SFB: Frax
dlf...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
heard about them, they are a modern day wet navy ship design. Take a Klingon
ship and make 2 disr fire FA and 2 RA. Same with all the phasers on the ship.
What is your opion on a ship designed like this?
Dennis
*******************************************
dlf...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu This sig is still under
df0d...@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu construction by ACME(tm)
sig construction agency.
Lyle Youngblood
>I am wondering what is everyone's opion on the Frax ships? If you have not
>heard about them, they are a modern day wet navy ship design. Take a Klingon
>ship and make 2 disr fire FA and 2 RA. Same with all the phasers on the ship.
>What is your opion on a ship designed like this?
>
and RA. Also, FRAX ships have all, or the majority, depending on class, of
their phasers split between FX and RX as well.
As far as opinions on them, they fly a lot like Klingons without the good,
relative to everyone except Kzinti, drone capability. They like Obliques and
are even better at them than a Klink. Personally, I am just as glad that they
are a "virtual" race.
Lyle
L3 Warren
>I am wondering what is everyone's opion on the Frax ships? If you have not
>heard about them, they are a modern day wet navy ship design. Take a Klingon
>ship and make 2 disr fire FA and 2 RA. Same with all the phasers on the ship.
>What is your opion on a ship designed like this?
They are even better at Saber-dancing than the Klingons. The Klingons used
them as a simulator threat to train their Northern Fleet (according to the
scenario in P1).
Never played them, though. I suspect their narrow overlap of only 60 degrees
where all 4 disr can fire can be used against them pretty well. In other
words, even less shock-power than the Klingon if you can maneuver well
enough.
Warren.
Richard Bell
>heard about them, they are a modern day wet navy ship design. Take a Klingon
>ship and make 2 disr fire FA and 2 RA. Same with all the phasers on the ship.
>What is your opion on a ship designed like this?
>
As I have only read the new rules, and not actually played SFB since the
commander's rules came out, my opinions are speculative, but here goes:
The main interesting point of the Frax is that they fire broadsides, not
alpha strikes. The axis of fire for the frax is perpendicular to their line
of flight, which makes them even better sabre dancers than the klingons (this
is why they are used to train klingon officers IMHO). Once you have damaged
the shields on one side of a frax ship, it will turn around to present its
other side and continue to pound away with its full armament (the armament
of a frax ship is divided 1/2 1/2 or 2/3 1/3 FX and RX with some smaller
weaponry mounted L and R).
The interesting thing about frax ships is that the fight like no other race.
Ron Hamaguchi
>heard about them, they are a modern day wet navy ship design. Take a Klingon
>ship and make 2 disr fire FA and 2 RA. Same with all the phasers on the ship.
>What is your opion on a ship designed like this?
Uhh, that should be disrupters FX and RX along with the phasers. The ships
for the Frax are some that I am really considering playing in one of the
next games I will play. Even though they have a average turn mode, C
I believe on the Heavy Cruiser, the superior firing arcs of the phasers and
disrupters help a hell of a lot. When looking at this ship, you will find
that is has 4 shields to which it can bear most, if not all of its major
weapons. This is a big, big advantage. This coming from an Orion player too.
>
> Dennis
+----------------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| Ron Hamaguchi |One of the 50th's States' Little Known but|
| hama...@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu |Loyal Lovely Angels Fans. |
+----------------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| WWWA We'll Solve Any Problem For You, And We'll Send You Our Best! |
| Yuri And Kei Are On Their Way!!! |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Hills Matthew D
Some people mentioned the advantage that the Frax have (by being able
to effectively attack from either broadside, and thus have more
shields, etc...).
I was wondering how effective this broadside attack was, as from
playing old wet-navy games, it is a real pain to get the broadside
in there--as while you are trying to cross the T, the other vessel
is moving away.
In SFB, if you are moving perpendicular to your opponent, he is
the one capable of determining the range at which you engage,
which is *real* bad if you are trying to get into a certain range
bracket for disruptors. If you are in range and have him at your
side, things are great, as you can get away even better than in
standard obliques...
The turn modes make it real difficult to set both the range
and to make use of the 4 shields you have to use your weapons (as
opposed to the standard 3 for most cruisers)
L3 Warren
>Uhh, that should be disrupters FX and RX along with the phasers. The ships
>for the Frax are some that I am really considering playing in one of the
>next games I will play. Even though they have a average turn mode, C
>I believe on the Heavy Cruiser, the superior firing arcs of the phasers and
>disrupters help a hell of a lot. When looking at this ship, you will find
>that is has 4 shields to which it can bear most, if not all of its major
>weapons. This is a big, big advantage. This coming from an Orion player too.
