First: Hydrans & Lyrans would be nice.
Second:
thedugan wrote:Check out:
http://www.smileylich.com
...he's got buttloads of 'non-canon' SFB stuff.
Oh Goody, more source material for Starmada conversions.
Third: Option Mounts for Orion & Wyn ships should be treated as weapons batteries. Decide on how many Empty Space Units you want in the mount and multiply by Mount plus Arc, the same way that you would any other weapons battery. This will tell you how many Space Units that it will take from your Hull. Just drop any Optional Weapon into the mount that will fit into the Empty Space and it's Arc will be determined by the mount.
As for finding the ORAT of an Option Mount, I think that treating it as Capacity like Drones or Fighters would work better than trying to calculate by Engine value and the, as yet unknown, Range of the Optional weapon which must be fitted into the Empty Space Units of the mount. Someone could probably design a weapon that would have a higher ORAT than the drones required to fill the Empty Space Units, but as long as we are using the standard weapons, Drone Racks seem to have the highest ORAT of anything we could use to fill the space in an Option Mount.
The Weapons Track on the Data Sheet should have the Option Mounts on it, whether the Option Mounts have been filled or not. If you hit an empty Option Mount, no harm done.
The Combat Rating of the ship on the Data Sheet should remain the same, whether the Option Mounts have been filled or not. The designer of the ship is not responsible for the player's choice of Optional Weapons. If the player chooses poorly, he will be at a disadvantage. This is much the same principal as making Faceted Shields and Screens cost more than regular Shields.
I have read that we will be getting the official version of option mount rules on the 27th of this month. While it is therefore unnecessary, I wish to extend & clarify my remarks. Consider the following ship:
Orion Weapon's Testbed (75CR) All systems are TL 0.
Hull (1, 3,5): 3 2 1.
Engines (1, 2): 5 4 2.
Shields (3, 4): 6 4 2.
Facets: F: 1, FP: 1, FS: 1, AP: 1, AS: 1, A: 1.
Weapons (5, 6): 1: Y, 2: Y, 3: Z, 4: Z, 5: Z, 6: Z.
Battery Y: Large Option Mount (Capacity 25).
[AB]
Battery Z: Small Option Mount (Capacity 15).
[ACE] [BDF]
VBAM Statistics:
Cost: 3, Maintenance: 2/3~1, Defensive value: 3, Anti-Ship: 5, Anti-Fighter: 0, Command Rating: 3, Command Cost: 2; Warp Drive.
This takes its Combat Rating from the capacity of its Option Mounts. If they were replaced in the design by Drone Racks, the ship would have a Combat Rating of 67 CR. Any other combination of Phasers, Disruptors, Plasmas D through S, or Photon Torpedoes would have a Combat Rating between 45 & 51. This means that Option Mounts are about 50 % more expensive than designing ships with fixed weapon batteries. This is as it should be. Strategic flexibility should cost.
I should mention that the small wing mounts will hold Disruptors, Phasers from class 1 to class 3, Romulan Plasmas F, or Plasmas D. The large centerline mount will hold Phasers from class 1 to class 3, Photon Torpedoes, and Plasmas from Class D through S (though not class R). I am not sure whether multiple weapons in the same mount are permitted. As an example, while a Phaser 2 or a Phaser 3 may be placed in an option mount, I am not sure that a Phaser 2 and a Phaser 3 should be, even though they will both fit with room to spare.
