That's a very slightly tweaked P-5.

Loren Knight's S-bridge is another generally agreed-upon item.

Except ofr a few holdouts, warp has standardized at X1 levels as well.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 12:48 pm: Edit

I don't anticipate any group-wide agreement on systems and such, because we don't have group wide agreement on what X2 is or should be capable of. Some, like myself, go with a more flexible but not as powerful approach, with ships no bigger than those from X1. Others prefer larger ships - the 1.25 move cost cruiser, for example - with better and bigger systems. Still others are going for much smaller ships that have modular capabilities. Some people want the ships to retain the flavor of earlier designs, with a Fed still feeling like a Fed and Klingons still feeling like Klingons. Others want to shake it up and go with radically different stuff.

There are some things people agree on. The P5 and advanced ADD are pretty stable, with the only real disagreements being on numbers deployed and energy cost to fire. And most seem to use the S-bridge, though in different flavors (my own, for example, requires no power to use but has no offensive abilities like jamming drones...it is for info gathering only).

None of the above is "wrong" or a bad idea. It's just that we don't all agree on it, and tend to judge an individuals system for how it fits in with our own ideas of things; sort of jamming a square peg in a board with round holes. I, for example, cannot use 12 point photons with 24 point overloads; the ships I made just can't deal with the damage, nor the cost of arming them. But a big 50 point warp cruiser with hefty shields can use them fine...question is, which is more likely to sell? We don't know. We can guess, of course, but we don't know. My gut instinct is that the big uber-cruiser (which some have named the DN in disguise) won't work because it's too powerful. I could definately be wrong, though. So, Carl, if you have ideas, you should post them. Try an SSD or something; you might enliven the thread a bit.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 01:36 pm: Edit

I think we can make a big-box uber-cruiser without making it too powerful. You just have to scale back the weapons and power sufficiently.

For comparison purposes take this MC=1 BPV=265 XCC: http://www.crawfordeducationgroup.com/sfb/ssd/federation/XCC3.gif

Now take the same ship but give it a MC=1.25 and recalculate the BPV. The BPV (and speed) drops.

Now take the same ship but give it a MC=0.75 and recalculate the BPV. The BPV (and speed) increases dramatically.

Increasing the movement cost makes it easier for GW era ships to catch the unprepared X2 ship while reducing the hammer-egg shell problem. That’s the game mechanic advantage of MC=1.25.

The disadvantage of the big-box is people want to fill those boxes with weapons. If we can avoid this mistake we can make the big-box work. Designing X2 is a job for the humble.

I recognize that some want X2 ships equal to X1, some want X2 to be greater and some want X2 to be slightly less well armed. I want X2 to be fun to play against GW, and that means significantly detuning X2.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 11:06 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

My gut instinct is that the big uber-cruiser (which some have named the DN in disguise) won't work because it's too powerful.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 09:29 am: Edit

Given that the combined base BPV of those two ships is 410 points, you damned well should have lost. A single ship than can beat them both is a battleship, no matter what you call it. 400 point cruisers has about zero appeal to anyone but the most shameless powergamer.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 09:42 am: Edit

I'm just saying super BPV duels arn't automatically broken.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Tos said:

---

Quote:

I recognize that some want X2 ships equal to X1, some want X2 to be greater and some want X2 to be slightly less well armed. I want X2 to be fun to play against GW, and that means significantly detuning X2.

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 12:25 pm: Edit

MJC,

We've had this discussion, probably five real times before. It just seems like more.

Let's refresh your memory.

Throwing BPV at a ship dos NOT balance that ship.

If it were that simple, SVC wouldn't have a BPV formula...and then need to tweak the ship after putting it through that.

X1 cruisers are in the 250-275 range. That's already DN range. A 400-point XCA would be battleship grade.

For the benefit of newcomers, I'll add this:

The higher the BPV the more a ship's advantages and disavantages are highlighted. (think: Plasma vs Disruptor/drone) Which means existing RPS effects get more extreme.

