Of course, the Tholians do not (yet) have a non-X Fast Cruiser...

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 10:11 pm: Edit

Dunno. The Tholian D makes a rather nice fast cruiser if you aren't too picky about the quarter mile traps.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 10:19 pm: Edit

Tos,

Maybe we mean different things by "fast" here. As I understand the term, a "Fast Cruiser" is strategically faster than other ships, i.e. it is speed-7 in F&E. The Tholian D has the tactical power curve comparable to a fast cruiser. But in F&E it is speed-6. In fact, I'm pretty sure the Tholians have no non-X ships that are F&E speed-7.

(Edit)

Or was the comment about "quarter mile traps" an oblique reference to the difference between "tactically" and "strategically" fast?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 12:25 am: Edit

You have correctly divined my allusion.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 12:30 am: Edit

All the X-ships in Module X1, with the arguable exception of the Fed DDX, and most of the ships suggested here, are refits of GW designs. But given that more than two decades pass between the introduction of X-technology and the introduction of X2, it strikes me as a little implausible that there would be no new designs during this period - not new construction but completely new designs. Most ships using X1 technology would continue to be refits of old designs, but I would also like to see a few new designs in X1R. I see these ships being introduced in the mid/late Y190s and early/mid Y200s. They would be X1 tech rather than X2, but the design would be optimized for X-tech.

Here are my initial thoughts on some possibilities for new X-designs.

BCHX Lots of these have been posted but all the ones I can think of are refits of the standard BCHs. There is a comment in Module X1 to the effect that the X-Cruisers are based on CCs rather than BCHs because the BCHs were already maxed out and couldn't take the strain of X upgrades. The XP rules (still preliminary I believe - the final rules to be published in X1R) have modified that somewhat. You can't XP the heavy weapons on a BCH (and presumably the design is already too overloaded to take the strain of X-tech warp engines) but you can XP the phasers, batteries, APR, etc. I propose a similar sort of "rethink" to the notion that BCHs able to accept X-technology were the X2 cruisers (also from Module X1). I suggest there was an intermediate step - that sometime in the mid/late Y190s or perhaps early Y200s, the various races figured out how to build ships the size of a BCH but which were able to make full use of X-technology because they were designed from the ground up to do so. Thus, the Klingon BCHX is not the C7X but a brand new warship - the D8.

Romulan BCHX Assuming that SVC would accept BCHXs at all, the Romulans are a special case. Even if other races were able to convert their GW BCHs to full X-tech (the Klingon BCHX turns out to be a C7X after all), that solution doesn't really work for the Romulans. Their "BCH" is the Novahawk and it is badly outgunned by the Gorn BCH. The BPV is the same because of the cloak. But that doesn't work well at the X-tech level. For one thing, the higher rate of fire of the X-tech plasma torpedos reduces the relative value of cloaking. A Gorn BCHX would also outgun the NHX so badly that they are no longer really in the same class. Note that the NHK has slightly more power and shields, but exactly the same weapons, as the Firehawk-K. So the NHX would presumably have a bit more power and shields than the FHX but the same weaponry. I believe that rather than use the "much less firepower but same cost due to cloak" paradigm of the Novahawk vs. Gorn BCH, you would need the "only slightly less firepower, but more expensive due to cloak" of the FHX/K7X vs. CCX/CMX (or for that matter, the Condor-H vs. the DNH) for a Romulan BCHX to be viable. If BCHXs are possible at all, the Romulan should be a new design even if the other races use refits of their GW designs.

Federation CVX I believe CVXs based on the various Strike Carriers are viable. I am not proposing X-tech fighters for races other than the Hydrans here. But a CVX with about 90% of the inherent combat power of an X-cruiser and a full squadron of megafighters would be fearsome. For most races, an X-tech conversion of their GW CVS would do nicely. But the Fed CVS carries F-18s or (in its CVB version) F-15s. While a Fed CVX with a full F-15DM squadron would be nasty, wouldn't you really rather have an F-14DM squadron? This would require that the rear hull at least be a new design, though the saucer might not be.

