Quoting Gary Carney: even after five published modules and various units offered in Captain's Log, not one Omega empire is close to "campaign compatible" status at this time of typing, the way that the three "Magellanic Powers" (Baduvai, Eneen, and Maghadim) are as of Module C5. This is due to how things were set up in the first Omega module, an issue which Bruce Graw himself acknowledged: it spread things far too thinly, by offering too few ships for too many Omega empires at once. Better, in hindsight, to concentrate on getting more ships done for a smaller number of empires at a time.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 26, 2025 - 10:32 am: Edit

Gary noted that Omega and the rest of SFB use a slightly different SSD format in that they are done in different software. He suggested changing them all to the old SFB type software since they all had to be done over again anyway as a hard disk failure destroyed the only editable copies.

If we're going to recreate the SSDs I'm not opposed to using old, new, or different software, but I think you guys need to decide be doing the first one.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 26, 2025 - 10:35 am: Edit

Gary Carney noted: Three - as noted in the Omega timeline, and as previewed in a number of recent SSDs in Captain's Log, a series of "speed-30" warp refits are due to show up historically, starting in the Y170s. Yet, these are not reflected in most of the current Omega SSDs - perhaps due to Bruce Graw wanting to encourage players to actually use the "Middle Years" Omega ships, rather than simply defaulting to their warp refit iterations. Rather than creating a range of SSDs which vary from the current ones only in the number of warp engine boxes they have (and how much this is paid for in BPV terms) - something which the limited amount of "real estate" afforded to Omega makes impractical at best - I'd argue that the revised SSDs, in whichever format they are to be drawn up, ought to have these warp refits factored in directly.

SVC says he would NOT agree to combining the original warp 24 and new warp 30 SSDs.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 26, 2025 - 10:36 am: Edit

I would suggest, Gary, that you should focus your current omega efforts on making lists of ships each empire needs for Warp-30 and (separately) campaign capability.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, June 27, 2025 - 11:38 am: Edit

Thanks again to SVC for setting this thread up!

-----

As it happens, I have some homework drawn up on this topic already - at least, for the Mæsron Alliance.

As noted elsewhere, I would strongly argue that the Mæsrons, as the "central" Omega faction (much as the silicate Trobrin might beg to differ), they need to be the ones brought to full "campaign compatible" status first.

With this in mind, I wrote up a draft "OR-section" file, aimed at providing a range of ships, bases, and other things for the Mæsrons to make use of, in a manner akin to what is seen for the three "Magellanic Powers" over in SFB Module C5. I can send this file in at ADB's convenience.

In the meantime, however, there are a few sub-categories I wanted to go over here.

There's too much to go in a single post, so I will start by looking at those units that exist in print to date, somewhere or other.

-----

First are those Mæsron ships that are already printed in the five currently-published Omega modules.

As noted by SVC, any would-be "warp refits" for these ships would have to go here, as separate SSDs. However, not all of these units need necessarily get such warp refits, for various reasons.

So, any of the ships marked with an asterisk below are ones which, I'd argue, do not need warp refit SSDs:

Module Omega #1
Heavy cruiser (CA)
Festroyer (DD)
Frigate (FF)
Missile scout (SCM)

Module Omega #2
Fire support cruiser (CAF)*
Dreadnought (DN)
Light cruiser (CL)
Strike carrier (CVS)
Early carrier (DV)
Frignaught (FFN)*
Bombardment cruiser (CBA)
Survey cruiser (SR)

While the Vulpa Insurgent blockade runner is listed under the "Mæsron" section in Module Omega #2, I'm not including it on this list here; I'm going to talk about it more once I post about my thoughts on the Vulpa as their own faction later in this thread.

Module Omega #5
Early PF tender (FFP)
Light cruiser escort (CLE)
Space control ship (SCS)

So, setting the VBR aside for now, that is a total of 13 Mæsron ship SSDs which, I'd argue, warrant separate "warp refit" iterations.