New or different tech can also heighten RPS effects. (RE: Andromedans, ISC, Jindarans)

More-advanced tech will also have the same effect (Take a X1 cruiser against its BPV weight in EY stuff some time)

We want to introduce all kinds of new toys for X2. The problem is that each of those new toys will automatically make balance harder. X2 by defintition will be alien to some degree to the balances that make standard-tech SFB work. If it isn't, you're just doing same-old, same-old.

Most of the people here realize this. A few need a reminder.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 01:24 pm: Edit

Jeff, I'm thinking an XCA should be a good match up for:
D5K + D5K
C5K
DX
and be slightly outclassed by a C10.

Something +/- 250 BPV.

The XCC and ISC would be slightly larger, 280-300 range.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 03:51 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Designing X2 is a job for the humble.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 06:59 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Still if I presented my own ideas, who may go in the opposite direction to some of yours, I would have to explain them, and directly and indirectly say 'no' to yours. Is that ok?

---

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 07:10 pm: Edit

Like XP, once ADB shifts its focus to X2 they will give it their own spin. All we can hope to do is guide them in the right direction.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 08:28 am: Edit

We're really just sort of whistling in the dark with X2 as it is. The truth is, we really don't know what Steve's intention is, so we don't know even a vague direction to proceed with. All we have is the old article in P6, and that really isn't much to go on. So, everyone is just sort of doing what they think or feel might work. Me personally, I wanted to try to recreate the flavor of the older game; say, pre to early GW style play. That always seemed the most fun to me, more so than late GW or X1 did. So, everything I made or tried is done with that in mind. Problem is, it may be too much like GW for some people who want radically different stuff.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 12:10 pm: Edit

Mike, I'd have to say I'm with that latter group. I think that a new style of play is what X2 should be. Not like GW and not like X1. If someone wants those styles then they should play those eras. I firmly believe that X2 should be a third way.

For the life of me I don't understand those who want SFB to be all the same (I know YOU don't want exactly that but there have been others who want no change and even seem threatened by X2's very existence).

OTOH, I must admit that I am nervous about thoughts of radically different stuff just to be different. My greatest desire for X2 is to see a logical progression of technology and some new gadgets that were too early in development to be introduced during the X1 period. I can't see ship design going through a total paradigm shift suddenly one year. X2, IMO, should be an extension of X1 and that X1 was the early introduction of X2 technologies for the sake of necessity of war.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 12:30 pm: Edit

I like to comment on some of the spade designs for X2 that I've seen. It just hit me why they don't seem right TO ME.

As I see it the spade design was a compromise to get fast warp to work. This problem was solved with X1 warp wich is just as fast and more powerful and requires no such compromises.

I don't see this compromise being acceptable in the X2 era. Also, only the Feds had to make such a compromise in hull design (although everyone had to cut back on heavy weapons). In the X2 era I just don't see it happening that way.

That is unless the design are expected to be considerably more stratigically advanced that X1 but that idea was shot down as being too out of sink for F&E. And again only the Feds made such a change to hull designs, would only the Fed gain the benifit?

I know there is an attempt to make the X2 ship outlines more interesting and such but I think it fails if there isn't a logical progression. It's been said that we can make up the why later but that's the cart before the horse IMO. I really think that X2 design needs to begin from what is already established and then carried forward.

The why of SFB is very important. It is the meat that has kept this game very strong of the decades. The game engine is great but were it not for the background working like it does it would be a thing of the past.

To all, these are just my recent thoughts on the matters of X2 design. I free admit my own designs need work even under my own guides. Please no one take offense as I mean none. No ones designs is purely their own thus far. This forus has been for the most part a wonderful colaborative work. Many excellent things came of it that we all can be poud of.

With still more to come!

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 01:05 pm: Edit

Loren, to your previous comment, there are a group of people who think Omega and LMC are a new way to play. The people that like these modules probably do want a new look and feel X2.