Klingon, Tholian, and ISC Destroyers Many races have DDXs that are already more than adequate. But I believe the Klingons, Tholians, and ISC are all good candidates for new design X-destroyers. I'll take each in turn.

Klingon - The FX is weaker than most X-detroyers. One possibility would be for the Klingons to base a new destroyer on the F5W, which would be a refit rather than a new design. Such a ship (FWX?) would have better phasers, drones, and power than the FX. But it would presumably still only have two disruptors. If the Klingons want an X-destroyer with three disruptors, they need a new design. One possibility would be a three engine design with one disruptor per engine. A second possibility would be a two engine design with the third disruptor in the boom. This would be quite a departure from previous Klingon practice, but there should be no technical obstacle if they chose to go that route. While an FWX would be an effective ship, it would fight differently than most Klingon ships, being comparatively phaser/drone heavy and disruptor light. The Klingons might prefer to stick with a disruptor heavy design.

Tholian - The Tholian DDX is also weak by X-destroyer standards, though it has good shields and is nimble. But the Tholians have a further problem. All their X-cruisers have webcasters. This is not a bad thing in itself, but the Tholians are extremely limited in webcaster production in this galaxy. Extrapolating from F&E, webcaster availability seems to be the actual binding constraint on how many X-cruisers the Tholians can actually produce. They need something with more firepower than a DDX but which doesn't require a webcaster. One possibility would be for the Tholians to do what so many other races did and produce (as new construction only) a CWX based on a strengthened version of their CW design. This would undoubtedly be stronger than a Tholian HDX (unlike the Gorn HDX, a true SC4 Heavy Destroyer, rather than a Light Cruiser) so why might the Tholians go with an HDX design? Well, we know little about Tholian ship construction, but we do know that large Tholian ships are produced by welding together smaller hulls. Hypothetically, if a 190 BPV CWX (no webcaster) would slow the construction rate of CCXs (with webcaster) but a 160 BPV HDX could be built that wouldn't reduce CCX construction, that HDX starts looking like an attractive proposition.

ISC - Gorn and Romulan X-destroyers have S-torps. The ISC X-destroyer is L-torp only. 'nuff said?

Upon further analysis, some of these might be found non-viable, and other better candidates for new design X-ships might be found. But those are my initial thoughts.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 12:50 am: Edit

I don't disagree that it would be nice to have some new ship designs, but there is more than enough material for an SSD book without having to do all the hard work. There has been no indication that X tech could not be applied to most hulls so it will be difficult to justify why we chose to create a new hull that is functionally identical to an upgrade on an existing hull, like nearly every other conversion.

When we were discussing X1R SVC asked for a listing of ships, presumably so counters could be printed. This was the list that was submitted, or something close to it. Its in .csv format so if you want to study it just drop it into Excel. Note the priority column. The higher the number, the less important it is considered.

