From BCHXs to "give peace a chance"

Glad I didn't repost my DNXs.

I guess nobody looked through my X1 Romulan fleet post.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 01:42 am: Edit

I did an SSD for a Fed Light Cruiser. It is similar to the NCL; it has almost the same weapons as a CX (10 PH-1s to the CX's 12). Since it is a SC3 ship it can carry an X-MRS, which the DDX can't. I also added a drogue to increase the combat power of the ship (such as a heavy weapons drogue with H4 drones).

http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/x1/joecarlson/FED%20CLX_v2.GIF

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 10:35 am: Edit

Joseph Carlson;

Here are my intitial impressions. I have a few of minor quibbles with the ship as it stands.

1) The first has to do with the warp engines. Most "X-tech Light Cruisers" get 15-box warp engines. Yours has 16-box engines. If you feel the ship needs the additional warp, it would be better, in my opinion, to give it 15-box engines and a 2-box center warp engine in the saucer itself. That small saucer-mounted center warp engine is already used by several Fed ships and I think it fits Fed design practice better than the 16-box engines.

2) You only have two batteries, which is clearly sub-standard for an X-Cruiser. Even the SC4 X-ships usually have three batteries.

3) You have apparently given the ships a "drogue bay" (I assume that's what the "DRG" box is). I may be wrong, but I don't believe the drogue bay has ever been officially sanctioned by the powers that be. Even if it has been, the Fed NCL has enough shuttle craft that it can easily afford to substitute a drouge for one of them. I recommend losing the DRG and adding in the third battery.

4) Your #2 and #6 shields are 28 boxes while #3-5 are 26. By the late war, almost all Fed ships have shields #2-6 equal to each other The late war Dreadnoughts are an exception, as are the DD-series ships. But both the NCL and DDX follow the "2-6 equal shields" pattern and I believe the CLX should as well. I would either increase #3-5 shields to 28 or reduce #2 and #6 to 26 boxes.

Just my .02 quatloos worth.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 11:14 am: Edit

Alan,

Thanks for your comments. Below are some of the reasons I made the ship the way I did, not that it is correct or can't be changed. Also I think the Feds need a CLX (NCX) as it becomes the base hull for a number of variants just like the NCL.

Engines: The NCL uses a 12 box engine, one row less than the standard engine. The CX uses a 20 box engine; the CLX has one row less (16). I am under the impression that the CLX/NCL saucer has less volume internally than the CA/CB/CX one (could be wrong) so I don't think there is room in the saucer for center warp.

Batteries: Can have either 4 BATT and 2 AWR or 2 BATT and 4 AWR, unless the DRG becomes a battery. I went with the AWR as photons need warp power to arm.

Shields: I was attempting to give the ship a weakness and balance the 36 front shield. Using "2-6 equal shields" pattern I would opt for 28.

Drogue: I used Loren's idea of a seperate drogue bay. You can deploy a drogue and not tie up the shuttle bay; you can also same BPV and just equip witha shuttle. You can't really mount more phasers, photons, or drone racks. So I used a drogue to do that.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 01:04 pm: Edit

I just checked the Fed DDX.

The drogue bay was a third battery.

I suppose if we wanted a fourth battery we could swap batteries for AWR at that point but I think the Feds might want more AWR to feed those photons.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 03:47 pm: Edit

Proceeding on the premise that some form of CLX is built by the Federation, what variants should be built?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 03:56 pm: Edit

Not many. Most of the common variants (scout, escort, drone, etc.) are all pretty much covered by the X-abilities that all X ships have. Plus, all the variants that did exist could be cheaply and easily converted via XP, so the "true" CLX would be just a standard model. There would never be many of these, anyway; X ship production is still a pretty limited thing.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 04:06 pm: Edit

I have to disagree with Mike Raper a bit. Since XP doesn't improve the warp engines, an XP-ship has superior tactical capabilities to its non-XP version, but it has the same strategic speed and range. I believe there would be a need for carriers, PF-tenders (not for the Feds of course, except as a conjectural ship), commando ships, and perhaps repair cruisers with the same strategic speed/range as the X-ships. The Feds already have carriers based on their Fast Cruiser and Light Dreadnought. But as these ships get destroyed, they might well replace them with a carrier based on an X-tech ship. And most races don't (at least not yet) have any "strategically fast" carriers or PFTs at all.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 04:10 pm: Edit

(Addition to the above)

Asuming races do start producing X-carriers to support the X-squadrons, it's not at all clear they would produce X-tech Escorts. Since every ship in the squadron would already have (limited) Aegis and rapid-pulse phasers, the races might simply decide this was good enough.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 04:18 pm: Edit

Alan, I agree to a point, but as of right now the word is "no x-fighters for anyone but the Hydrans, and no x-PF's". Commando ships? Maybe. Not a very good use for an X-hull, though, IMHO. The scout is taken care of already; it exists as a real ship. And, as you said, all X ships can pull escort duty if they need to. I just don't see there being many conversions or variants of any X-ship, at least not as it stands.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 04:24 pm: Edit

Mike;

I'm not proposing X-fighters or PFs. I'm proposing X-ships carrying standard-tech fighters or PFs.

