Archive through November 30, 2005
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 General Systems: Archive through November 30, 2005
By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 01:10 pm: Edit

Well, the increased complexity and cost of war machines leads to less number being built, and less types being in service. Just look at the inventories of combat aircrafts in the world airforces. Were once you could have a dozen bomber, fighter and recce types in service, you today usually only got one. The USAF is one of the exceptions because of it's size, but once the F-16, F-18 and F-15 aretoo old all that will remain is the F-35s, and maybe the F-22.

I think a similar develoment in SFU is likely (for the same reasons), not the least because the number of variants can be drastically reduced by modular designs, like the SPA, or NWO.
But on too small hulls the advantages of these abilities can't be exploited fully.
A sc 4 ship of the DD class is probably the smallest possible.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 01:19 pm: Edit

Alan, what do you think happen when a X2 (or X1 for that matter) CL crossing the border for a quick raid encounter a non-X CL on patrol?
The more X ships that enter service the more the threat to non-X ships grow.
New tech always push old tech out of service.
What I am saying is that NEW production of non-X ships would cease. But there would be ships with partiall x-refit in service in less dangerous areas.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 01:33 pm: Edit

Carl,

I don't think its going to happen at all. You don't use the CL for that mission any more. That doesn't mean you can't use the older ships for any missions. Rather, you use them for missions in which there technological disadvantages cause minimal practical disadvantage. This is why, as I stated in my earlier post, the older ships become comparatively less valuable. But they can still be quite valuable if assigned to the proper missions, and at least some of those proper missions will not be "second line duty".

Regarding you statement about new technology pushing older technology out of service - well, no, not always. Or at least it can be a very slow process. Older technology has frequently remained in service long after it was technically superceded because the new stuff wasn't as cost effective as the old in that particular role. Sometimes new technology does indeed make the older technology obsolete overnight. But that is situational, not a universal truth.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 02:07 pm: Edit

No no, I mean you send the X2 ship over the border for the raid, and then it will run down anything not being X-tech (of comparable size)and kill it*. A perfect misson for X2DDs really.
This mean a non-X ships doesn't need be very close to the border to be in danger.
It also at a sensor range disadvantage BTW. and that will make it worse.

*In other words the mission the old tech is used for is irrelevant.
[edited]

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 02:12 pm: Edit

Of course, this is only how *I* see it:)

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 02:57 pm: Edit

Carl,

Huh? Why is that CL there at all? Border patrol is not a suitable mission for a non-X ship by this time. A non-X CL will be part of a fleet, or will be on anti-piracy patrol in a region where the pirates are not employing X-ships, or something similar. The anti-piracy patrol would be second line duty but the the fleet participation migh not be.

Eventually the CL will be superceded by newer ships that can do the job better. And perhaps by the X2 era it will indeed have been superceded in all but second line roles*. Your claim, however, was that non-X ships generally would be relegated to second line roles, and you haven't yet said what you think can do the job of assaulting an enemy BATS better than a DNH or SCS.

It's also worth noting that the background text for X-technology suggests that even into the X2 era most ships were still non-X. There will certainly be cases where ships that should have been relegated to second line roles remain in first line ones for the simple reason that there aren't enough of the newer ships to meet all requirements.

I'm afraid I still can't see it the way you do.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 03:46 pm: Edit

Alan,
actually we are saying the same thing (except for non-X being useful in fleets).


As for DNhs and SCS, you should note they would not be better than X2 CAs based on BCH designs.
A typical plasma CA, for example, will have four Plasma-M (it allready has 2 S and 2 M in X1). With rapid arming it can launch two M torps every turn forever. And the shields and number of internals will be about DN like.
Add the surplus power of move cost 1 units that have 55+ power, and 7-8 X-batts and it will be even tougher to hurt than DNHs.
And since it is a CA you will have several in the attack force.
Sooner or later X2 DNs will appear, but there will be a period were the most powerful ships are CAs IMHO.