Race,Ship,Priority,,YIS,Module,,,Notes,,,Class,Counters,SSDs
Fed,DGX,1,,182,CL16,,,2 Phot; 4 Drone,,,,,
Fed,GVX,1,,182,CL26,,,F-111 Scout Carrier; allowed to carry A-20 as GVAX,,,,,
Fed,Tug-X,1,,,,,,,,,,,
Fed,NCLX,2,,,,,,,,,,,
Fed,CVHX,3,,196,K2,,,Assault Carrier Scout; 12xF-14 or 12xF-15,,,,,
Fed,DLX,3,,,,,,2xPl-L; 2xPhot; 2xDrone DDX,,,,,
Fed,DXD,3,,,,,,DB Scout,,,,,
Fed,FFSX,3,,,,,,,,,,,
Fed,DEX,4,,,,,,Carrier Escort,,,,,
Fed,DNX,4,,,,,,,,,,,
Fed,BCHX,5,,,,,,,,,,,
General,Aux-CVAX,1,,,,,,Fast Aux or X-Aux,,,,1,1
General,Aux-CVLX,1,,,,,,Fast Aux or X-Aux,,,,1,1
General,Aux-PFTX,1,,,,,,Fast Aux or X-Aux,,,,1,1
General,Aux-SCSX,1,,,,,,Fast Aux or X-Aux,,,,1,1
General,F-N,1,,,,,,Fast Freighter; could share SSD,,,,4,1
General,F-N Pods,1,,,,,,Pods,,,,4,1
General,F-NQX,1,,,,,,Q-ship,,,,,
General,F-NX,1,,,,,,X-Freighter,,,,4,1
General,FRDX,1,,,,,,FRD,,,,1,1
General,L-QX,1,,,,,,Q-ship,,,,3,1
General,MonX,1,,,,,,Monitor,,,,1,1
General,S-QX,1,,,,,,Q-ship,,,,3,1
Gorn,Tug-X,1,,,,,,,,,,,
Gorn,BDPX,2,,,K2,,,PFT,,,,,
Gorn,CMPX,2,,196,K2,,,Strike PFT RTN Hunter,,,,,
Gorn,BDCX,3,,,,,,Carronade Battle Destroyer,,,,,
Gorn,HDPX,3,,,K2,,,Strike PFT,,,,,
Gorn,DNX,4,,,,,,,,,,,
Gorn,BCHX,5,,,,,,,,,,,
Hydran,MTGX,1,,,,,,Tug,,,,,
Hydran,PFTX,2,,,K2,,,PFT
Hydran,TARX,2,,,,,,
Hydran,DCSX,3,,196,K2,,,DCS RTN Hunter
Hydran,LEX,3,,,,,,Aegis or X-escorts; Needs St-TX
Hydran,DNX,4,,,,,,
Hydran,BCHX,5,,,,,,
ISC,FFX,1,,,,,,
ISC,Tug-X,1,,,,,,
ISC,CAX,2,,,,,,1xPPD; 2xPL-M; built to be cheaper
ISC,LTX,2,,,,,,LTT
ISC,PFTX,2,,196,K2,,,Strike PFT RTN Hunter
ISC,CAPX,3,,,,,,No PPD; 3xPL-M
ISC,NCAX,3,,,,,,X-Engines speed up this overgrown MC=1 ships
ISC,NCSX,3,,,,,,X-Engines speed up this overgrown MC=1 ships
ISC,DNX,4,,,,,,
ISC,BCHX,5,,,,,,
Klingon,D5XD,1,,,CL16,,,DB Scout
Klingon,DXDA,1,,186,,,,Statis DXD
Klingon,T7X,1,,,,,,Tug
Klingon,D5PX,2,,,K2,,,PFT
Klingon,D5XDA,2,,187,,,,Stasis D5XD
Klingon,E3X,2,,,SFT33,,,Unique and retired by Y186; needs counter
Klingon,FXD,2,,186,,,,DB Scout
Klingon,D5XS,3,,188,,,,Heavy Scout
Klingon,DWUX,3,,196,K2,,,DCS RTN Hunter