As for the others: the CAF was a Civil War-era unit which fell out of service by the time warp refits became a thing. While the FFN is an imbalanced and over-stressed design which, in my view, is pushing the hull about as far as it can reasonably go already.

-----

Beyond this, there are a number of Mæsron ships which are in various issues of Captain's Log - and, in one case, in Stellar Shadows Journal #1.

In this instance, they would technically still count as "playtest" units, at least for those which have yet to be formally published in a "full" Omega SFB module.

So, I would argue that they, in fact, should each have their warp refits - if any - consolidated into the same SSD.

However, which ones would be liable to get such a refit, and which ones would not?

Captain's Log #20
Small freighter (FS)*
Large freighter (FL)*
Express boat (XB)*
Passenger liner (PL)*

Captain's Log #21
Light tug (TGL)
Heavy tug (TGH)
Small battle freighter (FBS)*

Captain's Log #49
Heavy survey cruiser (HSR)

Captain's Log #51
Early command cruiser/Command cruiser (CCE/CC)

Stellar Shadows Journal #1
Battleship (BB)

Of these, the units in CL20 are "civilian" designs. Indeed, the FBS is an "auxiliary" variant of one of these "civilian" transports.

-----

As for bases:

There is one Mæsron base - the border outpost (OB) - in Module Omega #1.

Meanwhile, Module Omega #5 include ground fighter, PF, and planetary control bases for the Mæsrons.

None of which need be duplicated here.

-----

What would be worth listing here are the various light and heavy tug pods from Captain's Log #21: those would need to be added to a future campaign module.

Light pods:
Light cargo pod (LCP)
Light battle pod (LBP)
Light defense pod (LDP)
Light shield pod (LSP)
Light survey pod (LYP)
Light repair pod (LRP)
Light carrier pod (LVP)
Light troop pod (LTP)
Light power pod (LPP)
Light express pod (LXP)
Light warning pod (LWP)
Light missile pod (LMP)

Heavy pods
Heavy cargo pod (HCP)
Heavy battle pod (HBP)
Heavy support pod (HSP)
Heavy carrier pod (HVP)

Of course, there's no need to worry about "warp refits" for any of these...

-----

The Mæsrons already have a mostly full range of size-1 fighters and of "volatile warp" PFs in print, which don't need to be duplicated here.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, June 27, 2025 - 12:07 pm: Edit

The next step, in my view, would be to see which "peacetime construction" ships and mobile support units are still required - and, of those, which might be granted some manner of warp refit.

For what it's worth, this is the range of ships - both civilian and military - which I would propose offering.

Once again, any units marked with an asterisk would not be eligible for warp refits, in my view:

-----

Civilian units
Jumbo freighter (FJ)*
Heavy freighter (FH)*

Simply put, these would be three-pod "jumbo" and four-pod "heavy" freighter designs, expanding upon the one-pod "small" and two-pod "large" freighters offered in Captain's Log #20.

As with the pre-exsting "civilian" designs, I would assume that other Omega empires would get their hands (or whatever) on these new freighter types also - but they would be built and operated by the Mæsrons first.

-----

Military units
Stellar domination ship (SDS)
Battlecruiser (BC)
Battle control ship (BCS)
Fast patrol ship tender (PFT)
Light cruiser leader (CLL)
Bombardment light cruiser (CBL)
Destroyer leader (DDL)
Commando destroyer (DDG)
Destroyer escort (DDE)
Repair destroyer (DDR)
Frigate leader (FFL)
Frigate missile scout (FSM)
Frigate minesweeper (FFZ)
Police corvette (POL)

Some of these have pre-existing proposal thread already.

For example: I propose that the battlecruiser have a Move Cost of 1.25, akin to the Ymatrian battlecruiser or Worb heavy cruiser.

-----

As for additional tug pods:

Light pod
Light PF tender pod (LPP)
Heavy space control ship pod (HPP)

Given the provision of Mæsron past patrol ships in Module Omega #5, it would seem likely that pods supporting their use would be commissioned, to further leverage this new type of attrition unit technology.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, June 27, 2025 - 12:20 pm: Edit

A brief detour would be to examine what, if any, attrition units would still be required.