There are a group of people that don't want to learn about Omega and LMC. These people want to play what they are familiar with. To them X2 is just an extension of a known history.

Most important is balance with what has gone before, and this is easier to accomplish with smaller changes.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 01:12 pm: Edit

I do want to see some new stuff; don't get me wrong. But to me, a Fed should still play and feel like a Fed. It should have good shields, lots of lab, be dangerous as hell from range 8 or closer, and have poor turn modes but good phaser arcs. Ditto Klingons, Roms...well, everybody really. But I like new stuff that won't upset that flavor; new protective devices, new systems, etc.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 02:05 pm: Edit

Loren,

X1 engines are more powerful, granted. I've held that these more powerful X1 engines come at the price of reduced efficiency; too expensive to operate and maintain during a period of peace. The engines are on the wrong side of the diminishing returns curve. Think of a jet afterburner being used to push a brick past the speed of sound. I don’t have the reference, but I recall in the flavor text somewhere that the early DNs were parked at Star Bases during times of peace because they were too expensive to operate. To me the X1 design falls into this category.

To gain their strategic speed the fast cruisers used hot-warp engines, reduced mass and streamlined hulls.

We know hot-warp was successful and economical based on the large number of cheap war cruisers built. Relatively few of the 36 warp cruiser engines were built, presumably because these were more expensive at the time.

I wouldn’t say we have reached consensus on X2 mass, but I don’t think it impacts the question at hand so I'll skip it for now.

The fast cruisers used streamlined hulls. This was found to provide faster strategic speed without resorting to X1 engines. Presumably this shaped warp field made the ships more efficient to operate at strategic speeds. If changing the shape makes the ship more efficient, why not change the shape? If changing the shape makes a hot-warp design faster, what would prevent it from making X1 engines faster? This isn’t a compromise, it’s a technological improvement. There has been a lot of advances in warp field dynamics since the first YCA left space dock.

You have to choose. Based on your choice you will make different design decisions. Is X2 based on X1 engines or an advanced hot-warp design?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 02:38 pm: Edit

Fast Warp (different from hot warp which is what war cruisers use) is a very early technology. Most fast cruisers were out before the GW or early on.

X-Warp is a culmination of advances in general warp technology and is faster because the problems Fast Warp Tech. faced were solved.

I don't know of anything that says X1 ships were particularly expensive to operate asside from the fact that their technology was cutting edge (advance tech trained crews, X-tech parts etc.).

The same would apply to X2 but I agree that X2 should have, as a technological advancement, a more efficient operation.

The question to me is why does X2 need to compromise hull design to get faster. What need it there to be that much fast? I see a greater need for designs that are more capable once they are on mission. The natios are rebuilding and establishing new and reestablishing old contacts. They need a vessle that can be more self sufficient, IMO.

And for the big jobs there needs to be a vessle capable of handling the mission. There also needs to be a sort of flag carrier to be a strong point near the borders.

Some have said that a big ship will provoke war. Did bigger bombs provoke war in our age? No, they prevented it. A small race who builds a suddenly large powerful vessel might well provoke an attack but the same would not be for the average empire capable of defending and producing more of these vessels. There would be a tendancy for a bit of an arms build up but given the current situation of Y205+ the greater need is resources. And then there is the need to protect those resources and a need to protect unexploited resources that the other nation might try to take.

I don't see how these could NOT be the circomstances post Andro war. A cold war and trade war is almost a given asside from something radically new from SVC.

So, I don't see a need for ships to be designed to be especially fast but to be more durable and more capable of handling a veriety of missions. To carry the flag for the larger ships and to be multi-mission solo capable for the mid-sized ships. The small ships should be mission specific and numorus. I think X2 designs need to be designed for the solo mission even more that ever before.