Turn mode C is not bad. Not much worse than B. It should work well with
broadsides. A ship does not start to suffer until it hits the disgusting
pig modes of the Feds (Mode D).
4 shields bearing does not seem too huge an advantage. Normal Klingons have
3 shields that can bear.
I have misgivings about the Frax. They don't have death ROWS like the
Klingons do. They have death ARCS. A whole 60 degrees on a side. On the
flip side, their main power arc is only 60 degrees rather than the 120
degrees of most ships. Well, 60 on a side. 120 total.
If a Klingon loses one of his front shields, his firepower is so oblique
oriented that it is not hard to approach from the other side. In fact,
he can take the first strike on his #1 (his least important shield) and
then choose a side. With 2 adjacent shields gone, he can still cover him-
self effectively.
Can the Frax do this? I'm not sure. Crossing the T might be a little
tricky. You may have 2 expose both your side shields on the approach.
Thus, if one is blown on each side, you may be outta luck. I don't
know. I'm intriqued now. I guess I have to go try them.
Warren.
Stephan Fassmann, Software
just wait and turn into him. They really are great at the Oblique from the
front or back. They only have to go at a medium speed and try to turn as
often as possible. Remember even if you do stay out of the R and L arcs you
will still be facing 1/3-1/2 his firepower, there are NO arcs that he CAN'T
hit you with at least some disruptors, and you thought D5 arcs where nasty.
You don't want to cross the T, just get next to him where his weapons don't
fire.
And things get worse when the AFD refits are installed. TOTALLY drone PROOF.
The Anti-Fighter Defense system is a ADD-12 mated with a Ph-G. They replace
the Ph-3's and are restricted to the Ph-3s' arcs. I don't have the rules
handy but I think you can fire either per impulse. Add 3 BPV per mount?
I like the Frax, they are really good to Sabre Dance with, and are hard (
impossible) to hit with drones. With better Turn modes I think they might be
unbeatable. In fleet formations they are fantastic. I like Roms best but
Frax are next.
Colin J. Wynne
:
: Some people mentioned the advantage that the Frax have (by being able
: to effectively attack from either broadside, and thus have more
: shields, etc...).
:
: I was wondering how effective this broadside attack was, as from
: playing old wet-navy games, it is a real pain to get the broadside
: in there--as while you are trying to cross the T, the other vessel
: is moving away.
One thing to consider, though, is that while the FRAX are trying to get
their broadside online, any race they are fighting will be trying to bring
their front end around for an alpha strike. That's capping the T right
there -- he's bringing his front end down on you, and you simply throw
your broadside in the way.
If the non-FRAX player goes for a big alpha strike, he'll blow through one
of your shields and a lot of your hull -- doing very few internals
(remeber, the FRAX all have 'Center Hull'). If he tries to be more subtle
and knock down a shield in preparation for a Mizia attack, well then the
FRAX can use a turn or sideslip to put the *other* broadside shield in the
way, thus reducing damage even further.
Then, short of an HET, the non-FRAX should get toasted as the FRAX ship
uses the heavy weapons to blow the front shield away and Mizia's his
phasers into the attacker's hull.
The reason that broadsides are hard to bring to bear in modern or
classical naval combat is that *everybody* needs to do the same thing.
However, given the plethora of bow-armed ships in SFB, a broadside becomes
a very good design.
CJW
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
===== Colin J. Wynne Washington & Lee University =====
===== cwy...@liberty.uc.wlu.edu Lexington, Virginia =====
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
L3 Warren
>If the non-FRAX player goes for a big alpha strike, he'll blow through one
>of your shields and a lot of your hull -- doing very few internals
>(remeber, the FRAX all have 'Center Hull'). If he tries to be more subtle
>and knock down a shield in preparation for a Mizia attack, well then the
>FRAX can use a turn or sideslip to put the *other* broadside shield in the
>way, thus reducing damage even further.
>Then, short of an HET, the non-FRAX should get toasted as the FRAX ship
>uses the heavy weapons to blow the front shield away and Mizia's his
>phasers into the attacker's hull.
Hmm.
Not true with Klingons, IMO. The Klingon's major power lines are 60 degrees
offset. He can make a run in using his forward shield, trade alphas
and turn away. Now one of the two critical Frax side shields are gone.
And the Klingon is missing his #1.
Now, we line up again. This time, the Frax uses his fresh side. The
Klingon approaches obliquely under cover of his #2 or #6. Trade alphas
again.
By this point, both guys should be pretty beat up. I don't see any
particular advantage to one approach or the other (when they are both
disruptor ships who can afford to get snuggly with each other).
