Would the Fed CL be a better ship if it was MC 0.66???
Yes.

But from what SVC has said here and there, I would say that the MC is dependant on the number of SSD boxes and therefore it just can't be an MC 0.66 ship.


On X2 Power.
X1 ships are in fact slow. Note I'm working from memory so please just say if anything's wrong rather than starting a flame war over the numbers.

Ship	CX	CARa+	XCA
WARP	40	30	48
Impulse	4	4	4
AWR	4	2	6
H.K.	4	4	5
Heavies	24	16	24
EW	8	6	8
Movement	12	10	21 minus ASIF

So basically when an X1 ships does everything it needs to do, it has a battle speed that isn't much faster than that of a GW vessel.
I wouldn't want to fill X2 with ships that should be in X1R.

X2 should be a new level of technology with suitibly higher output engine to match.
So I think we can have uber-ships without having battle speeds that arn't a choice between movement and firepower. That is to say, to get an XCA to do it's thing, it has to move slower than is health.
Also remember that the Admirals will wonder what use it is to send an XCA on a raid of an enemy world if the CX that wasn't so far away on patrol catches it and has the warewithall to smack the XCA into a coma...and the Orion & ISC CX are both tough ships.

Remember also that X1 got a change to the number of SSD boxes to each MC as a progression of technology, so the more effective warp-buble theory would be exactly that...more SSD boxes which means by default more warp Engine Boxes (probably).

Remember the is the arguement against the 2 point X2-warp Engine box. 30 warp Engines will be a huge amount of power for the vessel and it will have a flaw, easily slowed, which some would argue is good.
But too many players will write letters demanding that if a ship can have 40 warp engine boxes then a ship with 40 double warp engine boxes can be built and then the whole thinbgs falls apart.
Personnally I'ld rather see more wartp engine boxes so that it fills the X2 flavour; "it doesn't like to fight and thus will 'get out of dodge' if it gets hurt" and a ship with large numbers of warp engine boxes can get out of dodge.
The treaty (if there is one ) might restrict MC and numbers but not Engine Output and since engines are a back door method of increasing firepower (Transporters, Tractors, Antimatter Bombs, SS (even Photon overloads), Reinforcement stopping weapon hits) the ships can be more dangerous by having high output engines and those engaged in writting the treaty will likely try to sneak such a psuedo weapon by each other.


On APRs.
Can anyone remember what the A stands for?
Axillary. Not Ancilliary, even though in SFB they are used as Ancilliary power reactors.
APRs aid a ship when she has shut down her engines for maintainance and allows the ship to still have power for life-support, pasive fire-control, Transpoters and the like.
Do we really wnat to build ships that when the "go to sleep", the can't keep one eye open"!?!

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 08:29 am: Edit

---

Quote:

So basically when an X1 ships does everything it needs to do, it has a battle speed that isn't much faster than that of a GW vessel.

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 11:29 am: Edit

MJC's power analysis has always puzzled me. For one thing, ships in MJC-world apparently don't have to spend power to arm their phasers. Maybe he's just assuming the phaser capacitors are already full. But at the start of the battle that is weapon status dependent, and after a few rounds of combat they'll be empty anyway, even with X-ships' double capacitors. But his analysis usually ignores the phasers completely.

I also get the impression that he approaches energy allocation from almost exactly the opposite direction that I do. To judge from his post, he seems to be thinking:

"Pay housekeeping, arm the heavy weapons to the maximum extent possible, allocate max possible energy to EW. Okay, how much is left for movement?"

My approach is more along the lines of:

"Pay housekeeping. In this tactical situation, how fast do I need to be moving? Okay, now how much is left over for weapons, EW, etc?"

This is an oversimplification of both my thinking and I'm sure MJC's as well. But we do seem to approach the energy allocation process in fundamentally different ways.

MJC - I'm not trying to start a flamewar here. But I really don't understand how you think about energy allocation.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 02:09 pm: Edit

The "fleet speed" can be calculated by adding Housekkeping, cost to arm phasers and full overloads. I think thats what MJC is after.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 02:13 pm: Edit

Remember SVC like to keep the number of engines sizes as low as possible. My guess is the X1 engines are here to stay even in X2.

Besides bigger engines usually mean(bigger mass wich means) greater move cost. Many DDs have become 2/3 movers after getting a third engine.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 02:23 pm: Edit

Tos, several X1 ships allready have 50 power, or more. This means higher combat speed allready.
Actually these things can chase down anyone having quite a bit of reinforcement.

We can completely stop this, whcih makes X2 just like non-X, or we can have a slight, controlled, speed increase visavi X1.

In no case is it a good idea to use MC to control speed, IMO. Would most likley be nixed by SVC in any case

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 02:28 pm: Edit

Jeff, I have been thinking about the RTN. I get the impression(after reading scenarios and such) that with the discovery of it the Andros lost their grip rather quickly.
The desperation assault on the Desecrator look more like the last step by the GPs after reaserting their control over their territories.