Klingon,FXL,3,,,,,,FWL version of the FX
Klingon,DNX,4,,,,,,
Klingon,BCHX,5,,,,,,
Kzinti,CDX,1,,,CL26,,,DB Scout; CMX hull
Kzinti,Tug-X,1,,,,,,
Kzinti,MPFX,2,,,K2,,,PFT
Kzinti,CMSX,3,,,,,,DB
Kzinti,NDCX,3,,196,K2,,,DCS RTN Hunter
Kzinti,DNX,4,,,,,,
Kzinti,BCHX,5,,,,,,
LDR,CWSX,1,,192,,,,
LDR,CWX,1,,191,,,,
LDR,MPSX,1,,190,,,,
LDR,MPX,1,,189,,,,
LDR,MPVX,2,,191,,,,
LDR,PFWX,2,,193,,,,
LDR,NCCX,5,,196,,,,Ended career as XP; could be published conjectural
LDR,NCVX,5,,196,,,,Ended career as XP; could be published conjectural
Lyran,SRPX,1,,196,K2,,,Survey Tug like CL26:PAL-PTT; double weight PFT-12
Lyran,SRX,1,,188,,,,Survey Tug pre-Y195; PFT RTN Hunter post-Y195
Lyran,Tug-X,1,,186,,,,
Lyran,BCX,2,,,,,,
Lyran,FX,2,,,,,,Cheap new construction; quickly converted to a DWX
Lyran,PFTX,2,,,K2,,,DW Based PFT
Lyran,CWPX,3,,,K2,,,CW Based PFT
Lyran,DNX,4,,,,,,
Lyran,BCHX,5,,,,,,
Neo-Tholian,NCLX,1,,,,,,
Neo-Tholian,NDX,4,,,,,,Could the Tholians ever build a NDD-RH?
Neo-Tholian,NFX,4,,,,,,Could the Tholians ever build a NFF-RH?
Neo-Tholian,Rear Hull,5,,,,,,
Orion,PFTX,2,,,K2,,,PFT
Orion,DBRX,3,,,,,,
Orion,CRX,6,,,R3,,,
Rom,NHX,1,,,,,,
Rom,SPHX,1,,,,,,LTT
Rom,SUPX,1,,,,,,CV; no special sensors
Rom,BHXP,2,,184,,,,Engines from a WE; not X-tech
Rom,SNXP,2,,185,,,,Engines from a BH; not X-tech
Rom,SPEX,2,,196,K2,,,Strike PFT RTN Hunter
Rom,SPFX,3,,186,,,,Conjectural Mauler
Rom,THX,3,,196,K2,,,Strike DCS RTN Hunter
Rom,WEXP,3,,183,,,,Engines from a KE; not X-tech
Rom,DNX,4,,,,,,
Rom,BCHX,5,,,,,,
Selt,CLX,3,,,,,,
Selt,CX,3,,,,,,
Selt,DDX,3,,,,,,
Selt,FFX,3,,,,,,
Selt,SCX,3,,,,,,DD Based
Selt,BCHX,5,,,,,,
Selt,DNX,5,,,,,,
Tholian,PFTX,2,,,K2,,,PFT; PCX based
Tholian,CANX,3,,,,,,X-Engines speed up this overgrown MC=1 ships
Tholian,CPFTX,3,,,K2,,,Based on CCX
Tholian,CSCX,3,,,,,,CCX based Scout
Tholian,CWX,4,,,,,,
Tholian,CWSX,4,,,,,,
Tholian,DNX,4,,,,,,
Tholian,BCHX,5,,,,,,
WYN,DSX,1,,,,,,Scout
WYN,FX,1,,,,,,
WYN,AxBCX,2,,,,,,
WYN,PFTX,2,,,K2,,,PFT; FFX based
WYN,LDX,4,,,,,,Conjectural DWX for the WYN instead of the PBB
WYN,CAX,6,,,R3,,,
WYN,DDX,6,,,R3,,,
WYN,OCRX,6,,,R3,,,