If anything, the Klingon might have a very subtle advantage since he
can approach again under cover of the other front shield. The Frax, using
his sideways approach, will have more trouble keeping the Klingon out
of one of those dead shields. The Klingon has the advantage now. Assuming
the battle has gone on this long. It could well be over before this point.
They may not have very many weapons left to pound on each other.
On the other hand, when you are close and snuggly, the 60 degree overlap
is not very good. It could be avoided much more easily than the 120
degrees of the Klingon heavy weapons. You'll sometimes force the Frax
to take your alpha and give you half of his. Then you turn when he turns
and split his fire on two shields. I think they'll suffer up close against
a Klingon, who is also more maneuverable.
No, I think the Frax advantage will shine only when he is trying to
saber-dance a Captain Crunch ship. He can probably maintain distance
better due to the broadside. Also, at 15 hexes, the 60 degree arcs covers
a lot of hexes, so the limited overlap is not as much trouble.
Warren.
Ron Hamaguchi
>
>Not true with Klingons, IMO. The Klingon's major power lines are 60 degrees
>offset. He can make a run in using his forward shield, trade alphas
>and turn away. Now one of the two critical Frax side shields are gone.
>And the Klingon is missing his #1.
>
>Now, we line up again. This time, the Frax uses his fresh side. The
>Klingon approaches obliquely under cover of his #2 or #6. Trade alphas
>again.
>
>By this point, both guys should be pretty beat up. I don't see any
>particular advantage to one approach or the other (when they are both
>disruptor ships who can afford to get snuggly with each other).
>
>If anything, the Klingon might have a very subtle advantage since he
>can approach again under cover of the other front shield. The Frax, using
>his sideways approach, will have more trouble keeping the Klingon out
>of one of those dead shields. The Klingon has the advantage now. Assuming
>the battle has gone on this long. It could well be over before this point.
>They may not have very many weapons left to pound on each other.
In most of the games that I play, we use a floating map as space is not fixed.
Thus, I am just wondering but have you never tried flying backwards? It works
real well in this particular situation. And given that you are on a floating
map you should have enough time to turn around and do this.
>On the other hand, when you are close and snuggly, the 60 degree overlap
>is not very good. It could be avoided much more easily than the 120
>degrees of the Klingon heavy weapons. You'll sometimes force the Frax
>to take your alpha and give you half of his. Then you turn when he turns
>and split his fire on two shields. I think they'll suffer up close against
>a Klingon, who is also more maneuverable.
I would like to see this, if you use sideslips and save your turn mode
correctly you should almost always be able to use all of you weapons
with a frax.
>No, I think the Frax advantage will shine only when he is trying to
>saber-dance a Captain Crunch ship. He can probably maintain distance
>better due to the broadside. Also, at 15 hexes, the 60 degree arcs covers
>a lot of hexes, so the limited overlap is not as much trouble.
Personally I think the Frax is one hell of a ship to try and take out.
I can hit you from all sides, and after you have several down shields it
makes it hard to fight against this one.
>Warren.
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> I was wondering how effective this broadside attack was, as from
> playing old wet-navy games, it is a real pain to get the broadside
> in there--as while you are trying to cross the T, the other vessel
> is moving away.
I believe the point is that you're NOT trying to cross the T, because
the other guy does not have FRAX arcs. The idea behind crossing the T is
getting all your guns to bear while your opponent only gets his bow or
aft guns.
With starships that most likely have offensive power mounted up front,
you'd like to do side-by-side passes.
--------
max...@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) Voice +358 0 8092681
Sweet Oblivion (+358 0 8092678, V.32bis 8N1) Official SRP Headquarters
SnailMail: Maininkitie 8A8 SF 02320 ESPOO FINLAND
Colin Charles James MacDonald
In article <1992Dec1.1...@liberty.uc.wlu.edu> cwy...@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Colin J. Wynne) writes:
>Hills Matthew D (hi...@cory.Berkeley.EDU) wrote:
>:
>: Some people mentioned the advantage that the Frax have (by being able
>: to effectively attack from either broadside, and thus have more
>: shields, etc...).
>:
>: playing old wet-navy games, it is a real pain to get the broadside
>: in there--as while you are trying to cross the T, the other vessel
>: is moving away.
>
>their broadside online, any race they are fighting will be trying to bring
>their front end around for an alpha strike. That's capping the T right
>there -- he's bringing his front end down on you, and you simply throw
>your broadside in the way.
>
your opponent guns without a target. If you are fighting a forward armed
opponent, then you are both firing "broadsides" if you are broadside on to
his nose.