In my view, there should be a range of size-2 fighters for the Mæsrons:

Heavy fighters
Heavy standard fighter (HSF)
Heavy tachyon fighter (HTF)
Heavy missile fighter (HMF)

Given the Mæsron squadron structure - in which a size-1 squadron typically has 8 phaser, 4 tachyon gun, and two tachyon missile fighters in a "full" squadron of 14 - I would suggest that a "full" size-2 squadron have 4 HSFs, 2 HTFs, and 1 HMF.

An exception would be for Mæsron light and heavy carrier pods; those only support phaser fighters at present, so would only be able to deploy the proposed HSFs.

In terms of operating heavy fighters from actual carriers, however, I would suggest that the later advent of "volatile warp" PFs would make this redundant. Plus, most of the current crop of carriers have "awkward" shuttle bay configurations, making it difficult for them to deploy "full" heavy fighter squadrons.

Beyond this, I would suggest not making size-3 medium or size-4 heavy bombers a thing in the Omega Octant - with a possible exception for the Hivers, who might see such units in a different light than other Omega empires.

-----

As for "volatile warp" units:

Interceptors and PFs
Interceptor (INT)
Workboat (WB)

While the Federal Republic of Aurora first developed "volatile warp" Interceptor technology, the Mæsron Alliance as the first to actually deploy such units in battle. However, they soon found them to be sub-optimal, and later became the first Omega empire to field "volatile warp" fast patrol ships.

Also, the concept of Omega workboats has still to be formally addressed. I would argue that, with a desperate need to rebuild their shattered economies and infrastructure after the Andromedan and Souldra invasions, those Omega empires which adopt "volatile warp" gunboat technology would be encouraged to make workboats available to the "civilian" market.

In which case, I would imagine that such "civilianized" workboats would have the ability to use afterburners be removed.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, June 27, 2025 - 01:04 pm: Edit

As noted in the Omega timeline, Y187 saw the Mæsrons and FRA jointly develop the first war cruisers and war destroyers in the Omega Octant. These would play a key role in the latter years of the Second Great War, as well as during the subsequent Andromedan and Souldra invasions, and in the wars of the Seventh Cycle.

Of course, any product aiming to make the Mæsrons fully campaign compatible would require a healthy set of such "wartime construction" base hulls and mission variants.

-----

With this in mind, I was minded of what would make Mæsron "wartime construction" ships stand out from their "peacetime construction" counterparts.

I think of the "floating" fire platform which most current Mæsron ships have - as seen on the miniatures that had been available back on Shapeways 1.0.

This platform is the same on the Mæsron destroyer as it is on the Mæsron dreadnought; the conjectural battleship in SSJ1 has two of these platforms.

I would suggest that the "war" classes would install an entirely new "floating" platform, which cannot be installed onto the older hulls.

But what would make such a platform different?

I have a rough sketch drawn up which shows what I had in mind. But, to try to explain it in typed words:

The current "peacetime" platform has a central grid with a 5 by 4 box layout, with "one-box" gaps between boxes of different types to be set on this grid. The use of the boxes on this grid varies from one mission variant to another, but the "default" combat iteration looks like:

	1	2	3	4	5
1	Phaser-W1	Blank	Tachyon Gun	Blank	Phaser-W1
2	Phaser-W1	Blank	Tachyon Gun	Blank	Phaser-W1
3	Blank	Blank	Blank	Blank	Blank
4	Phaser-W3	Blank	Probe launcher	Blank	Phaser-W3

For the "wartime" platform, I propose a 4 by 4.5 grid, with "half-box" spaces between boxes to be set on this grid.