That background you mentioned was what I in a previous post argued could be something that perhaps could be subject of errata.
Sure the ships could be in service long past 205, but I think the production would cease soon the NEW CAs appear.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 04:16 pm: Edit

Carl,

It still seems to me that you are making a lot of unsupported assumptions about X2 when, for example, you state that a typical plasma CA will have four Plasma-M or 55+ power and 7-8 X-batts. Neither you nor I, nor Loren, nor MJC, nor anyone else who posts on this thread has a clue what X2 will really look like. In fact, I would call your attention to the topic:

SVC's Comment on X2 Stuff in this Folder

which has one and only one post (SVC's). I would particularly call your attention to points 2, 4, and 5. Even SVC doesn't know what X2 will look like, because he has other stuff that's a lot higher priority. All we are arguing is our respective opinions of what we think X2 ought to look like.

To be clear, I am of the camp that has argued that an X2 cruiser should be a general purpose design that has about the same overall combat power as a combat-optimized X1 cruiser. This combat power is the result of more advanced systems, but it won't have as many weapons as the X1 cruiser since the latter is a "Trade war/general purpose" design rather than a "GW/ISC Pacification/Andro Invasion/pure combat" design.

Now if (and none of us really know) that power level (approximately that of a CX/DX/FHX/WhateverX) is accurate, then it is weaker than a current DNH in a direct assault role, and far weaker than an SCS once the latter's fighters (megafighters by this time) and PFs are figured in.

Obviously there is no unanimity on this subject and it may be that X2 ships will be substantially more powerful than I am looking for. And in that case you might be correct regarding an X2 cruiser versus a DNH. But no one knows yet.

Regarding there eventually being X2 Dreadnoughts; I was under the impression that there would not be. But I could be wrong. Can you point to an SVC (or even SPP) source for that?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 05:09 pm: Edit

Quote:

To be clear, I am of the camp that has argued that an X2 cruiser should be a general purpose design that has about the same overall combat power as a combat-optimized X1 cruiser. This combat power is the result of more advanced systems, but it won't have as many weapons as the X1 cruiser since the latter is a "Trade war/general purpose" design rather than a "GW/ISC Pacification/Andro Invasion/pure combat" design."



Agree...completely. 100%.

One thing to consider. An X2 cruiser may have the firepower of a GW DNH...it's very possible. But, what they don't have is the sheer staying power of the big DN. They just won't have that many system boxes, nor should they. So while they might be able to dish out DN firepower, and may be more durable than a normal cruiser (thanks to some kind of X2 "goodie" system, be it an ASIF, regenerating shields, or Oompa-Loompas with magic ratchets), they shouldn't be able to trade licks with a DNH and get away with it. Just my opinion, of course.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 05:34 pm: Edit

Hah...

I just noticed that I should have said "... since the former is a ..." rather than "... since the latter is...". Oops. The meaning seems to have been clear at any rate.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 06:04 pm: Edit

In some sense SFB has become two-blocked (When the two blocks of a tackle have been drawn as close together as possible) between game engine capacity and rules complexity.

The last crows nest sighting of X2 was in 1995 when P6 was published. A lot has been added to the game since 1995. It isn't on the list for the next set of modules into 2007.

Read the designer notes in C3 on the Seltorians and the particle cannon. I think it is a general picture of how X2 will proceed. There is a stated desire for the ships to have a similar feel but be different.

FC I think may "unblock the tackles" so to speak for further SFB modules. When was the last new weapon or sytem added to the game?

Another nautical analogy that fits (maybe).

"Between the Devil and the Deep
In wooden ships, the "devil" was the longest seam of the ship. It ran from the bow to the stern. When at sea and the "devil" had to be caulked, the sailor sat in a bo'sun's chair to do so. He was suspended between the "devil" and the sea — the "deep" — a very precarious position, especially when the ship was underway." The indoor version was down in the bilge caulking the devil seam.

The "devil" is the game module development process and the "deep" is "this way lies madness". Look at home long and hard SVC and crew worked on FC. To have done less would have produced something that was monkey sparred (Said of a ship when under-rigged).