>If the non-FRAX player goes for a big alpha strike, he'll blow through one
>of your shields and a lot of your hull -- doing very few internals
>(remeber, the FRAX all have 'Center Hull'). If he tries to be more subtle
>and knock down a shield in preparation for a Mizia attack, well then the
>FRAX can use a turn or sideslip to put the *other* broadside shield in the
>way, thus reducing damage even further.
>
Applies to any ship, I would have thought...?
>Then, short of an HET, the non-FRAX should get toasted as the FRAX ship
>uses the heavy weapons to blow the front shield away and Mizia's his
>phasers into the attacker's hull.
>
...unless his opponent turns to bring another shield to bear...and if
your opponent has chosen to close the range to where disruptors are
really effective...
>The reason that broadsides are hard to bring to bear in modern or
>classical naval combat is that *everybody* needs to do the same thing.
>However, given the plethora of bow-armed ships in SFB, a broadside becomes
>a very good design.
>
Good design? Hmmm. Intersting, certainly. I'd love to try it, BUT...
If you are broadside on to an opponent, you are going to find it fairly
difficult to keep the range open if he wants to close it, which is the problem
with having a disruptor ship - you have to avoid trading close range blows
with photons and plasmas. The FRAX would certainly be better at this than
Klingons, Kzinti, or Lyrans, unless, of course they chose to fly backwards.
This is a perfectly serious suggestion; enter a battle flying backwards.
I agree, you're still not as flexible as a FX-RX ship, but then, he's paying
more for those lovely big arcs on all his weapons and 4 "forward" shield.
Which leads me to my (humble) conclusion; FRAX will be expensive, will they
not? Which means that their CA might be a brilliant ship, but it will be
fighting BC`s. not other CA`s. Which is what the point system is about.
Still, I`d love to give them a go.
-----
Colin
-----
Colin J. Wynne
: cwy...@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Colin J. Wynne) writes:
:
: >Then, short of an HET, the non-FRAX should get toasted as the FRAX ship
: >uses the heavy weapons to blow the front shield away and Mizia's his
: >phasers into the attacker's hull.
: Not true with Klingons, IMO.
True, the Klingons are probably better able to deal with the FRAX than
most other races; but consider the following.
The FRAX ships are no slouches in bow/aft weaponry, either. When the
Klingon captain you describe comes in sacrificing his number one shield,
I, the FRAX captain, will turn tail, speed up, and drop disruptor fire on
his number one shield while outrunning his drones and taking some aft
shield damage, and probably a few internals. Now the Klingon's 'spare'
shield is gone, but I have only traded a secondary shield to achieve that
objective. Now, the Klingon has his #2 or #6 for his primary attack arcs,
and *still* must charge straight in to me, and I can choose to take him on
#2, #3, #5, or #6. I still feel that the FRAX have a fairly advantageous
position here.
Roger Books
>True, the Klingons are probably better able to deal with the FRAX than
>most other races; but consider the following.
>
Really? How would the Frax handle a retrograde? How would they handle
drones/Plasma from the front or back? I think the people that like to
play, "Lets get in their face", would really like going up against the
Frax. All I can say is if you are playing Frax you had better have a
good turn break plotted and also an HET. Of course, these are usually
good things to have anyway.
Stephan Fassmann, Software
>[...]
>Really? How would the Frax handle a retrograde?
Remember they are only a one hex race, like the Tholians. If you are
retrograding, you leaving their territory. The retrograde is really a
defensive manuever.
If they are attacking a retro- they have real problems because they have to
zig-zag in directions B&C if you are going A to hit you with everything.
If they are retrograding they are a terror. They can retrograde forward or
backward, like the Gorns. They can hit you with *something* in all cases,
and a simple 60 degree turn brings MORE weapons to bear. And if they get in
trouble they could turn around and retrograde with the same efficency the
other way.
>How would they handle drones/Plasma from the front or back?
One acronym ADF.
ADF _*EATS*_ drones and plasmas and fighters. At least the Gatlings are
restricted to size class 6 and 7.
The word on GEnie is if you can hit a Frax with A drone from a Klingon the
Kzintis are not going to be happy campers.
One guy reportedly took 12xF-14B's against a Frax, and got totally chewed.
And that's what I've seen as well.
______________________________________________________________________________
|Stephan Fassmann Internet: $ste...@sasb.byu.edu GEnie: S.FASSMANN|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Reality is for those who cannot take Science Fiction |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hills Matthew D
>
>I believe the point is that you're NOT trying to cross the T, because
>the other guy does not have FRAX arcs. The idea behind crossing the T is
>getting all your guns to bear while your opponent only gets his bow or
>aft guns.