So, a would-be "combat" iteration would look like:

	1	2	2.5	3.5	4
1	Phaser-W1	Blank	Tachyon Gun	Blank	Phaser-W1
2	Phaser-W1	Blank	Tachyon Gun	Blank	Phaser-W1
3	Phaser-W1	Blank	Tachyon Gun	Blank	Phaser-W1
3.5	Blank	Blank	Blank	Blank	Blank
4.5	Phaser-W3	Blank	Probe launcher	Blank	Phaser-W3

On the one hand, this would increase the phaser-W1 and tachyon gun firepower of "line" war hulls. On the other hand, it would leave fewer margins for certain mission variants, though I have certain layouts for these in the OR-section document I have on file.

A flip side of this setup would be that, once Omega X1-technology is developed, it would take more time to figure out how to build these "wartime" platforms to "peacetime" standards. As a result, while the first Mæsron X1-cruiser is noted in the Omega timeline as appearing in Y198, I would suggest that there would not be "X1-ship" iterations of such hulls until Y205 or afterwards.

-----

Now, for some actual "war" ships and mission variants, I propose the following:

"Wartime construction" ships and mission variants
Heavy dreadnought (DNH)
Heavy space control ship (HSCS)

Heavy battlecruiser (BCH)
Heavy battle control ship (HBCS)

War cruiser leader (CWL)
War cruiser (CW)
Bombardment war cruiser (CBW)
War cruiser carrier (CVW)
Commando war cruiser (CWG)
War cruiser escort (CWE)
War cruiser fast patrol ship tender (CWP)
New survey cruiser (NSR)

War destroyer leader (DWL)
War destroyer (DW)
War destroyer missile scout (DWSM)
Mobile carrier (DWV)
Commando war destroyer (DWG)
War destroyer escort (DWE)
War destroyer minesweeper (DWZ)
Repair war destroyer (DWR)
War destroyer fast patrol ship tender (DWP)

Just as I propose the "peacetime" battlecruisr have a Move Cost of 1.25, so too would i suggest this for the heavy battlecruiser.

Indeed, just as the Worb have a Move Cost 1.75 dreadnought, I propose setting the DNH here at that same Move Cost - and to give it two of the proposed new "wartime" platforms.

-----

Also, it's noted in Captain's Log #21 that the concept of tugs was not revisited (after the TGL and TGH) until after the Invasions.

Coincidentally, after Bolosco home space was destroyed by the Souldra in Y191, the largest number of Bolosco exiles fled to Mæsron space, where they joined the New Alliance.

Now, while I very much would not want the Mæsrons to suddenly be able to make use of unique Bolosco technology - nor to be able to use Bolosco light and heavy pods as anything other than inactive cargo - I do think it would be interesting to see a new range of "Bolosco-inspired" transports, using the same engines seen on Mæsron "war" ships, be drawn up:

New tugs and fleet transport units
Trade mothership (TMS)
New heavy tug (NTGH)
New light tug (NTGL)
New tradeship (NTS)

Each of these would use the same engines, and have the same "no-pod" Move Cost, as their respective "war" ship counterpart.

But, just as the "peacetime" light and heavy tugs are their own distinct hulls, and not "mission variants" of "line" ships, so too would these designs be their own category of ship.

To clarify, each of these proposed transports would use "standard" Mæsron light and heavy pods, with the attendant Move Cost and/or Turn Mode adjustments to match.

-----

In short, I would suggest that the Mæsrons go their own way in terms of how the leverage "wartime construction" technology - both in terms of their "line" ships and mission variants, and in how they would operate dedicated tugs and transports based on the above.

Any thoughts on how, or if, this approach might work here?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, June 27, 2025 - 01:19 pm: Edit

Last, but by no means, least (for now) is the question of bases.

Of course, one would need to figure out what the "phaser-W4" looks like, in order to arm such bases.

On the other hand, it is noted that certain larger Mæsron bases make use of type-E tachyon missile racks; we know what they look like rules-wise, so this should not be a problem.

-----

Firstly, there are ground bases.

Thus far, I have the following types in mind:

Ground bases
Small Phaser-W1 ground base (GP1B-S)
Small Phaser-W4 ground base (GP4B-S)
Small tachyon base (GTB-S)
Small missile base (GMB-S)

This would cover ground-based phaser-W1s, phaser-W4s, tachyon guns, and tachyon missiles.