My opinion is X1R, X2, tradewars and other post GW modules would best be developed in conjunction with the third boxed set to SFB.

Since extras in a red shirt were not amoung the crew back then and booth didn't exist the good ship ADB has a different reward for my above thoughts. You, the extra with the eye patch. I was going to hang you from the yards but I am in a good mood today. You are to be put over the barrel. Bosn take the cat out of the bag and administer ship's punishment.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 08:01 pm: Edit

Quote:

What if the governments decided that, due to the large neutral zones, the police forces all needed to be beefed up. All shipyards that are too small to produce the new XDDs would be converted to build XFFs. And the XFF becomes the POL of the X2 era?


That's an interesting idea and based on the idea that since POLs are not WARSHIPS that therefore they can enter the neutral zones.
If the Canadian Mounties simply entered into the US (not in HOT PERSHUTE) to get their man, how would the US respond?
I think POLs as governmental ships would be restricted as it would be a way of bringing troops and warships into the neutral zones by subterfuge.
Neutral zone worlds and space are probably patrolled by the fleets of neutral worlds (Really, not every country is huge ( consider Israel's navy to its four million citizens ) because the parties on both sides of the boarder were only able to agree on that lest they give too much ground to the other side.


Quote:

What I am saying is that NEW production of non-X ships would cease. But there would be ships with partiall x-refit in service in less dangerous areas.


Only if the shipyard can retool.
Some will go bankrupt and some will move to commercial production of freighters and the like, but many shipyards will be building GW ships because X-tech is limited and the techniques involved in X-tech construction is new and known by few.

Every body ought remember too that Y205, Y210 and Y225 are each a very different galaxy.


Quote:

Alan, what do you think happen when a X2 (or X1 for that matter) CL crossing the border for a quick raid encounter a non-X CL on patrol?


Remember that that is an act of war.
Also remember that a subspace radio signal travels faster than a ship (or so the background material implies ) and thus getting off one lousey signal will ruin the day of the X2 captain...a DN-ZP and a couple of CVAs plus all the support ships go over to the X-BATS and pop it, cause the XCL to fall back further on his patrols...unless they sue for peace.

Also the event is exactly like when a Fed DDX meets a Klingon F6 already. It will happen from time to time ( althought he admirals try their best to make sure it doesn't ).
So a better question is, what happens when an XCL that pushes over the boarder meets a BCH and NCA on patrol??? (As that will atleast be more like the scenario that players want to play).


Quote:

Add the surplus power of move cost 1 units that have 55+ power, and 7-8 X-batts and it will be even tougher to hurt than DNHs.
And since it is a CA you will have several in the attack force.
Sooner or later X2 DNs will appear, but there will be a period were the most powerful ships are CAs IMHO.


Four Plasma-Ms is a wild number.
Most X2 designs envision firepower about equal to the X1 counter part, so probably two plasma-Ms is more like it and 2 PLasma-Ls added latter...with somewhat improved versions of theses, the XCA will be powerful but not invincible. Also 7-8 three point bats is huge, it makes 4 five point batts seem quite reasonable.

And now the true failing. X2 ships are fast but they still can not be in two places at the same time.
In order to put four XCAs at the location of one BATS, the enemy just got the ability to send maybe ten MC1 GW ships over to your space and ravage bases, planets, convoys or whatever.
Many will be partial X refits, too.
Sure you'll kill a few while they're trying to get back to their bases for resupply but it's not a happy event.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 08:20 pm: Edit

Quote:

Agree...completely. 100%.


This is going to sound weird.
I want the XCA to fall into the CC role. Rendering the XCL or XCM being the true general purpose cruiser if not the XDD taking that role.
With the XCA having partity ( initially ) with the CX, the XCL would in fact be weaker than the CX.
And everybody thinks I want uberships!?!...I do, uber-frigates and uber-destroyers.