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 01:49 am: Edit

I think Alan has brought up a good point on ship designs. If you look at the USN DDX hull design, a tumblehome hull with wave piercing design it is a big change from the current hulls like the DDG 51 that over the waves.

The Federation CX and DDX were derived from GW designs, the CB and the NDD. I would like to see some X1R ships that are an optimized X1 design that is a bridge or intermediate design prior to X2.

I have not seen much support for additional X carriers. Heavy strike carrier (F-111 CVH, A-20 CAV) X designs would be a better option than the GVX as these would have the heavier shields of the CX instead of the lighter shields of the GSX/GVX. Allow these to operate without escorts or an adhoc escort of standard X ships like the DGX and FFX.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 08:16 am: Edit

I agree, and I disagree. The USN DDX is a radical change from historical ship design. X1 isn’t about radical changes. Every X1 design was an upgraded existing design, even the Fed DDX. In my mind that's what X1 has become: fitting the biggest engine possible and a little advanced tech to an existing design.

Every X2 design should be a brand new hull. These new hull designs are the breakthroughs required to move X1 from expensive and esoteric technology to X2’s expensive and mainstream technology. The ‘new hull design’ requirement for X2 is the necessary building block that prevents wholesale GW->X1->X2 upgrades; which is bad because it prevents sufficient military surplus from making its way into the private sector and providing the background for the Trade Wars. So I want new hulls, but I’m resigned to wait for X2 as the ‘new hull required’ idea solves too many historical problems.

That doesn’t prohibit a few almost-but-not-quite prototype X2 hulls built after Y200 but with X1 tech installed. I wouldn’t want to see many of these hybrid designs, but like XP they would make for an interesting footnote. We would have to solve the you can/you can’t upgrade to full X2 question for these designs, but right now I think they would be more interesting if kept as non-upgradeable but spiritual ancestors of similar X2 designs. What we would need to be careful of is avoiding creating something published in X1R that boxes us into a corner for X2.

The Klingon FX is light on the crunch required to swat an Andro. I could see a 4-disruptor version, on a from scratch new hull design, created late Andro war to address these inadequacies. We can probably find similar holes to fill in the designs of X1 tech to fill with a small number of Hybrids. Like X1 ships it might be only the Feds and Klingons, maybe Lyrans and ISC, with sufficient technology and economy late war to field Hybrid designs at all.

What we do in X1R has an impact on X2. We need to make sure everything we do fits into the larger historical framework.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 10:32 am: Edit

You know, one thing to consider is the relative paucity of X-ships, and why. When compared to most other ships, X-ships are quite a bit more flexible. Look at a CX. It has superior firepower - both offensive and defensive - to anything in it's size class, and indeed many ships of the larger size class. It has excellent labs, especially given the bonuses X-ships get for using them. It's fast, both tactically and strategically. In short, it does a lot of things pretty darn well, and I think this is as much by design as it is by accident. X-ships are rare and expensive, so they're supposed to be good at just about anything...and that means you don't have to have as many individual classes to get by. So, given that, I'm not sure how many truly legitimate X-ship designs we can come up with. By legitimate, I mean better enough at the job than an existing X-ship or XP ship to warrant the cost and time of building one. For example, is a BCX really so much better than a BCXP that you take up a shipyard for two years to build it? Is a CLX good enough that you build them when you have the DDX? I don't know, but I think realistically the answer is probably "no" on a lot of those.

Still, we want X1R to be a good-selling and fun product. To me, that means you have to have some cool variety (I'd never buy a book with a bunch of X-Freighters in it), and some just plain fun ships in it. In other words, I think we're going to have to consider having a fair number of impossible, conjectural, or unbuilt ships in this module to make it a success. Conjectural BCX's, impossible DNX's, and (dare I say it?) the really impossible B10X. To me, this is more attractive than a module full of X-tugs, X-freighters, and other X-ships not significantly different than the ones we already have.

Just my humble opinion, of course, but I suspect I'm not alone.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 10:38 am: Edit

Tos,

I think in general we are in agreement. I was using the DDX to represent the I idea of X2 compared to X1 (DDG 51), with late GW ships represented (in concept) by the Spruance Class.

I do like the idea of "a few almost-but-not-quite prototype X2 hulls built after Y200 but with X1 tech installed."

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 07:51 pm: Edit

Tumblehome...not just what you do after a big night at the pub.

---

Quote:

For example, is a BCX really so much better than a BCXP that you take up a shipyard for two years to build it? Is a CLX good enough that you build them when you have the DDX? I don't know, but I think realistically the answer is probably "no" on a lot of those.