>
map) is determined by speed differential.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it is very difficult bringing your
weapons to bear when they aren't in the arcs that would naturally arise
when maneuvering to set the range.
I am sure that it is possible to fly these ships, but feasibility and
practicality are two different concepts...
>With starships that most likely have offensive power mounted up front,
>you'd like to do side-by-side passes.
But why would this happen? Why wouldn't he just turn into you (to close the
range if that is to his advantage) or turn away (to take you out of whatever
range bracket you wanted him in)?
(that "just" says a lot--sure, favorable situations for FRAX arrive, but I
do not believe that they arise as often as with conventional arcs...
Actually, I am quite happy with D5 arcs :-)
Matt Hills
hi...@cory.Berkeley.EDU
William A. Humphrey
Could someone please post, re-post, or e-mail a basic description of the
Frax? Having come into this thread half-way through, it might help me understanthe discussion if I knew whatthe bleep was being argued. Specifically, who
(or what) are the Frax, where were the rules for them introduced, where are
they located, and what is the general "theme" behind their ships? I get the
impression that they have unusual (bizarre?) weapon arcs, also what are their
main weapons?
--
Bill
50 Years Ago Today (or thereabouts): 7 December 1942
* The U.S. commemerates the first anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
* * * * December 7, 1992 * * * Fiftieth anniversary of Pearl Harbor * * * *
Alec Habig
>
> Could someone please post, re-post, or e-mail a basic description of the
>Frax? Having come into this thread half-way through, it might help me understanthe discussion if I knew whatthe bleep was being argued. Specifically, who
>(or what) are the Frax, where were the rules for them introduced, where are
>they located, and what is the general "theme" behind their ships? I get the
>impression that they have unusual (bizarre?) weapon arcs, also what are their
>main weapons?
The FRAX are a klingon simulator training race, that are basically klingon
ships with FX/RX weapons arcs, plus magical anti-drone thingers that can be
ADD's or PG's at will. Their unusual weapons arcs mean that they tend to fight
like wet-navy ships and go for broadsides. They show up in one of the "P"
series playtesting modules.
Bill
>50 Years Ago Today (or thereabouts): 7 December 1942
>* The U.S. commemerates the first anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
> * * * * December 7, 1992 * * * Fiftieth anniversary of Pearl Harbor * * * *
Ummm... Pearl Harbor was in 1941, last year was the 50th anniversary.
I think you meant "50th anniversy of the first anniversary".
Alec
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> But this is even worse, as then your ability to position (assuming floating
> map) is determined by speed differential.
>
> I guess what I'm trying to say is that it is very difficult bringing your
> weapons to bear when they aren't in the arcs that would naturally arise
> when maneuvering to set the range.
I'm not a SFP expert. I was just speculating, what a wet navy ship would
do against a ship with all main armaments up front.
The deciding factor, IMHO, is how easy it is to move vs. the ease of
turning, plus the ranges.
Wet navy ships are slow compared to their ranges. If one chooses to
close, he forfeits his firepower to that end. Because of the slow speed,
the opponent can probably avoid him long enough to pound him into dust.
If vessels are fast enough, frontal weapons are more natural and
probably better, barring full 360 turrets ofcourse (does SFB have these?
Why not?)
> >With starships that most likely have offensive power mounted up front,
> >you'd like to do side-by-side passes.
>
> But why would this happen? Why wouldn't he just turn into you (to close the
> range if that is to his advantage) or turn away (to take you out of whatever
> range bracket you wanted him in)?
If you can't move fast enough to outfly the other guy's turning ability,
you're off the deep end. You can only hope ha gathers too much inertia
and overshoots badly after one close pass.
Disclaimer: As I said, I'm not totally aware of all the intricacies in
SFB rules. I'm just making common sense based speculations, not rule
specific ones.
Stephan Fassmann, Software
This weekend I took a Frax CA against a Fed CARa+. Now my opponent is a
novice but he is very good at maneuvering so I kept on having to blast down
each of his shields. Well, I have played against a Frax before (BB vs. C7&D7)
which got chewed up. But this time I was flying and I wanted to see what I
could do with this ship.
I had no problem getting all of my weapons to bear. For derfacs sniping just
sideslip and turn. For knifefighting I couldn't get him out of arc. which
was bad as he started miziaing me, he could hit ALL my phasers but one ph-3.
The best thing about the Frax is there is no blank zone where you can turn a
down shield towards him without having some heavy weapons, unlike most ships
that can't fire behind them, you HAVE to turn the long way to keep a down
shield out of arc.