I admit to not being sure what other ground base types would be required - or rather, which ones would be distinct from "generic" Alpha Octant ground bases of various kinds.

Any advice?

-----

For space installations, I had two development tracks of base design in mind.

In my proposed setup, there would be two "development paths" of such bases.

One, derived from the "diamond-shaped" border outpost which currently exists in print; and two, a new set of bases set to an hexagonal pattern.

Fir the first development path, I would suggest the following:

Diamond-shaped bases
Mobile base (MB)
Base station (BS)
Sector base (STB)
Starbase (SB)

The larger of these bases would each use a number of the "floating" firing platforms seen on "peacetime construction" Mæsron starships.

Hexagon-shaped bases
Operations base (OB)
Battle station (BATS)
War base (WB)
Stellar fortress (STF)

The larger of these bases would leverage the use of the "wartime" firing platform, as proposed for the Mæsron "war" ships posted about above.

Each "developmental path" would be separate from one another. As in, it would not be possible to upgrade or convert a "diamond-shaped" base into an "hexagonal" one, or vice versa.

An unorthodox base design paradigm from an Alpha Octant one, to be sure. But, one which, in my view, demonstrates the kind of unique logistical challenges faced by the Mæsron Alliance in its native Omega context.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, June 27, 2025 - 01:24 pm: Edit

All told, the above - combined with the Mæsron ships from the first five SFB Omega modules - should, in my view, help get this empire off the ground, in terms of campaign compatibility.

(On a side note: while I plan to post about the Vulpa in this thread later on, they should be able to make use of at least some of the above proposed unit types, such as bases and support units. Which should, in my view, cut down on the number of "new" things the Vulpa would need to be playable in a campaign.)

Of course, this is by no means final, even if it were to be deemed to be on the right path developmentally-speaking. I'm sure there are plenty of things I have overlooked, and plenty of other viewpoints on whee things should go for the Mæsrons here.

So, please post your comments and thoughts, and state your own vision for how to round things out for the Mæsron Alliance in this type of product!

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, June 27, 2025 - 03:53 pm: Edit

I just noticed a slight error in one of my previous posts, regarding the proposed "wartime" platform grid setup.

The chart for the default "combat" version should look like this:

	1	2	2.5	3.5	4
1	Phaser-W1	Blank	Tachyon Gun	Blank	Phaser-W1
2	Phaser-W1	Blank	Tachyon Gun	Blank	Phaser-W1
3	Phaser-W1	Blank	Tachyon Gun	Blank	Phaser-W1
4	Blank	Blank	Blank	Blank	Blank
4.5	Phaser-W3	Blank	Probe launcher	Blank	Phaser-W3

To clarify that the "half-box" space between "active" boxes applies to the vertical, as well as to the horizontal, on this proposed 4 by 4.5 "wartime" hex grid.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, June 28, 2025 - 04:34 pm: Edit

BIG Omega fan here, and I hope I don't sound disrespectful for saying this, but I'm starting to have a few problems with your proposed upgraded Floating Platforms.

First: the addition of a third Tachyon Gun. I've long been under the impression that adding an additional primary heavy weapon was an automatic non-starter for new ship proposals and this does appear to violate that standard.

Second: the weapons on the current Canon Floating Platform are limited to FA for the PW-1 and Tachyon Guns and RA for the PW-3. This is good (in my opinion) because it leaves the Maesron ships with limited firepower outside its FA. It is a potential problem for this "Upgrade" in that it appears to (effectively) concentrate even more of the firepower for solely offensive use. Is this done at the expense of LS/RS firepower, are you intending to keep the defensive firepower as is, or are you planning on adding more side guns? If it IS the lattermost, what sort of upgrades will you be giving the Maesron's most common opponents as a way of readdressing the balance?

Third: the books talk about the Maesron being in decline (or even collapse). Indeed, the description given for the Bombardment Cruiser talks about how the Maesron were opting to move to a fighter and more extensive Tachyon Missile based fleet structure. Wouldn't such a heavy platform go against what's been published?