Also I'm for somewhat increased numbers of shield boxes. Because Caps-toSSReo won't be happening, but also to fit the X2 vision of, "If you fight, whatever you do; don't take any internals." My ASIF also works that way; doubled hull boxes don't protect Phaser and Torp hits so internals are bad even with the ASIF running.


Quote:

bo'sun's chair


Boatswain's-chair.

It's like "Folk-sal" is spelt Forecastle...but you probably already knew that.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 09:17 pm: Edit

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

VARIANT FORMS: also bo's'n or bos'n or bo·sun
NOUN: A warrant officer or petty officer in charge of a ship's rigging, anchors, cables, and deck crew.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English botswein : bot, boat; see boat + swein, mate; see swain.

I prefer bosun so I don't use big words that have more than two syllables. Although I do like the alternate defintion a CWO4 gave me "two things that should never happen, a boatswain mate with an idea or an Ensign in charge of mechanical things." Come to think of it these two could be the X2 prime team. They could sign on as crew of the enemy ship and destroy it.

See we are back on topic now.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 08:27 pm: Edit

Quote:

This is going to sound weird.
I want the XCA to fall into the CC role. Rendering the XCL or XCM being the true general purpose cruiser if not the XDD taking that role.
With the XCA having partity ( initially ) with the CX, the XCL would in fact be weaker than the CX.



This is going to sound weirder:
I agree with MJC here.
The XCL, XCM, and XDD would all be general purpose border patrol ships with a few varients.

Consider the galactic situation: huge neutral zones, with independent colonies that have bought GW war surplus. ("We'll give you an NCL and some orbital defense systems in return for mineral rights.") Then the Klingons demand the same minerals, show up with an XDD, and start bombarding the planet.

Where I disagree is with the idea of the XCA being an equal match to the CX. There has to be some improvement in combat ability, or no admiral would transfer his flag. I'm not saying a huge increase, but in the 10-25% range.

After CL23's errata, the Fed CX was 240. 10-25% means the XCA should be 265-300, a near even match against 2 D5s (on the low end) or 2 D7s (on the high end). A 30 year gap should be enough for a 2-1 advantage. Y160 Fed CA vs. 2 Y130 D4s

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 08:43 pm: Edit

If we target CX=XCA we will still end up over shooting by 10-25% due to inexperience estimating the synergies of X2 systems.

Assuming Jeff/MJC's vision comes to pass, that the XCM is the general purposes cruiser, it might be more reasonable to say CX=XCM.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 09:18 pm: Edit

In my limited knowledge view GW ships were deignated more by their MC and SC. SC3 NCLs and CMs have a MC of 2/3rds. The DDX has same or better combat capabiliy as a SC4 MC 1/2 ship. The CX was better than a BCH and approaches DN capability.

The SC4 XDD replaces the CL/NCL/CM class ships. I will suggest the XCM is the small SC3 ship with a MC of 2/3rds. The XCA then is the replacement for the CAR+/D7 type ships. The XBC replaces the CX and DN class ships. Otherwise the XCA will be too big, expensive, and too much combat capacity.

I see X2 ships with some multi-functions systems, more refinded advanced weapons, and smaller crews than either GW or X ships. I would agree with the idea that XFFs are your police ships. The XBC ships are the largest X2 SC3 hull that can be built and will be the core of a fleet of 10 to 12 ships. It can take on an XP refitted DNH.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 09:42 pm: Edit

Quote:

Where I disagree is with the idea of the XCA being an equal match to the CX. There has to be some improvement in combat ability, or no admiral would transfer his flag. I'm not saying a huge increase, but in the 10-25% range.


When I said parity, I meant with respect to Offensive Punch. I would like to see the XCA have bigger shields (48 on #1 instead of 40) and more warp engine boxes (48 instead of 40).
This would be reason enough for a Commodore or Admiral to transfere his flag there. Actually parity plus a higher strategic speed (or even just the same strategic speed plus a better Dash) should be enough to transfere the flag but adding in a better defensive standing would increase the willingness.