Remember these are _300_ DEGREE arcs here. Try it, It is hard to keep people
out of arc. Take a D7 and call half the weapons FX and half RX odd balls
go FX. And even if they aren't in the R/L arcs you still have something
significant to fire at them. The D5/C7 come close but aren't quite there. I
now want to try out the Frax CC vs D7TC THAT could be interesting. The CC is
tournament ready according to ADB. Well these are my findings. After trying
the Frax, a Klingon would really like the Frax I think.
Enjoy.
Rob Carriere
Kurki-Suonio) writes:
>hi...@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Hills Matthew D) writes:
>> I guess what I'm trying to say is that it is very difficult bringing your
>> weapons to bear when they aren't in the arcs that would naturally arise
>> when maneuvering to set the range.
>
>I'm not a SFP expert. I was just speculating, what a wet navy ship would
>do against a ship with all main armaments up front.
>
>The deciding factor, IMHO, is how easy it is to move vs. the ease of
>turning, plus the ranges.
Ships going flank speed spend about 1/5 of their movement allowance between
successive 60 degree turns.
>Wet navy ships are slow compared to their ranges. If one chooses to
>close, he forfeits his firepower to that end. Because of the slow speed,
>the opponent can probably avoid him long enough to pound him into dust.
Most SFB weapons don't do much outside range 15 hexes, battle speeds range
from upper teens to upper twenties (in hexes/turn). So ships are fast
relative to their weapon ranges.
>If vessels are fast enough, frontal weapons are more natural and
>probably better, barring full 360 turrets ofcourse (does SFB have these?
>Why not?)
There are some 360 degree phasers. The Klingons have some boats with 270
degree disruptors, advanced plasma torpedo mounts cover 180 degrees,
most other weapons are 120 degrees. Oh, and drone racks (missile launchers)
are 360 degree as well.
Why don't they have better arcs? Beats me, I don't design starships, I just
fly 'em into crapshoots. :-) Seriously, there's a playability concern here.
If 360 degree arcs are common, then a whole class of tactical concerns
disappears from the game.
>If you can't move fast enough to outfly the other guy's turning ability,
>you're off the deep end. You can only hope ha gathers too much inertia
>and overshoots badly after one close pass.
Yup.
>Disclaimer: As I said, I'm not totally aware of all the intricacies in
>SFB rules. I'm just making common sense based speculations, not rule
>specific ones.
Well, it makes sense to me.
SR
---
Randall Roman
Has more been published about the FRAX other than what appeared in
Module P1? P1 had a dreadnought, CA, CW, and small ships, but no
BB or CC that has been mentioned here. Also, P1 makes no mention
of the "magical" phaser-g or ADDs. Where did you people find
these things?
--
Randy Roman
r-r...@nwu.edu
Frost, Dennis L.
> Could someone please post, re-post, or e-mail a basic description of the
> Frax? Having come into this thread half-way through, it might help me understanthe discussion if I knew whatthe bleep was being argued. Specifically, who
> (or what) are the Frax, where were the rules for them introduced, where are
> they located, and what is the general "theme" behind their ships? I get the
> impression that they have unusual (bizarre?) weapon arcs, also what are their
> main weapons?
> --
> Bill
Bill,
This thread started when I asked what everyone's opion on the Frax are. As
for what are they, the are today's wet navy design. The basic design is
simple. Take a klingon ship and make half of the disruptors and phasers fire
fx and the other rx. They are officially going to be released in an upcoming
module. Sorry I don't know that the module number is.As for the theme and
location, last I heard (2 years ago) they will be living in a small corner
pinned between ISC and Romulans. But that is just a rumor a long time ago.
Dennis
Stephan Fassmann, Software
>Subject: Re: SFB: Frax
>From: rro...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Randall Roman)
>Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 17:45:56 GMT
BB was put in playtest on GEnie about a month ago.
The Frax War Module F? should come out next year sometime.
Helen Rapozo
>In article <books...@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu> bo...@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu (Roger Books) writes:
>>[...]
>>Really? How would the Frax handle a retrograde?
>
>Remember they are only a one hex race, like the Tholians. If you are
>retrograding, you leaving their territory. The retrograde is really a
>defensive manuever.
While Tholians are a defensive race, they are not a one-hex race. I
know for sure the WYN are a one-hex race, maybe the LDR too.
Honolulu Community College cs_r...@hccadb.hcc.hawaii.edu
874 Dillingham Blvd. he...@pulua.hcc.hawaii.edu
Honolulu, HI 96817 rap...@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu
Ph#: (808) 845-9202
Ron Hamaguchi
>In article <Lkk6uB...@swob.nullnet.fi> max...@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) writes:
>>
>>I believe the point is that you're NOT trying to cross the T, because
>>the other guy does not have FRAX arcs. The idea behind crossing the T is
>>getting all your guns to bear while your opponent only gets his bow or
>>aft guns.