With these three problems, I was wondering if the Maesron might opt to take another path.

One option I've pictured unfortunately goes against the idea Bruce Graw had for Omega, namely that it plays with a cleaner map board. Still, it is something that (at least to me) appears to be in keeping with what the Maesron are trying to do. With the new ship classes, I can imagine them using the same floating platforms, but having either an increased number of Tachyon Missile Racks or enlarged shuttle bays carrying either standard or missile fighters.

For example, for a CA that has the new, fifteen box Warp Engines, I can imagine that the main hull loses two Lab boxes as box-count compensation for either two additional Missile Racks or an expansion of the Shuttle bays to three boxes each, one of which has a ready rack with either a "^" or "=" (but probably not one of each ). The loss of LAB is suggested to me by the loss of the Probe Launcher on the Fire Support Cruiser.

Again, I'm a BIG Omega fan and look forward to seeing where they're taken. It's just that this proposal doesn't quite FEEL right for me.

(HOWEVER, if this IS the direction ADB, Inc. wishes to take with Omega, I no doubt will still enjoy it... )

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, June 28, 2025 - 08:59 pm: Edit

In the Alpha Octant and in the Lesser Magellanic Cloud, there are a number of pathways a given "metal-hull" empire or faction can take when moving from "peacetime" to "wartime" construction.

In some cases, it's a matter of bulking up such-and-such a "peacetime" hull in order to produce a "wartime" one. Consider how the Lyrans went from the "catamaran" Leopard destroyer to the "trimaran" Jaguar war cruiser.

In others, it's a case of a "war" hull directly replacing its "peacetime" predecessor in the same size of slipway. Think of how the Kzintis phased out the Middle Years light cruiser to make way for the General War-era medium cruiser.

In yet others, the "war" hull ends up replacing the production of a different size of "peacetime" vessel. Most famously, the Federation using Middle Years destroyer slipways to build new light cruisers; thus obliging them to establish newer, smaller yards in order to build war destroyers.

In the case of the Mæsrons, I see them following the second option. As in, the production of the proposed war cruiser and war destroyer would directly replace those of the current "peacetime" light cruiser and destroyer respectively.

Other Omega empires with "metal-hull" starship designs might go in different directions. But those can be worried about later on.

-----

But what would such ships look like?

Although not an exact comparison, I would use the "lost empire" Carnivons from Module C6 as a useful reference point.

Why the Carnivons?

For one thing, their use of phasers, disruptor cannons, and death bolts is not entirely distant from the Mæsron use of wide-angle phasers, tachyon guns, and tachyon missiles - though there is no Mæsron equivalent of the heel nipper.

Broadly-speaking, they effectively replaced many of their "peacetime" ships with "wartime" ones on the production schedule, in a manner more akin to the Kzinti case than the Lyran one. Although the specifics of how they get there in terms of ship construction methods are somewhat different.

And, coincidentally, both the Carnivons and the Vulpa happen to be wolf-like beings...

For the sake of comparison:

The "peacetime" Carnivon light cruiser has four phaser-1s, two phaser-3s, two disruptor cannons, a heel nipper, and two death bolt racks.

The "wartime" Carnivon war cruiser has four phaser-1s, four phaser-3s, four disruptor cannons, a heel nipper, and two death bolt racks.

The "peacetime" Carnivon destroyer has four phaser-2s, two phaser-3s, two disruptor cannons, a heel nipper, and a death bolt rack.

While the "wartime" Carnivon war destroyer has two phaser-1s, two phaser-2s, four phaser-3s, two disruptor cannons, a heel nipper, and a death bolt rack.

In all four cases, the Carnivons are designing their ships with their "traditional" enemies in mind: namely, the Kzintis and the Lyrans. Each of which are, of course, adding increased firepower to their respective "war" hulls.

-----

In the case of the Mæsrons:

As noted above, the "peacetime" light cruiser and destroyer use the same "floating" platform: as noted above, these each provide four phaser-W1s, two phaser-W3s, and two tachyon guns.

