---

Quote:

But the scenario does illustrate the risk involved in relying too much on timing to coordinate the attack of widely separated forces.

---

---

Quote:

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.

---

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 11:30 am: Edit

RBN,

See (8.511)No SC4 ship (except maybe a small carrier...)

In (XJ8.5)X-cruisers of all types are eligble...

Based on these two rules the best case for a DDVX carring an MRS is maybe.

I think (J9.31) precludes SWACs on SC4 ships.

A carrier needs 10 or more fighters to qualify for the higher drone percentages (FD10.6). So the DDVX is the X counter part to the DWV; it is an escort carrier. For fleet actions or single ship carriers do raiding or Andro base busting you need to use a larger hull.

Sure you can use a CX and convert it to a carrier (A DCS/ACS X carrier or CVHX heavy-strike carrier). This removes a CX from fleet use and is more expensive. (the cruiser based carriers appear to cost more than the base ship so a X carrier would likely cost more as well).

My opinion is a CLX based carrier is superior to a SC4 and may be a better use of resources than using a CX.

A central questions that remains is: Are x-carriers needed post GW. I am biased as I like carriers and want to see them remain in the game. I am not sure I could articulate that X carriers are needed based on a mission or purpose. There has been little discussion on why they are needed or even that individuals want them. More experienced players need to speak up; as it is currently carriers are GW NX legacy ships.

MJC,

The hot warp engines used for the fast cruiser stopped being built. In Cl31 the Feds made only one fast DD due to engine shortages. I don't see where the Feds started making them again during the GW war. X ships solved the hull stress problem of fast speed and full heavy weapons. load. You and I can guess back and forth whether someone did or didn't build additional fast hot warp motors. I think the best approach is to ask in the ship background topic if aditional engines were built or would be built post GW.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 04:06 pm: Edit

JRC,

Why, exactly, must a Fed DVX only carry 8 fighters? The Federation (at this point) apparently treats the DDX like a DD/CL hybrid anyway. Why couldn't 12 fighters be put on the ship?

(This all assumes, of course, that X-carriers are needed. I can easily see an argument that says X-carriers are unnecessary unless more X-fighters are introduced into the game.)

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 05:30 pm: Edit

Mike,

Good question. A Fed DVX may be able to. Are there any SC4 NX ships that carry 12, besides the HDW? I based my limit on the size class, which could be wrong. I think SVC will have to decide if a DVX can carry 12 fighters (6 heavy).

There is in some sense a defacto conclusion that X carriers aren't needed because fighters are obsolete. I would argue that an X carrier has a much greater combat capability because of its X ship abilities and hence greater chance to survive; the fighters would also benefit.

Therefore the combination of post GW advanced NX fighters and an X carrier still has strategic and tactical advantages. An X carrier doesn't have to have X fighters to be a viable post GW ship. Megafighter versions of the A-20F and F-111 are still effective as are megafighters versions of standard fighters.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Indeed. X-ships do not make fighters obsolete. They do make them less useful in some situations but there are still plenty of missions fighters (and PFs) can usefully perform in the X-ship era.

An X-tech Strike Carrier based on the Fed CVB, Klingon D7V, etc. would probably have about 90% of the inherent combat capability of a CX, DX, etc. But when the firepower of the fighters (particularly F-15D Megafighters for a Fed CVBX) are added in, the total combat power of the platform would handily exceed that of the corresponding X-Cruiser.

It would also, of course, be a lot more expensive when the cost of the fighters is figured in. So the issue is whether an X-Strike Carrier is cost effective or not. But there is no question that it is more powerful, even with non-X fighters.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 06:29 pm: Edit

Alan,

I see two types (classes) of X carriers. the strike carrier you described and carriers with scout sensors and few or no heavy weapons like the DCS/ACS, NVH or CSV. I consider the PFT and NVH as representing similar capabilities for the fleet.

A DCS/ACS class of carriers replaced some SCS ships during the GW. They have 2 special sensors. If you base a DCS/ACS on a CB then the BPV of the DCSX (or ACSX) likely be a lttle more than a CX. I would suggest these type of carriers are the X replacements for the CVA/SCS DN based ships.