>>
>But this is even worse, as then your ability to position (assuming floating
>map) is determined by speed differential.
>
>I guess what I'm trying to say is that it is very difficult bringing your
>weapons to bear when they aren't in the arcs that would naturally arise
>when maneuvering to set the range.
>
>I am sure that it is possible to fly these ships, but feasibility and
>practicality are two different concepts...
>
>
>hi...@cory.Berkeley.EDU
If you check the way weapons fire in SFB, you will find that no matter how
what speed you move at, as long as you don't use you turns badly, on a frax,
one turn will bear all of your weapons at an opponent. That is why FX-RX
arcs are so gross. Thus, you don't have to cross the T so to speak, just make
one turn at the right time and *boom* all your weapons fire.
L3 Warren
I know the CC was released in a Starletter. Don't know about any BB.
Warren.
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> Most SFB weapons don't do much outside range 15 hexes, battle speeds range
> from upper teens to upper twenties (in hexes/turn). So ships are fast
> relative to their weapon ranges.
Well if the ranges are that lousy compared to speed capabilities, I'd go
for bow weaponry too, maybe some aft weaponry for those close passes and
flying over the opponent.
> There are some 360 degree phasers. The Klingons have some boats with 270
> degree disruptors, advanced plasma torpedo mounts cover 180 degrees,
> most other weapons are 120 degrees. Oh, and drone racks (missile launchers)
> are 360 degree as well.
>
> Why don't they have better arcs? Beats me, I don't design starships, I just
> fly 'em into crapshoots. :-) Seriously, there's a playability concern here.
> If 360 degree arcs are common, then a whole class of tactical concerns
> disappears from the game.
Ofcourse it's game balance.
However, one wonders why wet navy ships didn't have all their weapons up
front. It wasn't easy (balancing those megaton turrets is not a trivial
task) but they had done it. Battleship Nelson &Co. for example had their
main turrets all in the front. The middle one did get in the way of the
back one though, so their best arcs were somewhat Klingonesque, I think
(heavies to front obliques).
Maybe warships are simply too expensive to risk using a one-sided
design. If you're fighting against multiple ships for example, it would
be very hard to keep one of them away from a particular arc - so heavies
have arcs to all directions, at least some of them.
SFB ships seem to be suited for classical fighter plane tactics better
than classical navy tactics. And given their weapon ranges and speed,
wide arcs are a nice bonus, but you're going to need heavies up front.
Rob Carriere
Kurki-Suonio) writes:
>Well if the ranges are that lousy compared to speed capabilities, I'd go
>for bow weaponry too, maybe some aft weaponry for those close passes and
>flying over the opponent.
That's pretty much the pattern. Heavy weapons are all bow, and then some of
the phasers can fire aft. The exceptions are drones (omnidirecitonal) and
most plasma boats (they mostly have arcs that go from 60 degrees off the one
bow to 120 degrees off the other, or even Left side/Right side arrangements.)
>However, one wonders why wet navy ships didn't have all their weapons up
>front. It wasn't easy (balancing those megaton turrets is not a trivial
>task) but they had done it. Battleship Nelson &Co. for example had their
>main turrets all in the front. The middle one did get in the way of the
>back one though, so their best arcs were somewhat Klingonesque, I think
>(heavies to front obliques).
That's the typical Klingon. What's going on here? Everyone knows the
Klingons are supposed to be the Soviets, not the Brits! :-)
>Maybe warships are simply too expensive to risk using a one-sided
>design. If you're fighting against multiple ships for example, it would
>be very hard to keep one of them away from a particular arc - so heavies
>have arcs to all directions, at least some of them.
Yes. This is why SFB ships can either fire at least some phasers in any
direction from the start, or were refitted that way. The theory in SFB fleet
fights is that the smaller ships are supposed to keep everybody off the big
guy's backsides.
>SFB ships seem to be suited for classical fighter plane tactics better
>than classical navy tactics. And given their weapon ranges and speed,
>wide arcs are a nice bonus, but you're going to need heavies up front.
Yup.
SR
---
Helen Rapozo
>Frax? Having come into this thread half-way through, it might help me understanthe discussion if I knew whatthe bleep was being argued. Specifically, who
>(or what) are the Frax, where were the rules for them introduced, where are
>they located, and what is the general "theme" behind their ships? I get the
>impression that they have unusual (bizarre?) weapon arcs, also what are their
>main weapons?
>--
The FRAX was introduced to the general market under Module P1 (the
date escapes me but it was on GEnie before that).