---

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 09:14 pm: Edit

MJC,

The nautical term for being to long at the pub is "three sheets to the wind".

By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 09:22 pm: Edit

Dunno. The Tholian D makes a rather nice fast cruiser if you aren't too picky about the quarter mile traps.

OTOH, the revised D in CL29 has 34 warp. Combine that with the extra shield and life support for being a size 2 ship, and it's not really a fast cruiser any more.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 09:35 pm: Edit

Tos,

The problem with your statement that

"Every X1 design was an upgraded existing design, even the Fed DDX."

is that the X-ships published to date have YIS in tha last years of the GW period or very early in the post war period. You're talking about a very compressed time period that spans about 1/3 of the interval between the introductions of X1 and X2. It strikes me as dubious to extrapolate from that to X-ships built in, say, Y197. With more than 20 years between X1 and X2 you're saying no new designs were developed in that time? By any race?

Also, your statement that

"There has been no indication that X tech could not be applied to most hulls so it will be difficult to justify why we chose to create a new hull that is functionally identical to an upgrade on an existing hull, like nearly every other conversion."

seems to imply that there is an existing hull that can do the job. But see my earlier comments about the Romulan BCHX. For reasons I discussed in my previous post, I don't believe a "Novahawk-X" is at all satisfactory. If BCHXs are possible, the Romulan would have to be a new design. There is no existing Romulan that would form the basis for a satisfactory BCHX, in my opinion. See also my comments about a possible Federation CVX. Applying X-tech to a CVS or CVB would give you a ship that carries F-18 or F-15 fighters, because that hull can't carry F-14s. It's apparently a function of the structural design of the rear hull. And that's not something you can fix by upgrading electronics. The rear hull would have to be redesigned if the CVX is to carry F-14s.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 09:46 pm: Edit

Jeff Laikind,

34 warp still gives it enough to hit speed 31 with warp to spare. And don't get too wrapped around the axel concerning the higher house keeping costs. It pays 2.5 more points for house keeping than does a true SC3 cruiser. With 48 points generated power, this means it has discretionary power equal to a cruiser that generates 45.5 points of power. The Fed CF generates 42 points and the Klingon FD7 generates 45 points.

The Tholian D has never been fast in the strategic sense. And there are some ways in which it doesn't behave at all like a fast cruiser. For example, it can absorb a lot more damage than a cruiser can. But to a first order approximation, its tactical power curve is more like that of a fast cruiser than any other standard ship type

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 10:33 pm: Edit

In (X0.0) Module X1: During the period Y180-185, each race produced a few "X-ships"..."X-ships produced during the period Y180-205 were all conversions of existing designs"..."After Y205 many ships were built from new designs using even more advanced technology."

Then in (R0.200): "Conventional non-X-ships, including new construction, served until Y205 and beyond, forming the bulk of most fleets in the First-Generation period.”

A lot has changed since this was written in 1994. My opinion is the “new construction” are purpose built ships that can use XP or full X-technology as these will last longer than war production ships.

Since X-ships are conversions of existing designs then we need so new conventional non-x-ships that can be converted. The super heavy cruiser has been debated a lot. If it is based on a war production hull then it isn’t really a good candidate for X-conversion. If it is based on the CCH then it can have a full X-conversion and would be something more than the CX but less than a BCHX. A CVS can’t handle F-14s, so build a new SC3 strike carrier that can. Then the X version can also.

Since new fighters would go into J3 perhaps X carriers could go in that product leaving more room in X1R for direct combat ships. My impression is X-carriers are unlikely. I understand it isn’t much fun to track all the drones and attrition units. FC inspired rules may help in this area.

I have said this before but I will repeat it. The basic and advanced boxed sets forms the foundation that the follow R modules and others are based on. I believe a third boxed set is needed to form the foundation for X1R, X2, Trade Wars etc. It will establish the background that is needed. Besides SVC has some cool new ideas that I would like to see published i.e. “extreme missions”.