The economic cost of two or three CX/CB based carriers is an interesting question. What are the relevant aspects that need to be considered?

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 08:47 pm: Edit

Mike West,

I appreciate your input; the following is just to hopefully explain my thought process.

When I created the ship I had given quite a bit of thought about where to place the option mounts and decided to place them in the FH phaser position for a few reasons:

Artistically I had a problem placing the two option mounts in the aft hull while keeping the N.W.O. and AWR options in the primary hull.

When the CLX would be configured as a CVS or CVH/PFT it will be reduced to eight phasers and thus the 360 phasers will allow it to maintain five phasers at minimum in arc for defensive use. Using the 360 position for the options would leave the CLX in these configurations with a weaker defensive position.

I felt that in moving the options mounts from the FH position, I would have to place either three or four PH-1s in the FH spot in order to keep with the precedent set by the DDX and CX.

I wanted to add something new and different to the CLX without it coming completely out of left field.

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 09:02 pm: Edit

The primary reason I settled on a HDW style CLX is that by the time X-ships are being produced the Feds are not going to spare any CX production slots for any variants other than the GSX. There simply aren't enough hulls to go around. Add to that the fact that the DDX while it may be capable of going toe to toe with most opposing CLXs, it doesn't have enough 'mass' to be a light cruiser. I will concede that the DD and by extension the DDX is one of the most sturdy and well armed move cost 1/2 starships. However, despite its appearance, SFB tends to treat the Fed DD(X) as no different from any other size class four ship and as a result doesn't have the space to provide some of the 'heavier' variants.

Secondly, I feel that using a HDW-style configurable starship could mitigate the opportunity costs of producing light-cruiser variants. There would a slight cost increase to produce such a vessel at the start but it would reduced the cost of building flexible multi-purpose ships.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 12:48 am: Edit

A few posts back there was some discussion on X carrier escorts. Some felt any SC4 X ship would work and a specialized eescort isn't needed.

Federation carrier escorts, that have cargo boxes, can use (R2.R5), which is a significant advantage. You gain extra admin shuttles and fighters. If you use the DD to represent what a DEX would offer: it has 1 admin and 4 fighters. ; half of the cargo boxes hold the fighters and the other half the expendable supplies (no cost, drones proportional to those on the carrier).

If we are going to have Fed X carriers they need dedicated escorts. An FBE has one cargo box 1+1 share shuttle; an X version, if ever made, would likely be the same.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 01:54 pm: Edit

Joseph Carlson;

That's a good point about cargo spaces on Fed escorts. There's another point that I didn't think about as well. When I said I wasn't convinced that there needed to be X-escorts, I was thinking in terms of weaponry and Aegis. Most escorts are good at shooting up multiple small targets (fighters and seeking weapons) but, with a few exceptions, are lousy at shooting enemy ships. I figured that with all X-ships having partial Aegis and rapid pulse phasers, you could use those as your escorts and retain their anti-ship capabilities as well. What I overlooked was the issue of Ready Racks on the escorts, which the standard X-ships wouldn't have.

One possibility would be to have X-escorts with full Aegis and Ready Racks, but the same weapons as the standard x-warship version. All this assumes, of course, that SVC is even interested in having X-carriers, other than the GVX.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 05:49 pm: Edit

Alan,

I like the idea of more heavy weapons on an X escort for an X carrier. The concern I have is each hull or class has a finite amount of space.

If we take the NAC as an example it gave up 2 photon tubes for 2 G racks. If we look at the NVH the impulse was moved into the small rear sub-hull to make room for the cargo boxes and mech-links. I think the NVH approach would have to be used to make a NAX, with 4 Photon tubes the ship will need the AWR (NAC those boxes are cargo). So on my CLX the impluse boxes are moved into the rear sub-hull and those boxes in the main hull become cargo. My opinion is such an arrangement stays within the bounds of a MC 2/3 ship.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 10:12 pm: Edit

Sigh. I shouldn't post this, but what the hay. Last year I toyed with an escort variant of the alternate "lollypop" Fed DDX. But, instead of three GX racks, I gave it one GX rack and a pair of E racks. Just for kicks, really. Makes a nice escort, though, what with X-Aegis, nine P1's, 2 E-racks and a GX rack.