The ships are typical armed with Phaser-I, Disrupters, Phaser-III and B drone
racks. What's unique about these ships is that the weapon arcs
are in the FX or RX arcs (hence the name FRAX). For example
if memory serves a FRAX CA would have the following weapons arangement:
Type of # in # in
Weapon FX arc RX arc
Phaser-I 4 2
Disrupter 2 2
Phaser-III 2 2
plus 2 B drone racks.
This makes the ship to use it's broadside to bring all weapons to
bear.
As it stands right now, there is no race descriptions on what the
FRAX looks like.
David H. Thornley
>front. It wasn't easy (balancing those megaton turrets is not a trivial
>task) but they had done it. Battleship Nelson &Co. for example had their
>main turrets all in the front. The middle one did get in the way of the
>back one though, so their best arcs were somewhat Klingonesque, I think
>(heavies to front obliques).
>
high enough to fire over another turret raises an awful heavy turret
awful high in the ship, leading to real problems with stability. Topweight
was (and is) one of the big limiting factors in warship design. Therefore,
ships almost never have three superfiring turrets.
Nelson and Rodney had their big guns forward for compactness, not to
concentrate them in forward fire. As a matter of fact, the third turret
could not fire forward (except at very high angles of elevation). A better
example is French capital ship design of the 30s and 40s, which involved
two quadruple turrets forward, giving eight big guns, all firing in something
like an FX arc, and no big guns firing astern. The main concern with these
ships was of course that one lucky shot could disable half the big guns.
Of course, these ships were able to mount guns in turrets, and the designers
would scoff at a measly 120-degree firing arc for heavy weapons, which is
common for SFB weapons. Ships were also much slower compared to weapon
range. Perhaps the biggest difference, though, is the amount of damage
that can be inflicted in one shot. In wet battleship combat, it would take
minutes to disable a comparable enemy ship; in SFB, it frequently takes
one alpha strike. In this regard, SFB ships are a bit more like WWII
carriers; typically a single carrier strike was enough to disable another
carrier. (The range vs. movement is still different, though.)
Considering all these things, if I had all my weaponry on 240-degree angles,
I'd prefer to mount it LS+RF and RS+LF rather than FX and RX.
DHT
David Bofinger
(Mikko Kurki-Suonio) writes:
|> If vessels are fast enough, frontal weapons are more natural and
|> probably better
Since SFB warships fly as well backwards as forwards, frontal
weapons can be used like rear-firing weapons. Side-firing weapons
have no corresponding extra flexibility.
|> barring full 360 turrets ofcourse (does SFB have these?
Yes, but they're unusual. They represent weapons (always phasers)
that are mounted on the "top" or "bottom" of a ship so that they
can fire in the entire horizontal plane. And shuttles and some
seeking weapons can launch in any direction.
|> Why not?)
Well anticipated. :-) The real reason is it makes the tactics more
interesting, if you want a justification here goes. SFB is a two
dimensional game, if one wishes to view it as a (lousy) approximation
to a three-dimensional game then restricted firing arcs make sense.
Given what SFB warcraft look like it's hard to see how one could place
a turret that would fire into (nearly) all the solid angle (4pi
sterradians, or 128400/pi square degrees :-)) around the ship (though
you should be able to do better than the designers have). A weapon
mounted on the top or bottom of a Fed saucer would be never restricted
in SFB, whereas it would frequently be restricted in a 3D engagement.
So having all the weapons in 360 mounts would be a system-driven
abuse of the game.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger dxb...@phys.anu.edu.au
Colin Charles James MacDonald
Exsqueeze me, but that`s not a CA. 6 p-1's with 240 arcs, 4 photons likewise
is more expensive than the Fed CA (which is, believe it or not the
benchmark CA). Add the B racks (standard!) and the p-3's and it's gotta be
expensive. Sure, it's a nice ship, but you're going to have to PAY for it.
Maybe that's why no one else uses 240 arcs? 4 240 degree disruptors are OK
unless you are fighting a BC with 6 120 photons.
-----
Colin
-----
L3 Warren
>Exsqueeze me, but that`s not a CA. 6 p-1's with 240 arcs, 4 photons likewise
>is more expensive than the Fed CA (which is, believe it or not the
>benchmark CA). Add the B racks (standard!) and the p-3's and it's gotta be
>expensive. Sure, it's a nice ship, but you're going to have to PAY for it.
>Maybe that's why no one else uses 240 arcs? 4 240 degree disruptors are OK
>unless you are fighting a BC with 6 120 photons.
If memory is not totally screwed up, the Frax CA is 140 BPV. The CC, which
adds 2 more RX phaser1, is low 150s. There is a CW at 120 also.
Warren.