, they could help deal with incoming Klingon drone waves.

Meanwhile, in certain alternate timelines - such as the "Reflection Universe" in Module R4J, in which the Gorns are confronted by the warlike Federal Imperium; or in "Klingon Eastern Marches" scenarios such as the one offered for Federation and Empire in Captain's Log #44, in which the place of the Romulan Star Empire has been supplanted by the Imperial Klingon Marches - the Gorns would be facing a lot more drones more often, and thus might need to deploy mission variants aimed at dealing with this in the absence of Gorn carrier groups.

Indeed, in "Mapsheet P" timelines from Module C6, plasma-D torpedoes are not much use against Paravian quantum wave torpedoes - but they are effective against any Paravian fighters or PFs which stray too close for comfort, not least once the Gorns apply the sabot refit.

And even against "full-sized" enemy starships, they'd offer a certain amount of protection to other Gorn ships during their plasma reload turns. So long as one is careful when to "cycle" one's rack use carefully, so as not to have to reload all of them in the same turn.

Although, there'd be less of an incentive to do so once the Andromedan War expands into Gorn space.

-----

In short, I wonder if it might be an option to consider "fleet support" variants of certain Gorn warship hulls, so as to provide this empire with a broader range of options against enemy attrition units and drone-like seeking weapons.

Or, indeed, to speculate on whether such variants might be more prominent in those alternate timelines in which the Gorns face drone-armed enemies on a more immediate basis.

So, any thoughts on whether or not you think this is a good idea for them - and, if so, how best might they pursue this option?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, March 23, 2025 - 11:24 am: Edit

In the distant past, the Gorns did have an alternative "F" refit called the "D" refit, where instead of installing a pair of Pl-F, a pair of Pl-D were installed. This was introduced when the Pl-D was first introduced into the game. But, that refit disappeared with the introduction of Captains Edition all those years ago.

So, the Gorns were originally envisioned to have the option for wider Pl-D deployment, but that was removed. This was obviously done for reasons, though I have no insight into what they were.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, March 23, 2025 - 11:37 am: Edit

In light of the onset of the plasma carronade (which, I'm guessing did not exist at the time this refit change was made, but still...), this might be a powerful reason why a standard "line" ship in Gorn service would be preferred to have the plasma-F launchers added as a refit.

However, I'd argue that this, in and of itself, need not necessarily go against the concept of there being dedicated mission variants, armed more heavily with plasma-D racks, for squadron or fleet support. Even though such units, as proposed in this thread, would not be intended for use in duels against enemy warships.

Indeed, even in the 500 BPV tournament thread linked to above, one of the points of feedback offered is that, the more (and faster) enemy units (and drones) there are on the map, the less useful carronades appear to be...

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Sunday, March 23, 2025 - 08:06 pm: Edit

Plasma D.
the KRC has two Plas-D racks. They are where the ADD are on the D7C. Offhand without looking not sure how many of the Kestrel class ships get the Plas-D removing the ADD rack.

As for the Gorns. Hire a Orion ship and have plas D racks and a Ph-G.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, March 24, 2025 - 12:00 am: Edit

Playing "Devil's Advocate," I almost have to wonder if some procurement committee in the centi-credit pinching Gorn Assembly pushed for limiting Plasma-Ds, seeing them as, perhaps, an "Unnecessary expense; after all, they require ammunition, where REAL plasma torpedoes (Plasma-F, in this case) are free, since the ships make them as needed..."

... Aaaand refused to see the error of their views, ignoring reports from The Front, like the US Navy BuOrd, in the first half of WWII, refused to acknowledge how bad US Torpedoes were...

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, March 24, 2025 - 08:26 am: Edit

If you are going to hire an Orion for drone defense get one with ADD or E racks plus some gatlings.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, March 24, 2025 - 12:22 pm: Edit

From an in-universe perspective, Orion mercenary ships are not necessarily reliable enough to be fully integrated into a given Alpha empire's order of battle.

Even in the case of the Orion Cluster Cartel, any ships they would "own" and use to help defend the WYN Cluster would likely be on a separate OOB from those listed for the WYN Navy proper. (Although, we'll have to see what the WYN portion of F&E Civil Wars has to say on that subject.)

While it is true that the Gorns of the General War era have a large number of "mercenary" Skolean officers and crewbeings serving in their armed forces, this is more of a "political" designation than a "military" one, used in order to side-step the issue of why Federation citizens are serving in a "foreign" country. In actuality, these Skoleans are fully integrated with their "ethnic" Gorn counterparts, akin to Gurkhas from Nepal who are recruited into the British and Indian armies here on Earth.

Plus, from a game perspective, there's the question of what the Gorns are supposed to do in a setup - such as the 500 BPV tournament noted above, or indeed in the regular Battle Group 550 submissons for Captain's Log - in which they are barred from hiring Orion mercenaries as part of their force.

-----

To date, there's been no indication that the Gorns have self-limited their production of type-D plasma racks. relative to the other plasma empires in the Alpha Octant.

Indeed, one could make an argument to the Gorn legislature that it's cheaper - and more politically sound - to expend "things" rather than "people".

Full-sized ships are expensive to build, repair, and/or replace; while their Gorn (and Skolean) crews who die in battle cannot be brought back to life.

Plasma-D munitions, on the other hand, do not vote in Gorn elections.

So, if it is more cost-effective to lean more heavily into the use of plasma racks, so as to reduce the number of ships (and crewbeings) damaged or destroyed in combat, that would seem like a relative bargain to any Gorn legislator concerned about staying in office...

-----

In the case of the Romulan Kestrels: in most cases, drone racks in shuttle bays are swapped out for more admin shuttles; whereas drone or ADD racks not connected to a shuttle bay are more liable to be swapped out for plasma-D racks.

That said, the Romulans have another means of dealing with enemy drones: the ability to cloak.

Whereas the ISC fleet has PPDs, plus those side-mounted phaser-3 and plasma-F refits.

By contrast, the Gorns at present have fewer "domestic" options, in terms of how to deal with large numbers of enemy attrition units. So perhaps they, more so than the other two, might be more motivated to find an alternative solution to this problem.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, March 24, 2025 - 01:24 pm: Edit

One other note:

Technically, it is possible for Gorn ships to purchase seeking weapon drogues equipped with six plasma-Ds (G34.313); it's even possible to "upgrade" these drogues by installing a sabot refit.

And, with most Gorn ships having two shuttle bays, they are thus capable of deploying two of these drogues at once, under (G34.211).

Doing this, however, limits the operating ships to a maximum effective speed of 12, under (G34.251). Nor can it deploy (or maintain) drogues while under Erratic Maneuvers, under (G34.253). Which can be problematic for a force of Gorn "line" ships; though it would be less of a factor for immobile or slow-moving Gorn units, such as bases or monitors.

Personally speaking, I'm not particularly fond of drogues as a game concept, but how and ever...

In any case, while a Gorn force in Y180 can stock up on such drogues - as, indeed, can other plasma-armed empires - I'm not convinced that this would be a viable substitute for actual plasma-D variant warships, in squadron or fleet actions against enemy forces with large numbers of attrition units.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, March 24, 2025 - 04:19 pm: Edit

Orion mercenaries can be hired for odd jobs but not to be escorts or any other part of a battle fleet.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, March 24, 2025 - 04:23 pm: Edit

Gary Carney is trying to resurrect an old rule that was promulgated when the Plasma-Ds first reared their noisy little heads in the game universe and players sought to add them any unit that did not have a small weapon (besides phaser-3s) and thus render drones pretty much combat ineffective, much to the annoyance of the Kzintis (the Patriarch is rumored to have instigated a round of purges over this). Based pn the past, I cannot see this happening.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, March 24, 2025 - 11:00 pm: Edit

SPP,

To clarify, I have no interest in trying to install type-D racks onto a broad set of "line" Gorn ships. Or, rather, to go back to the pre-Captain's Edition setup, which Mike West referred to in an earlier post.

This proposal - such as it is - would be for specific "mission variants", which themselves would lean more heavily into the use of type-D plasma torpedoes. As in, to offer the Gorns an equivalent to, say, the Federation NCD, but with plasma racks instead of drone racks.

But even then, they would fall short when compared to the kind of drone variants used elsewhere in the Alpha Octant. That Federation NCD is more able to leverage its drone racks offensively than a proposed Gorn plasma-D variant hull would do, especially once "fast" drones appear in Y180. While a Klingon D6D can do the same and more, as its special sensors permit the use of extended-range drones on long-range bombardment missions.

To be clear, this proposal is not meant to remove the threat from heavy drone users entirely. Rather, it's meant to try and dial back what right now appears to be an overly generous advantage enjoyed by said drone users - particularly from Y180 onwards - as evidenced in the Gorn vs. Klingon battle reported in said tournament thread.

So it's less about the Patriarch being knocked off his perch - before the next round of civil wars do that for him, at least - but rather, to make it less likely that he would hold an undue advantage over his Gorn counterpart.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, March 24, 2025 - 11:06 pm: Edit

So, trying to read between the lines, it wasn’t a case of trying to balance a smaller warhead plasma between plasma F and a phaser 3, as it was an attempt to increase the offensive combat ability of “any unit that did not have a small weapon (besides phaser-3s)….”.

Sounds suspiciously like a “dead horse” situation.

I may be wrong, but that pretty much eliminates all of the other options of replacing a phaser-3 armed shuttle with a plasma-D stasis launcher or even a ADD rack.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, March 24, 2025 - 11:19 pm: Edit

To further clarify: for the proposed mission variants I had in mind, only the base hull's plasma torpedo launchers would be replaced with plasma racks.

As in, the 1 S-torp and 2 F-torps on a "line" HDD would become 4 plasma racks for a proposed "heavy support destroyer" variant. Albeit with different arcs, compared to those installed on the Gorn HDE/HDA.

While it it true that the Gorn carrier escorts go further than this, by adding more phasers on top of installing Aegis fire control, I would suggest not going quite so far as to do either of those things here.

-----

The situation with the Kestrels is not directly applicable here: since they were trying to make the best of the Klingon hulls they were importing, the Romulans were obliged to make certain design choices as a result. And even then, a Kestrel configured as a carrier escort can still swap out its heavier torpedo mounts for plasma racks.

But, again, the need for the Romulans - of any series - to deploy a non-escort hull variant which leans more heavily into the use of plasma racks is likely mitigated by their ability to cloak. Although, if they want to go ahead and put plasma racks into the weapon option mounts of a SaberHawk being deployed as a combat variant, that's a choice they are free to make should they so wish.

I only addressed the Kestrel thing in this thread in response to a question being asked about them earlier. In so doing, perhaps I should have been clearer that I was not meaning to use them as any sort of leverage for the purpose of this proposal.

-----

Actually, I should probably think of what - if any - "mission suffix" might be used for the "support variants" I had in mind.

At first glance, it would appear that the Gorns aren't presently making use of "-B" for their current crop of mission variants.

So, how about an "HDB" for a "heavy support destroyer"; "BDB" for a would-be "battle support destroyer"; or "CMB", for a would-be "medium support cruiser"?

It might be a bit trickier to think up designations for would-be large and small fleet support pod types, though...

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, March 25, 2025 - 10:48 am: Edit

To try and simplify things, it appears the request is for the escorts, but make then "not escorts" so they don't have deployment restrictions. (Maybe make the RPL just so you can only take one squadron or two for a fleet.)

So, take the CLE, HDE, and BDE and remove the Aegis and fighter ready racks. They then just become "normal" warships that have Pl-D as their feature weapons. They even keep their other changes (like the HDE losing the Pl-S for extra Ph-1s), but the expensive Aegis and now irrelevant ready racks are removed.