On Offensive Punch.
Consider my Fed XCA Vs a Fed CX.
8Ph-5s generates 28 points of damage at R8, whilst 12Ph-1s at the same range generates 26 points of damage.
Four 24 point Photons (which have intence restrictions) being armed every two turns isn't much better than four fastloaded 12 point photons every turn...particulary since crunch power will be reduced by larger shields, more warp engine boxes and the influence of the ASIF (as I propose it anyway).
Two GX-racks face off against 2 GX-racks.

Parity with the CX in offensive potential and yet better in defense, movement and strategic movement ( or DASH ) is going to be enough to let the Admirals move their flags.

I'm not really looking for a BPV parity and nor should we when we are talking about uberschiffs. Rather we should be looking at improved defenses coupled with weapon's parity, to avoid having Eggshells with sledge hammer's problem. By beefing up defnence and flexibility and get-to-the-encounter-fast-ness, we steer away from all-smashing all-the-time BATS-busting-cruisers that are detrimental to tactics and fun.
Are professional basketballers taller than they were 40 years ago!?! Are they more muscular? What about professional footballers, are they faster??? No...but more of them are close to the fastest guy in the team than before.
This is where we should be looking. Better in eveything except offensive punch. Truly X1 is already a lot of offensive punch!

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 10:59 pm: Edit

BPV is not a measure of just offensive punch.

The same offense plus a stronger defence = a higher BPV.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 11:06 am: Edit

MJC, the willingness to transfer command is totally irrelevant. It has nothing to do with ship building.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 11:22 am: Edit

There are several factors that matters in ship buidling; What missions each nation forsee in the future is the base. This varies, of course; for example, a warlike nation will have other needs than a peacefull.
Economy is next. To achieve the most with your resources, you need to streamline production, concentrating on fewer types with better capabilities for doing many jobs. Fewer hull types means longer series and better economy, and also better economy and improvements in the areas of logistics and maintenance.
This is clearly seen in RL in many areas: Car manufacture, warship production, etc etc.
So, a DD hull, a CL/CM hull, a CA and a DN.
Is there really need for more than that?
And for some into the X2 era there could be as few as two X2 hull types in production in some empires.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 06:58 pm: Edit

I was thinking a similar idea.

If we have:-

Ship MC Role
XCC 1 (or 1.25) DN analog
XCA 1 CC analog
XCM 0.75 General Purpose Cruiser
XCL 0.66 Alternate cruiser design for faster production
XDD 0.5 General Purpose Destroyer design
XFF 0.33 Frigate basic hull with varrious varrients


We fall into the position of having too many ship classes (Do we kill off the X1 BATS and SB in the X1 SSD book to make room for more types!?!) particularly with cruisers if we go by the X1 method.

On the other hand I can see many races building that many hull types particularly in the period of Y205-210 when knowing what ships you can use by sending them out to reclaim lost territory and thus learning which are the best that you will purchase more of to actually consitiute your fleet (which may be limited by a treaty but is already limited by devistated ecconomies) is more important than belting your enemy around the head with the best performing hull type.

Personnally I think there should be a lot of hull types but that some should be labled conjectual whilst others should have a high YIS whilst still others should be limited production ( say two or three or four prototypes ). Actually all should be limited production until the end of the treaty whereupon the best of those should enter full production.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 07:43 pm: Edit

I think we've already been through this.

Then again, with nearly three years of discussions, I'm not sure there's anything we haven't been through (except a general consensus of what X2 should be)

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 08:39 pm: Edit

What I've learned from doing my own X2 designs is:
1) Its easy to build a ship with a high BPV. Its much harder to hit a target.

2) All else being equal the ship with the larger movement cost will be less combat effective then the same ship with a lower movement cost.

These points combined make me favor using ships with higher movement costs to help balance the BPV closer to my target. I haven't seen many good examples of SSDs conforming to this principle, so its difficult to judge if the theory is valid.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 11:13 pm: Edit

Maybe it's time to revisit Vorlon's old X2 page as some of those designs have been up for over two years.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation