At this time of typing, the Borak Star League - as presented for playtest in Star Fleet Battles Module E3 - does not have an equivalent unit to most Alpha Octant empires' heavy war destroyers, or advanced technology heavy war destroyers for that matter.

However, given the extensive experience the Borak fleet had with the non-weapon option mounts on their various "expansion" era ships in the Middle Years, it would seem that the concept of creating a modular "heavy destroyer" and/or "advanced heavy destroyer" out of their currently-existing destroyer and advanced destroyer designs respectively might not be an entirely foreign concept to them.

However, there would be a few Borak-specific quirks to the implementation of this concept, as outlined below:

-----

Firstly, there's the question of warp engine power.

The current Borak war cruiser is not a "true" war cruiser the way that most Alpha empires would understand the term; it is, in fact, a refit to the "peacetime construction" light cruiser - itself a refit of the Middle Years expansion light cruiser.

Further, the Borak CW has two 11-box warp engines, for a total of 22 points of generated warp power. Bear in mind that the Borak heavy cruiser has a Move Cost of 3/4 and a pair of 12-box warp engines; in a manner akin to certain Omega Octant empires, most of the larger Borak starship hulls are one size smaller than the average.

So, in the case of a would-be "HDD", I'd argue that the two 8-box warp engines on the Borak destroyer should be augmented with a 6-box centre warp engine, of the kind used for the Borak frigate. Among other things, doing this would add two hemispheric phaser-3 mounts: one to FH, and the other to RH.

The result would be a Move Cost 2/3 hull with the same overall warp engine output as the Borak CW, which is in keeping with the somewhat slim margins seen for generated power across much of the Borak fleet.

On a side note: despite their appearance, Borak ships are not designed to land and take off from planets. So the installation of a third warp engine "below" the hull would not be an issue in that regard.

-----

As for a would-be "HDDX":

The playtest DDX has a pair of 12-box warp engines, whereas the playtest CCX has a pair of 16-box warp engines. However, there is as yet no SSD for a would-be "CLX" or "FFX".

Yet even if one were to start with upgrading the port and starboard warp engines to the DDX standard, that would leave the resulting HDDX only two points of warp power short of the output on the CCX. Which, if one were to, say, upgrade the frigate engine from 6 boxes to 8, would fully close that distance.

Unless a would-be HDDX were to be found to have unique engineering challenges, which required it to get two 11-box warp engines to port and starboard instead? If combined with an 8-box centre warp engine, that would keep the overall warp output short of the total seen on the CCX.

This might make life a little more awkward for the Borak fleet logisticians, however...

-----

While the Borak DD is also a "peacetime construction" design, I would argue that, as is the case for other Alpha empires, this proposed HDD would be treated as a "wartime construction" hull.

Which means that it would be limited in the type of partial-X conversions it can have under (XR4.1); and that any would-be HDDXs would have to be built as new construction.

-----

One other Borak-specific detail I'd like to request here would be a partial exception to (EB101.16); permitting Borak HDDs (and HDDXs) to install phaser-cannons (and X-phaser cannons) in their respective RA weapon option mounts.

Considering that Hydran HDWs can install phaser-Gs in their RA option mounts via (G33.115), albeit only when configured to be carrier escorts, I'd argue that, from an engineering perspective, it ought not be too much of a hurdle for the Borak to use up both mounts on these hulls for a single phaser-C (or phaser-CX).

In "standard" Borak forces, where they operate with no "formal" Aegis-equipped carrier escorts under (RB100.1B), this use of the phaser-cannon would be "generally" available. However, in the case of a "variant" Borak force using dedicated carrier escorts under (RB100.1B4), it might - or might not - be an idea to restrict phaser-C (or phaser-CX) use to HDDs (or HDDXs) configured as carrier escorts under (G33.43).

-----

So, might it be possible to add an HDD and/or HDDX to the Borak at some point - and, if so, might any or all of the above ideas be viable for these ship types?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, March 31, 2025 - 08:46 pm: Edit

I haven't read the above and will not before looking at things for myself beforehand.

I do not see any reason to prevent the Borak from having an HDW. (Or, by extension, an HDWX.)

Without looking at the existing CW, DD/DW, and FF, I can't say for certain how the engines would look. I would expect the HDW to have bog standard "additions", just like every other HDW. I can't make promises as to when I'll take the time to give it a go.