Mike R though stated the issue well, it needs to be fun.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 12:06 am: Edit

Tumblehome's been out of fashion for a long while, except in tugs (and pilot vessels) where a rounded surface contacting the hull of another vessel is less likely to gouge out some steel than an nice sharp join betwixt deck and hull.


In (X0.0) Module X1: During the period Y180-185, each race produced a few "X-ships"..."X-ships produced during the period Y180-205 were all conversions of existing designs"..."After Y205 many ships were built from new designs using even more advanced technology."
Be aware that the design and the hull are not the same thing. One is a conception born of (isn't that ass about!?!) thought whilst the other the child of the welders' hands. One is made of data whilst the other matter.

This is the thing for X1 ships, the old Y130 CA and Y175 CB designs were built on the principles of "worst case scenario" thinking whilst the Y175 D5W was built on "better to have a few sink in the first storm and have a lot of `em than only have a few of `em" thinking.
Same is true for the Liberty ships which were built with massively reduced factors of safty ( and in a new material; concrete ) because the design life expectance under the losses incurred was one journey.
Going back to the old hull blueprints and working in the new materials allowed for the stresses of the new equipment to be withstood ( particularly due to new materials being used).
Consider aircraft aluminium which was new for the construction of the Mustangs during WWII. With a U.T.S. of 100 MPa ( instead of the 200 of mild steel ) and a relative dencity of 3.0 (up from the 2.7 of regular aluminium (steel comes in at 7.8), using twice as much by volume one was still comming out ahead on weight.
Now if one had a design that just so happens to have twice the volume of material ( because it comes from a time when building something to last was far more important ) then the cheap option is to grab such a plan and use this new material in it.

None of this is to say that it would be impossible to build a design incorporating new materials from scratch. Which is where the period Y198 to Y204 can be really opened up with X1R.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 12:06 am: Edit

Joseph,

But why build a new SC3 strike carrier to convert? Why couldn't a CVX have been a new design, initiated after X-tech was initially deployed? Nobody ever seems to answer that. They just seem to assume that because the previously published X-ships were conversions of old designs, that all (first generation) X-ships must necessarily be so. And I still don't see how that follows. You quote from Module X1 that X-ships built prior to Y205 were all conversions. But then you acknowledge that a lot of things have changed since that was written. So the question is whether that quote should still be regarded as dispositive. We all know that only SVC can decide that. But at least to my way of thinking, from Y181 to Y205 (assuming the latter remains the date at which X2 technology appears) is too long for the quote to be plausible. Some new designs should have appeared in that time and unless the new designs were SC2 (a Heavy Space Control Ship? a Super-Heavy Dreadnought?) the designs were likely to include at least some X-ship designs. Just my .02 quatloos worth.

I wholeheartedly endorse the idea that "it needs to be fun". The problem is that, as the current rather heated argument in the F&E discussion indicates, different players who play the same game can disagree about just what makes the game fun.

(By the way, part of the reason that the Tholians and Romulans are my first and second favorite races is that I don't like having to track large numbers of drones. But given the capabilities of the respective units, I can't think of a good reason why at least some of the major powers^* wouldn't deploy X-tech strike carriers. Regardless of what the background text may say, there are still a number of situations in which fighters are very useful.)

^*I'm dubious that the plasma races or Tholians would deploy X-tech carriers because those races' PFs are much better than their fighters. X-tech PFTs are much more likely. But the Feds? Best fighters in the game and no PFs. The Lyrans? Their PFs are adequate but not as good as the Tholians. And fighter squadrons are the only thing that give the Lyran any seeking weapon capability. Even though they can't carry X-drones, the fighters on a Lyran CVX would give an X-squadron seeking weapon capability that it couldn't get any other way.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 12:32 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Nobody ever seems to answer that.

---

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 12:38 am: Edit

Alan,

From my own perspective I don't disagree with you. It seems in SFB ships are coverted as easily as built new. The aspect that it is easier and cheaper to build a new advanced design rather than an older design and convert it to an advanced design isn't relected that I can see in the BPV.