Note that Lyran X-ships have the mechlink refits allowing them to carry PFs already, and Hydran X-ships are allowed to carry Stinger-2s instead of Stinger-Xs if they wish (perhaps to save some BPV or perhaps in a campaign where the Hydran X-ship has lost its fighters and hasn't been able to get replacement Stinger-Xs yet).

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 04:54 pm: Edit

A NVA variant of the CLX (not sure what designation, NAX?) would be one that I could see being built. It would make a nice counter part to the GVX. The FBE in CL31 can be given a full X upgrade so would make a good escort; they would be better than the FFX and would reduce the number DDXs or DGXs in fleet service.

The other variant would be a NDX drone bombardment cruiser. I would add 2 special sensors like on the on the NSR (R2.110) in Module R10

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 12:00 pm: Edit

Are there any varrients that need to move at high speed?
Mine sweepers and mine layers don't.
Hospital ships might but commando ships probably don't.
Carriers are much better at hitting fixed positions than anything else.
Escorts go where the carriers do although an X-ship escort would be cool; XP escorts would be cooler because Full Aegis running rapid pulsed phaser-1s is nifty.
Repair ships don't need to go at squadron speeds and cargo ships don't need to go at squadron speeds.

What other types of varrient exist and do they have a need to go at squadron speed?

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 04:26 pm: Edit

MJC,

I am not sure what you are meaning or trying to communicate with "move at high speed" or "squadron speed" statements.

X ships have a number of advantages over NX tech ships including those with XP refits. Hover tactical speed isn't a variant criteria I am looking at rather the ship's mission.

In F&E the NVA can operate like a PFT (unescorted, based on Fed SIT notes). The NVH's appear, in SFB battles, to be able to operate unescorted. So the NAX (NVA variant of the CLX)could operate as a raider, if one was built during the GW. During the Andro war it could hunt RTN nodes; it would also have a better chance to survive than a survey cruiser.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 02:33 am: Edit

Sorry, I was meaning the strategic speed of the X ship squadron.

I'm not sure if Fast ships have the same strategic speed ( in all aspects of it ) as X ships but the point I was moving to was that only varrients found in formation fairly regularly with a CX need actually be an X ship otherwise good timing and planning will cause the varrient to be where it is needed, when it is needed.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 10:16 am: Edit

MJC;

In both F&E and GURPS PD, Fast Cruisers and Light Dreadnoughts have the same strategic movement capabilities as X-ships, which would seem to indicate that they do have the same strategic speed "in all aspects of it".

The problem with your assertion that "good timing and planning" will obviate the need to put your variants in the same squadron as your X-ships, is that there are already published scenarios that demonstrate why that tactic (i.e. separating the assets and relying on timing) is risky. In Module R7 there is a scenario (I don't recall the name off hand) in which the Feds, during the early days of the Klingon invasion, essentially sacrifice a DNL to save a Starbase. The Feds have determined that the Klingons, using "good timing and planning" are converging widely scattered elements on said Starbase, and send the DNL to intercept and destroy the SAF, which is powerful assaulting a fixed location but almost useless in open space. When the Klingons realize the SAF is under attack they dispatch reinforcements, which arrive too late to save the SAF but do destroy the Light Dreadnought before it can escape. But the loss of the SAF (temporarily) saves the Fed Starbase. Who knows how the history of the General War might hav been different, if that SB had fallen in the initial assault, as planned?

Now you good argue that the Klingon "timing and planning" wasn't really very good. The SAF should have been better defended to begin with. But the scenario does illustrate the risk involved in relying too much on timing to coordinate the attack of widely separated forces.

Now consider an assault on an enemy help planet. Your main "space combat" force in the sector is an X-squadron, and you have a Commando ship for the planetary assault itself. If the ship is widely separated from the X-squadron, it is either vulnerable to interception or requires additional resources dedicated to guarding it. If it manuevers with the X-squadron, it slows the squadron down to its own speed, which may limit the ability of said squadron to respond to enemy actions. But if the Commando ship is as fast as the X-ships are, it gives you a lot more options. And if the squadron is engaged in space prior to reaching the target planet, the Commando ship can hang back at a range where it is in little direct danger but can still intervene if appropriate.

And this doesn't even consider the aspect of strategic range. In F&E, X-ships (and Fast Cruisers and Light Dreadnoughts) have more range than standard ships. They can operate farther from their bases without being "out of supply". Now consider the early days of the "Trade Wars". After the destruction of the General War plus the ISC "Pacification" plus the Andromedan Invasion (oh, and the Reunification for the Kzinti), all the Alpha races have their base infrastructure blown all to heck. There are valuable planets "up for grabs" that are a long way from any of your surviving bases. Having Commando ships (and LTTs - something I forgot to mention in my earlier post) with the speed and range of X-ships will be extremely valuable in contesting for these planets.