Maybe there were unused designs that the Gorns initially prepared in case their relationship with the Federation went sour, then revived if they ever thought they'd have to fight the Klingons.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, March 25, 2025 - 12:05 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick discussed this with me yesterday. I don't see players wanting to pay for a bunch of SSDs to replace plasma-F with plasma-D. The whole concept of a "escort that's not a carrier escort but protects the non-carriers from drones" has been floating around (and never approved) many times. I suppose it could be done sometime for a few ships from a few empires but seriously, I am not sure that this is a direction people want to take. It would reduce fleet firepower to gain some kind of defensive benefit. (I can see this leading to demands to install Gatlings on these non-escorts, at least for the Feds, and that ain't happening.) I am not slamming the door closed but I cannot say I see much support for this from players. The Gorns don't spend a lot of time fighting drone-chuckers anyway.

It's better to have proposed and been rejected than to not have proposed at all.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, March 25, 2025 - 12:08 pm: Edit

While musing on this whole concept (which, in my screwball opinion, is definitely something worthy of discussion, even if it's something that might actually detract from the game*), I was reminded of one of the things in the color text for the Federation DE; how Admirals were, if I remember the text correctly, "Always trying to `Borrow' them" for their non-carrier squadrons.

For that reason, were it put to a vote, I would (regrettably) vote down the idea of this variant.

Still, SVC has said that it's better to have proposed and been rejected than to not have proposed at all.

(*Sorry, but that is how I see it... )

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, March 25, 2025 - 12:18 pm: Edit

They don't give a flip about any rocket-slinging ship,
It ain't what they call "run and gun".
--The Sultans of Drones

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Tuesday, March 25, 2025 - 03:40 pm: Edit

I read this as mission sub types, only subbing the D-racks for wing Plasma-Fs, as drones get better, I think allowing one in six CL/HDs might use this after say Y180ish, or one in three BD/DDs. At least any DDs that are still out there.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, March 25, 2025 - 04:28 pm: Edit

Well, we could always have the Gorns adopt this as a means of further complicating the Gorn Logistics. A group of three HDDs takes on average 24 CARGO SPACES if T-bombs 32 cargo spaces of warp booster packs, 150 cargo points for three spare shuttles. About two hundred spaces that must be brought forward. To this add 72 Spaces of type -D TORPEDOES, plus incidentals (additional Commander's options). It adds up and pretty soon you do not have enough cargo ships to keep it all in supply.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, March 25, 2025 - 05:26 pm: Edit

The complexity is that no one can accurately predict what munitions you will use most. So you could get a ship with too many D-torps and not enough T-bombs, or not enough food, or fuel, or whatever Gorns use for liquid refreshment.

D-torps take a logistics chain.
F-torps take only standard fuel.

There was a reason that the US Springfield, Garand, and BAR all used the same 30-06 cartridge. Imagine if you gave the US Army copies of German MG34s which used 7.92x57 ammo? Here comes the truck. It's got 30% of that German crap that we don't need much of, so do we dump it on the ground or send it back?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, March 25, 2025 - 07:21 pm: Edit

To look at it from another direction:

If creating entirely new SSDs for such variants might be somewhat of a challenge, would it be an option to try and leverage the existing SSDs for this purpose?

For example: in the case of a would-be "HDB". One could create a new R-section entry for such a variant, which included data on what features on the Gorn HDE/HDA SSD in Module R4 to ignore or cross out; what the revised BPV for the ship is; what manner of deployment restrictions are set in place (if they are RPL, as Mike West suggests above, well and good); and so on and so forth.

One could even include a note about the potential use of this variant in certain alternate timelines, such as in the Reflection Universe from Module R4J (in which Gorn squadrons and fleets would need to worry about drones being launched at them by the forces of the Federal Imperium), as well as how they might be used in the "standard" timeline.

So, in theory at least, no new SSDs would be needed, nor any formal revisions to the current ones being leveraged.

Which is not to say that such SSDs wouldn't be "nice to have" someday, though...

-----

I understand the concern about what, if anything, the presence of such units might trigger, in terms of proliferation issues elsewhere in the Alpha Octant.