My comments on this:

Y205 - the empires have the following problems to solve:
1) How to project power when the bulk of your fleet is being mothballed, including your NCLs and X1 squadrons?
2) How to maintain prestege among the neutral zone colonies when they're getting NCLs for their own defense?
3) How to build a new fleet that will have a cheaper build cost now and a cheaper maintenance cost later?
4) How can we be sure that the Andromedans aren't coming back?
5) And what's to prevent the Lyrans/Kzintis from fighting each other again as soon as their fleets build up?



Y205 - The first X2 ships are built.

To answer 1),

48 box engines seems to be arbitrarlily set size, or perhaps fit for movecost 1.25. A 10 or 5 % increase in efficiency would be quite big from an development persepective. But as I've said i think SVC says 'No'.
In any case the need can also be met by production of the new ships that requires less manpower to serve and crew.


To answer 2),

The colonies are small. Tiny even, when compared to the Empires themselves. I mean; sure your colony got 17 million pop, but the Empire, perhaps, got 17 BILLION pop! (the Roms in this case). You got a junkcruiser or two, right? So, you wanna fight?
Besides you would probably get the ships only if we are sure you are with us.
So, I am thinking the answer to that question is not combat based.
Btw, I read in the Romulan sourcebook the number of colonies in a FE hex can be staggering! There won't be ships to go around even for the most important colonies.



To answer 3), An X2 ship would use new technology to save on cost.

Yes. That is also a major reason to build them.



To answer 4), nobody knows.

Not quite. The problem was the RTN, and the solution were scouts.
But for X2 ships the requirement appeared during the construction process during the Andro invasion.
After their defeat this tech wouldn't be needed much.


To answer 5), this won't make X2 history very interesting, not would it be likely, too much distruct between enemies.
Convince the Kzinti they should not build ships? Actually, if the Kzin were not suspicious of Feds before, they would become then!

In all likelyhood I think the Lyrans and Klingons would attack the Hydrans as soon as they can after the succesful outcome of Op U. the galaxy, incl. the Hydrans would not be able to resist. The Coalition could to it step by step, each offensive would weaken the Hydrans to coming attacks.
The Kzin are not strong enough to help, and the Feds can't really hurt the Klingons. And if they do, the are not in a position to stop the Lyrans.

[edited]

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 02:55 pm: Edit

CMC: Something is getting lost in translation. If I come up with a better way of explaining myself or a better example I'll let you know.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 02:58 pm: Edit

Tos, I tought you were discusing battle speeds in the game, on the map.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 06:01 pm: Edit

CMC,

Well, maybe. But I'll note that a) MJC didn't include phasers in his calculation, and b) "fleet speed" defined this way may not be a terribly useful number.

MJC used these numbers to support his contention that X1 ships are "slow", an assertion I disagree with. Regardless of what my "fleet speed" is according to some formula, if I look at the map during energy allocation and decide I really need to be flying at about speed-24 this turn, that's what I'll be flying at. The difference is that the CA, after paying 28 for movement+housekeeping, only has 8 points (plus batteries) left to devote to weapons/EW while the CX would have 20. Both ships are travelling at the same speed but the CX can generate far more firepower while doing so.

Many times, though, there won't be a "hard number" that you can point to and say "that's how fast I need to go". It's a much more nebulous process. I'ld like to go about 24, but that leaves with too little power for weapons - so if I slow down to speed 12 - hmmm, no that's too slow. I'm likely to get in trouble at that speed. So how about if I go speed 16?...

There's a trade off between speed and weapons and when I go through that thought process with an X-ship or non-X ship, I personally tend to end up flying faster in the X-ship because I can do so and still arm my weapons to an "acceptable" level. That's why MJC's comment about X-ships being "slow" bothers me. It seems to me to be based on a tactically flawed approach to energy management.

Obviously this approach to energy allocation isn't the only one out there, but I suspect that most SFB players use something along similar lines, though they may make different decisions in a given situation about what the minimum acceptable speed or minimum acceptable level of weapons arming is. But MJC's approach, at least to judge by his posts on power and speed, seems to be very different. And I'm curious as to what his thought processes are.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 06:03 pm: Edit

They are strange...

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 06:04 pm: Edit

I wonder if i would find X ships fast though. I fly plasma Usually, and they are ALWAYS fast
But with Sabots you get an energy drain, but then you don't you phasers as often as df ships.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 06:39 pm: Edit

MJC based his numbers in an abortive attempt to support his own desire for shamelessly munchkin X2 ships. 48 warp, 6 AWR and 4 impulse?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 07:07 pm: Edit

The measure I tend to use is disposable power at max speed after house keeping. If X2 = X1 here then I think we are in the right ballpark. Though I wouldn't mind shaving a few points off here and there its more likely that something like a SIF will have to drain the excess for me.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 08:12 pm: Edit

As was stated earlier this year, a lot of this discussion will become moot once SVC makes his decisions on the direction of X2. SVC also stated he has no immediate intention of making X2 decisions.