Mutatis Mutandum, (Did I spell that right? Some of the people posting on this board weren't even born the last time I took a Latin class. I can never remember the difference between "mutatis mutandum" and "mutatis mutatum".) a similar argument applies to things like X-carriers and X-PFTs.

This doesn't mean every race needs every one of these ships. Given their very compact space and strategic limitations, for example, it's not at all clear the Tholians would want an X-tech Commando ship. An X-tech PFT, on the other hand, would be very useful for them. But focusing X-tech solely on "primary combatant" warships is strategically very short sighted. Ultimately, your warships only exist to ensure that your survey and transport assets can do their jobs, and, during wartime, to prevent the enemy transport assets from doing theirs.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 12:33 pm: Edit

Hmmm, ya I could see there being a few Fast Commando ships when X-ships aremuch greater in number. Even during the Andro War, not all Andro bases are RTN nodes. Some might be planet based and worth a ground assault. Quickly sending in a Commando ship with an X-assault force might be worth the effort of one or two "Fast" designs. A Commando ship really doesn't need the capability of an X-conversion, it just needs to be fast in order to kep up with the X-squadron.

Hmmm.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 06:30 pm: Edit

Joseph,

On the shields, they should be 36-32-32-32, as that follows the "normal" X pattern. Besides, 26 is all the DDX has; the CLX should be better than that.

As for batteries and stuff, you just have to be creative. First off, going down to only 2 AWR is not a loss, as it still has 38 points of power on a move 2/3 ship. (I went farther. Not only do I give it 2 AWR and 4 batteries, but I give it 8 labs, too.)

Here's mine: http://www.caddocourt.com/sfb/ssd/fedncx.gif

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 06:38 pm: Edit

What the hay; here's mine, too.

http://www.geocities.com/raperm2002/F-clx.gif

Oldie but goodie. And, for kicks, the NCX:

http://www.geocities.com/raperm2002/F-NCX.GIF

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 07:03 pm: Edit

The biggest difference is that I "cheat" and add hull and lab to the design.

Doesn't really matter, though. All of them are "obvious variants", anyway.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 07:41 pm: Edit

While there are some stylistic diferences all three designs are very similar. It makes sense that a NCL shipyard, post GW, would switch to X ship production.

A NCL derived X ship design (with variants) would be needed to replace aging and beat up GW hulls. A lot of ship will be destroyed during the Andro war.

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 10:13 pm: Edit

I might as well repost my design for a FED CLX.

FED CLX

My concept was that there would be a need for a ship that is a bit more durable than the DDX, cheaper to build than the CX and was capable of being reconfigured for different missions (ie similar to a HDW). The option mounts E and F are limited to phasers, drones and non-weapon systems.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 12:43 am: Edit

Orman,

Just for consistency and style, switch the option mounts and phasers 7 and 8. I understand that will replace two 360 phasers with two FH phasers, but it fits in better with the "style" of the ship and its ancestry.

Joseph,

Not to argue against a CLX, but I am not exactly clear on *why* it is really needed. To be blunt, the DDX is awesome. Granted, its shields are a bit too thin, but it can already almost take on other CLXs on its own. It can easily be argued that the DDX *is* the Federation CLX. (With the added benefit that it only counts as a size class 4 ship!)

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 01:22 am: Edit

Mike,

No problem, this is part of the fun of this board; discussing ideas.

I can think of two reason:

1. An SC4 ship can't carry an X-MRS, an SC3 can. With 2 drone racks, a scatter pack and a MRS the CLX can use it's drones more effectively.

2. A carrier on the DDX hull can only carry 8 fighters with significant reduction in systems and weapons; the CLX can carry 12 (6 heavy on mech links) with 8 phasers, 2 photons, and 2 sensors (following the NVH pattern).

While the DDX uses the similar SSD saucer layout as an NCL I presume the DDX is actual a smaller ship.

Part of my reason is just wanting some new X ships. I am also hoping that enhanced NX post GW fighters will be built incorporating the same tech advances used in the B3 in CL31.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 02:38 am: Edit

I'm with Mike W. on that. I'm not sure what the reason for a CLX is when you have a potent DDX that can take the role of a CLX. Besides I thought I read something somewhere that said DDXs were built in NCL yards (I might just be full of it on that one).

Is it true that a SC4 can not physically carry an MRS or is it just that MRSs weren't "wasted" on SC4 ships? If it's the latter then an exception can be made for DDXs.

If there are X1-Carriers, then the CVX (X-Strike Carrier) is the more likely candidate. If you're going to spend the money on a X-Carrier, then use an X-Heavy Cruiser hull and gain the expanded capabilities. If you're not going to spend the money (half-@$$ it), then deploy half-squadron DVXs (X-Escort Carriers) and use the extra two fighter spaces for special shuttles (X-MRS/X-SWAC/etc.).