As you mentioned, the wide-angle phaser-1 arcs on these platforms have certain restrictions, depending on the base hulls they are installed on. All four PW-1s are reduced to FA arcs on the CL; those on the DD have 2 to FA+L and 2 to FA+R.

In the case of the Mæsron CL and DD, the "wings" of each platform each have a type-A tachyon missile rack installed. In addition, the CL has a phaser-W1, a phaser-W3, and a third tachyon gun on the prow.

So that's a total of five phaser-W1s, three phaser-W3s, three tachyon guns, and two type-A TM racks on the CL.

And a total of four phaser-W1s, two phaser-W3s, two tachyon guns, and two type-A TM racks on the DD.

-----

So, let's now consider what the proposed "wartime" firing platform would offer by comparison.

Once again, the proposed platform would have six phaser-W1s, two phaser-W3s, and three tachyon guns.

For my part, I would propose going with type-B missile racks on the "wings" of this "wartime" platform, as opposed to the type-A racks on the "peacetime" platform. This would counter the use of type-D racks by the Vulpa insurgents, which they are noted as making extensive use of in this era. I t would also match the use of type-B racks by those Auroran Navy ships with such weapons installed.

If one were to build a would-be war cruiser with this platform and the same prow armament as the current CL, that would be a total of seven phaser-W1s, three phaser-W3s, four TGs, and two type-B TM racks.

Meanwhile, if one followed a similar setup to the current DD - as in, to not have any of the weapons on the proposed DW on the primary hull proper - this would result in six phaser-W1s, two phaser-W3s, three TGs, and two type-B TM racks.

And, yes, the CW and DW would each have comparable firing arc restrictions to those seen on the CL and DD respectively. Such is the price of using a common "floating" firing platform.

Does this sound reasonable?

-----

Historically-speaking, it is true that the Mæsrons were brought to their lowest ebb during the Civil War and Collapse.

But, by the end of the Second Great War, the New Alliance had expanded to a larger extent than had been seen in decades, as shown on the Y192 map on the fourth page of this file.

While the subsequent Andromedan and Souldra invasions took a heavy toll, the Mæsrons still had the strongest economy remaining in Omega by the dawn of the Seventh Cycle in Y205. A Cycle which, I should add, is referred to as the "Mæsron Renaissance".

Further, while it is true that the Mæsrons found themselves leaning more heavily into the use of attrition units in the wake of the Collapse, I would interpret this as them fielding a proportionally larger number of "true" carriers, bombardment hulls, and other such mission variants.

I would very much not wish them to be shown as adopting a "casual" carrier doctrine, personally-speaking. I agree with the view that such a thing would not be in keeping with Bruce Graw's vision for this Galactic octant.

And in terms of swapping out system boxes to make room for more missile racks? Given the precedent set by the Mæsron fire support cruiser - which, notably, was used by the Vulpa faction in the Civil War era - I'd see such a thing as being more of a Vulpa thing later on. But, in their case, they'd likely start by getting rid of more probe launchers...

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, June 28, 2025 - 10:53 pm: Edit

In Federation and Empire terms, one key element of "wartime" construction is the cost, in Economic Points, to build a ship to such standards, as opposed to building a ship to "peacetime" standards.

As shown here, it's actually cheaper in EP terms for the Federation to build NCLs than it is to build old CLs - or old DDs!

The flip side of this, however, is that "wartime" ships cannot be upgraded to first-generation X-technology; only with a base hull built to "peacetime" standards can this be done.

-----

In the Omega Octant, there are in fact certain hints at empires pushing the limits of what "peacetime construction" designs can provide, both before and during the Second Great War.

A great example of this is the Vari wing cruiser, as previewed in Captain's Log #23. This ship, which first entered production in Y185, is far more dangerous than the older Vari light cruiser, and is itself the basis for a number of as-yet-unpublshed mission vari-ants.

For comparison's sake, the "standard" Vari WC has five particle phaser-1s, four particle phaser-3s, four particle splitter torpedoes, one particle beam, and two particle probe launchers.