But, from my view - again, such as it is - I think the issue is the opposite. Drones, particularly "fast" ones, already have proliferated across much of the Alpha setting, especially so as one gets closer to the end of the General War. As, indeed, have such things as heavy fighters and fast patrol ships, which plasma-Ds can also be useful against.

When compared to how the Romulans and ISC can respond to these things, do the Gorns somewhat fall behind by comparison?

Given the number of informed replies over in the 500 BPV tournament thread which presently boil down to saying "don't take Gorns" - something which doesn't quite sit right for me personally, that there would be an argument for advising against taking one of the "founding" empires in the SFU in such a setup - this would appear to be more of a problem for them by comparison.

In which case, might this lead them to consider options that their neighbouring plasma empires can deal with through other means?

Thus, rather than being something that (if allowed) would trigger undue reactions from other Alpha empires in reply, I instead see these proposed variants as helping the Gorns to at least partially "catch up" to the way things are going in Alpha, especially from Y180 onwards.

Of course, I am quite prepared to be mistaken on any or all of the above...

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, March 25, 2025 - 10:55 pm: Edit

I don't see doing it without SSDs. I'm not convinced it needs doing or fits the history.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Wednesday, March 26, 2025 - 12:16 am: Edit

Perhaps these variants were specific to Operation Cavalry when the Gorn expeditionary fleet was operating on the Klingon Border?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, March 26, 2025 - 12:18 am: Edit

I don't see this proliferating. The Lyrans and Hydrans are literally built to handle enemy drones. The Klingons and Kzintis already have plenty of ADDs (and drones they can use defensively). The Federation has G-racks and drone ships already, so they're covered even without using any Ph-Gs. The Tholians have webs and snares. The Romulans have the cloak and the ISC have their forest of Ph-3s and rear-firing Pl-F. All of them are covered. The only one with issues are the Gorns, who literally have two Ph-3s and that's it.

If they had to face a lot of drones, they're screwed. It will simply overwhelm them. It is a legitimate tactical problem that the Gorns don't really have an answer for. Logistics aside, this is an actual problem for the Gorns. The problem is that there isn't really a good way to "historically" justify wider use of Pl-D racks because they suck so badly for offensive use, and "historically" the Gorns just didn't face any empire that heavily used drones. It is a theoretical weakness that will hurt them in "open" campaigns, but it just isn't a big concern in "historical" situations.

In the olden days, that would open things up for "campaign conjectural" ships, but "conjectural" has become a negative and means there has to be a "historical" reason for ships to be created. Given that requirement, I don't know that I can create a justification. But it is absolutely justified as "campaign conjectural".

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, March 26, 2025 - 03:51 am: Edit

A couple of comments:

1) Most of the campaigns I have been involved in over the years have been "non-historical", with players free to choose their enemies or allies according to the strategic situation. I suspect the same holds true for a lot of players, and Gorn difficulty with massed drones can be a problem in these campaigns even if it was not one "historically".

2) The problem is most acute between the introduction of fast drones and the introduction of X-tech, which is a realtively short period of time. Once you get into the X-ship era, Gorn drone defense can be improved dramatically both by fielding X-ships and by applying XP-refits to ships not eligible for full-X conversion (or for which you simply don't have the funds for full-X conversion). Under XR3.0, the Gorns can upgrade phaser-1s to phaser-1X, with "rapid pulse" capability. Note that even ships (such as dreadnoughts) not eligible for XP-ugrades to the heavy weapons can receive the phaser upgrade. And under XR2.31, Gorn ships could buy non-X limited Aegis. The cost to apply both refits to an already-built HDD+ (war cruiser - not eligible for full-X conversion) would be 5 points (converting 5 phaser-1s to 1X capability), plus 7 points (cost of XR2.31 for a ship with 7 total phasers; 5 p-1 and 2 p-3). An HDD+ with sabot-refit costs 121 BPV. Adding the "anti-drone" XP-refits would bring that to 133 BPV. Other refits such as APR and batteries and shield repair could also be purchased, of course. But the phaser refit and the XR2.31 limited Aegis are the most important for countering drones.