"So the question is whether that quote should still be regarded as dispositive." Until SVC adds additional information I have nothing else to go on.

The reason I suggested convetional purpose built new designs is it is consistent with the old printed history. Adding new X designs not based on GW designs is plausible and could still fit with the old background material. New information has been found on the tapes and so the history is altered.

The nature of combat during the Andro war and around the Alpha sector in general post GW will change somewhat. Upgraded versions of late GW fighters could be produced that have rely more on DF weapons than seeking weapons could be developed. Could be modular to be equiped with heavy DF weapons (photons, Distrupeters etc that require energy from the carrier to arm) and a few drones (2-3) or no heavy DF weapons and more drone (4). Have most of the drones launched by the X carrier and escorts. The fighter follow them in. The ASM is an example of soemthing that will reduce seeking weapons. Just some ideas

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 08:18 am: Edit

I see no reason why a CVX couldn't be built new. Not all of the CX's were converted, after all, so there's no reason to think a CVX has to be a conversion of either a CX or CVS.

I do, though, see why it wouldn't be built as a new ship, depending on when it comes out. If it's during the Andro war, there are a couple of good historical arguments for making it a conversion. The first and most obvious is time. It's faster to convert a CVS, and speed is of great importance in this period, as everyone scrambles to get enough ships into service to fight off the Andros. The second reason is the need to have CX's and BCJ's. With their direct fire abilities (something that works well against the Andros), they are probably more desireable than a CVX. So, given those reasons, converting an existing ship seems a more likely approach.

Now, if the CVX was built as a contemporary to the CX (i.e., late in the GW before both the ISC campaign and Andro war), then sure...build a new one. I think, though, that given the specific needs and features of the CVS that even a new design is going to look A LOT like any conversion of existing ships. Just my opinion.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 12:28 pm: Edit

Mike,

But a Fed CVX, whether based on the CVB and flying F-15s or with a new design rear hull and flying F-14s, would have identical photon torpedo capability to the CX already. It would generate slightly less power and have fewer phasers.^* But for long or medium range photon torpedo bombardment it would be virtually identical to a CX and bring tremendous drone firepower as well. With careful use, a squadron of F-14 or F-15 megafighters will run the Andros out of T-bombs long before the Feds run out of drones.

^*This assessment is based on a comparison of the existing Fed CVB to the CC.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 12:38 pm: Edit

P.S.

I've only ever played one base assault against the Andros since the Temporal Elevator rules were introduced. I was using the Tholians, so I don't know the answer to this question off the top of my head. Can seeking weapons "climb" up a temporal elevator? I believe they can, but can't recall for sure. If they can, then a massive drone capability may be more useful against an Andromedan base than massed photon torpedos.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 02:00 pm: Edit

In R2 is scenario (SH75.0) Haste To Make Waste

The GSC loacted a Sat base, reported the location, and rapidly departed.

If we change the attacking ships to a CVX, 2 DEX, and SCX. The CVX I made has 4 photons, 2xGX racks, and 12 PH-1s (same layout as a CX; also 1 less battery). The fighter group is 12xF-14D. Assume the DEX (based on the DDX) has 9xPH-1s, 2 photons,3xGX racks, and 2xshuttle racks; AWR is cargo (could be a number of other configurations). The SCX is standard.

The attacking ships have 8 photons and 8 GX racks plus over 30 PH-1s and the 12 F-14Ds (these can carry 4xType-I drones and 2xType-IV drones on paired special rails).

What forces would the Andros need to defend against such a force. The Andro SB is a core module and two sat base modules and 12 MWPs. Would this being an interesting scenario?

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 03:04 pm: Edit

Some races use launch tubes for fighters. Is the use of these tubes racially specific? If the Federation isn't barred from using them would the Federation use launch tubes on a new X-carrier?