The problem, however, is that is is still a "peacetime construction" ship. So it likely costs like one for the Vari to build - something which is a problem for a species which, for most of Omega history, is divided into dozens of smaller cells.

By contrast, if one were to envision that the Mæsron and FRA breakthrough in Y187 includes granting the "wartime discount" in economic terms, alongside any added capabilities in combat, this would be a key factor in turning the tide of the Second Great War in their favour. And thus, proving true the old Terran adage that amateurs study tactics; while professionals study logistics.

-----

Unlike in Alpha, where all manner of new technologies conveniently find their way from one side of the octant to the next in relatively short order, things are quite different in Omega - as, indeed, they are out in the LMC.

Consider how many years it took for "volatile warp" PF technology to be passed on from one Omega empire to the next - and that was with the Mæsrons trying to offer it to them!

I suspect that, in most cases, other Omega empires would not adopt their own "wartime construction" ships until the tail end of the Second Great War at the very earliest. So, too late to change the outcome of that conflict, but just in time to confront the Andromedans and the Souldra.

After that, those empires to survive the Invasions would get plenty of opportunity to turn their "war" ships against one another, in the subsequent Seventh Cycle.

-----

Although, if you want another playtest faction to consider:

Those of you with a copy of Captain's Log #54 might have noticed how the playtest antiproton variant ships for the Paravians of Omega are conveniently based on "base hulls" published in SFB Module C6.

Although, for some reason, the lone port battery on the antiproton war cruiser SSD seems to have gone missing...

So, while there is as yet no "update" file to formally confirm which C6 ships are in Omega-Paravian use and which are not, for now I would not speak against the concept of using some of these ships here - both the ones in CL54, and the "base hulls" for each to be found in C6 - for playtesting purposes, at least for battles set during the post-Invasions era.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, June 30, 2025 - 12:28 pm: Edit

I've been thinking over the proposed setup for the "wartime" firing platform.

While I would suggest keeping the suggested 4 by 4.5 box setup, as well as the idea of there being "half-box" gaps between active boxes placed upon it, I was considering an "option 2" for the default weapon configuration - if one were to think of the one listed above as "option 1".

What if the "option 2" setup looked like this?

	1	2	2.5	3.5	4
1	Phaser-W1	Blank	Tachyon Gun	Blank	Phaser-W1
2	Phaser-W1	Blank	Tachyon Gun	Blank	Phaser-W1
3	Blank	Blank	Tachyon Gun	Blank	Blank
3.5	Phaser-W3	Blank	***	Blank	Phaser-W3
4	***	Blank	Blank	Blank	***
4.5	Phaser-W3	Blank	Probe launcher	Blank	Phaser-W3

The *** entries are to show that the weapon in the "half-space" immediately above also covers the space marked on this chart.

So, instead of six phaser-W1s and two phaser-W3, there are now four phaser-W1s and four phaser-W3s.

-----

To go back to the proposed war cruiser and war destroyer setup:


The "option 2" war cruiser would have the same prow tachyon gun, along with the same pair of type-B tachyon missile racks on the platform "wings".

As for the prow wide-angle phasers, I had two thoughts:

For "option 2a", what if the FX wide-angle phasers were both phaser-W1s? Combined with the "option 2" platform setup, that would be six phaser-W1s, four phaser-W3s, four tachyon guns, and two type-B missile racks.

Alternatively, "option 2b" could keep the CL's FX phaser-W1 and phaser-W3; that would be five phaser-W1s and five phaser-W3s overall.

I suppose one could go with the "option 2b" version for the base CW, and perhaps use the "option 2a" armament on a would-be war cruiser leader...


As for the "option 2" war destroyer: if one keeps the same pair of type-B racks on the "wings" and no weapons on the primary hull, that would be four phaser-W1s, four phaser-W3s, three tachyon guns, and two type-B TM racks in total.

-----

Do any of these "option 2" iterations work better, or would "option 1" be worth sticking with?