The sleek design vessel might actually be more of a threat than my designs as it appears to be a fast raider. Ship generally capable of faster movement than anything alse are a much great threat than a heavier armed unit. THAT SAID, such a vessel will be needed in time when the long voyage to strike at the Xorks must be traveled. Fast Raiders will be a virtual requirement for survival in that age.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 02:39 pm: Edit

Yikes, that was way long. Sorry.

[edit]
I suppose there is a role for exploiting the LMC as well. A ship that could make the round trip quickly as possible would be needed by around Y208'ish I'd think.

Perhaps like before there would be two main cruiser designs. One sort of like mine for Empire building and a super fast cruiser for very long ranged missions (X2 having the added ability over early fast raiders in that it is also very long ranged).

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 02:44 pm: Edit

The spade hull doesn't necessitate less mass. It might be spade shaped but thicker than a standard saucer. Or, X2 stuff may be smaller, in the same way that digital tech equipment is smaller than analog tech, giving more "room" for systems. The least of my worries right now is the shape of the hull.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 03:05 pm: Edit

I think the Federation CF forward hull, is in part, shaped the way it is to make it look fast. It has an unique (creative) visual appeal.

The submission guidelines on SSD's and box spacing I think will apply to X2 designs. It is harder to do a design and not crowd the boxes with a spade or streamlined hull.

In R6 (R0.0) the hull could not stand the shock of a full heavy weapons load in addition to the "hot warp" drive. Also the FCs were an outgrowth of the same "hot warp" technology that yielded the CWs and DWs.

A fast X2 cruiser could make some sense (reduced heavy weapons and faster speed that X1/X2). Its mission would be a little different than the pre-GW versions, more toward rapid response to incidents (configuration fast XGSC?).

Summary: Cruisers
CX and variants take the place of GW DNs and variants (combat). There would be some additional designs.

XCA/XCL take over the role of general fleet units and missions/roles

Fast XC units are special mission units.

XBCH are the new "heavy combat" ships. They will form the core of post Y205 battle groups.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 03:14 pm: Edit

"I don't know of anything that says X1 ships were particularly expensive to operate asside from the fact that their technology was cutting edge (advance tech trained crews, X-tech parts etc.)."

If X1 was not more expensive to operate and maintain then why did anyone build X2? For that matter why did they continue building non-X ships? There must be a reason. What is it?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 03:21 pm: Edit

Looking over (X0.0) we learn that X1 ships were conversions from existing designs and Y205 ships use new designs. If everything looks like the same old saucer how is the player going to recognize it as a new design instead of just another conversion?

"The spade hull doesn't necessitate less mass. It might be spade shaped but thicker than a standard saucer."

It could also be wider or longer then a typical saucer.

"I think the Federation CF forward hull, is in part, shaped the way it is to make it look fast."

Bingo. The DNL was a ship ahead of its time. The design was right, but the technology was not yet advanced enough to make it successful.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 03:56 pm: Edit

Tos: Cost isn't the only reason for advancement. I proposed many reasons for advancement, all of which, IMO, supercede cost. X2, at first, would probably be more expensive that X1. X1 was more expensive that GW at the time of introduction but would have subsided as costructions on parts because more common. I've never seen anything that said cost was inharrently more for X1 though.

Regarding X1 construction the intial units were conversions but many X1 ship were in fact new construction. SVC stated this himself and if you check F&E you'll see it is evident there too.

Would you really look at my XCC design and think it a conversion? Or my XCM (which is a totally original design form)?

I'm not pooing anything, just getting back with the debate. I find that I do indeed like the idea of the spade design as a specialty mission unit. That actually make both designs more interesting... and the historical dynamics are cool too.

If you remember my story from CL28/SSJ2 I created a certain Captain Morg of the FD7 Swiftsword. This captain was particularly proud of his unique ship. He liked the solo nature of his missions and he flew it like a warrior. Another captain might be more proud of his status possition in commanding a fleet flagship. Morg was not interested in that so much. He would be happy to have flown the Swiftsword to his dying day.

BTW: He'll be back.