Fed Lollypop DEX

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 10:45 pm: Edit

Mike,

That is a nicely done escort. I have always liked the single enine DD style.

What other X ships idea do you have?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 11:17 pm: Edit

"I have always liked the single engine DD style."

I have a confession to make.

I much prefer the look of the single engine DD myself. I think it works better aesthetically, and keeps better consistency with the style of the DD over time (YDD - DD - DDX).

However, four points of warp power are four points of warp power. Getting a 20% increase in warp engine power at the cost of aesthetics is a deal I will make every time. Every. Single. Time.

So, when the staff turned, looked at me, and asked, whether I thought the DDX should have one 20 point engine or two 12 point engines, I swallowed hard and went with the "free" power. If asked again today, I would say the same thing.

Four points of warp power is four points of warp power.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 12:07 am: Edit

Mike W,

That is interesting; always wondered what happened to the single engine DD. I suppose it is unlikely the Federation would build one unless it is the replacement for the FFX, which could go to the NG and police.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 08:14 am: Edit

Joe,

Sure, here's a couple.

This Fed CVX is one; basically a strike carrier variant of the CX. But, the fighters are a stab at "x" fighters; F-14X's. A tad faster and tougher than normal and carrying X drones instead of normal ones.

I had toyed with Fed corvettes a year or so back, and made this X-Corvette variant. Small but fast and agile, makes a nice escort on the cheap.

And, here are a few more "obvious variants" that probably should never see the light of day.

Fed BCX
Fed DNX
Klingon C9X

Have fun.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 11:44 am: Edit

Just to be clear, I didn't "make the decision" to go with the two engine DDX. I simply declined to make an argument against it.

But the point remains. I much prefer the looks of the single engine ship, but I just can't turn down a 20% increase in warp engine power.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 11:57 am: Edit

I like the lollipop DD too and was really happy to see the DDF get into CL31. It just made so much sense (although we still need the scout version!)

However, as history progresses it's hard to justify it on an engineering level due to lack of redundancy. In battle the single center engine is tougher but ships don't spend much time in battle compaired to the rest of their duties and having one engine means if one goes down for any reason that's it! The two engine DD has cheeper units to install (and comes from a different supplier so there is no cross supply from cruisers) and if one engine fails for some reason the ship can still attain high warp on one engine (the 50% needed for disengagement would suggest that the ship can attain high warp speeds on one engine).

FOr these reasons I don't think X2 will have a single engine anything since most X2 vessels should be, IMO, designed for fairly long range.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 07:41 pm: Edit

Too bad you couldnt make a lolipop DD variant with 1 x 24 warp box engine.

Same power, but all center warp. (would fight similarly to the vanilla Fed DD fought... just with more power).

Aesthetically, I prefer it also.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 08:13 pm: Edit

My though is make a smaller ship that the DDX and a little larger than the FFX with a single 20 box warp engine. A singled engined DW with 3 photons, 6 PH-1s, and 1 GX rack. The saucer could be either be tear-dropped shaped or circular.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 08:54 pm: Edit

Another thought to consider is an X-ship division. F&E battle group rules were brought into SFB and published in CL31 (S8.28), page 68. A battle group can only have one light cruiser with a MC less than .75 may be included; no CAs or NCAs. X-ships can be included only if all the ships are X ships. So a BG could be made up of a CLX, 2xDDX, and 3xFFX (counts as five ships for command rating limits).

An X-carrier battle group would be composed of 2 carriers and there escorts, but only counts as five ships for command rating limits. A CVBX or DCSX/ACSX with a DVX and escorts would be one type of CVBG. A CX with a SCX would lead the two battle groups and form a division.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 09:29 pm: Edit

JRC, you have misread (S8.28). It does not say only one light/war crusier; It says no more than three light crusiers.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 09:40 pm: Edit

John,

Thanks I did miss read it.

You have any comments on X squadrons and the ships to fill them out?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 11:48 am: Edit

There was a DDF in CL CL31!?!

Anyone in particular design it?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 12:06 pm: Edit

Mike Raper designed it.