It seems to me there are two general "philosophies" for X2 resulting in the following:

• "More power, more bang" giving us cruisers with more power and firepower than X1, able to defeat any Andro or dreadnought with little to no difficulty; quickly obsolescing pre-X ships
• "More bang for the buck" giving us "economical" cruisers with not quite the raw power and firepower of an X1 ship but nevertheless generally more capable and flexible like pre-war ships

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 08:24 pm: Edit

Brodie;

Well, as I recall one of the options discussed was for a sort of "two tier" system of X2 ships. The "Trade War" ships (ca. Y205) would use the second option, being about as powerful as an X1 ship (maybe a little more, maybe a little less) because they were "general purpose" designs.

About Y225 (don't recall for certain if that's the correct year) the Xorks show up and the only way that the Alpha races can face them is to produce combat-optimized designs that use the same technology as the earlier X2 "Trade War" ships but lose the general purpose capabilities in exchange for more power and weapons, converting them to pure warships. These would be the super ships described in your first option. I don't think there was ever unanimous agreement about this, however. I think some people wanted the super ships from the very beginning.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 08:41 pm: Edit

RBN: I proposed the middle ground of consisting of both (although not exactly as you defined it here). I believe that the races would build a very powerful X2 cruiser but this would be a flag ship class and would lead fleets in much the same way as DN's did before.

Other than that there would be much more of the second level of ship that took advantage of the technology of X2 but were not super ships and were designed to fill a more general mission. These ships would be ecconomical and be what eventually repalaces everything (in the years beyond recorded history).

Alan Trevor: Y225 is the last year on the time scale for SFB. There is no recorded SFU history beyond that. The Xorks appear in force around Y210 to Y215. They have sent Raiders since early in the GW (or earlier).

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 08:52 pm: Edit

48 was an arbitrary number. In every other case, when a ship has had an increase in strategic speed, it got bigger warp engines for the same move cost (YCA -> CA, CA -> CX, CA -> CF). Therefore, to make the jump from CX to XCA, I thought that the engines had to have more than 40. The jump from X0 to X1 was a 33% increase (30 -> 40), so X2 might have something similar. I picked 48 because it would divide evenly into 2 and into 3 (three 16-box engines for the Hydrans and Kzintis). Heavier weapons, heavier phasers, and other gizmos would bleed off the power.

As to the colony with a couple of junkcruisers, the empires are hard pressed to build their fleets. The Feds may give an NCL to a colony, but then the Klingons might want their former colony back, but can only dispatch a frigate squadron to take it with. With Y175 F5s, the Klingons would probably back down. With Y205 X2 frigates, the Klingons would take the colony back.

As to the Galactic Treaty of Washington, I never said it would be a lasting peace. In fact, there's plenty of time between Y205 and the Xork Invasion for "The Trade Wars" to turn from the cold, border patrol conflicts into yet another hot war.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 08:57 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

MJC based his numbers in an abortive attempt to support his own desire for shamelessly munchkin X2 ships. 48 warp, 6 AWR and 4 impulse?

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 09:39 pm: Edit

MJC;

No one expects you to fill out "...every possible permunatuion and comination of power based requirments" but I don't think the particular example you chose was, in fact "likely and logical".

First, the phaser capacitors might or might not already be full, depending on initial weapon status. But second, if you are proposing this as a "Turn 1" energy allocation you will often get hammered for the simple reason that you will be going too slowly to get into overload range at all against a cautious enemy. You will have thrown away 24 points of power for nothing and even an X-ship can't afford to do that. The only way the power allocation makes sense is if at least one turn (and probably a few turns) have gone by and you are already in overload range or very near to it. But that makes the assumption that the phaser capacitors are full less plausible (though, I admit, not impossible).

While there might be times when your energy allocation makes sense, there will also be plenty of times when it doesn't. And this gets back to my question about your thought processes when doing energy allocation. To argue that an X-ship can absorb huge amounts of energy into its weapon systems and is therefore no faster than a non-X ship that generates less but can also absorb less, seems to me the wrong way to look at the whole issue.

I'm not trying to "put the boot in". It's just that I really don't understand how you approach energy allocation.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 10:00 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

At a certain point every ship can soak up more power than her engines can produce yeilding negative power availible for movement so one just has to say, what seems likely and logical and go from there. Since phasers can hold power in the caps for 25 turns I chose to skip it out.

---

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 10:52 pm: Edit

My expectation is that X2 is not better in combat nor faster strategically then X1. X2 will have longer legs, be cheaper to maintain, have greater self repair capability and be much more flexible in the field. These are the first in a new generation of ships to designed to take the battle to the Andros, but before they could be placed in the field the Andros were defeated.

There isn’t any particular reason that we need a Y205 X2 mega-cruiser. There isn’t any particular reason we need full X2 fleets during the Trade Wars. You are not going to be spending your time sacking Starbases. Taking a page from the Andro book, the X2 Destroyers and Light Cruisers form a rapid response network to be where you need them now.

During the early Trade Wars we have more (worn out) warships then we know what to do with. At least for the first decade X2 ships should stay rare and be seen in no greater than squadron strength. Need a fleet to subdue a rebel Bats? Send the CX or DNH as your Flag, there expendable. X2 will have a place in the Trade Wars, but its place will not be as a direct replacement for either GW or X1 hulls. Neither the need nor the economy will support a wholesale fleet upgrade to X2.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 01:02 am: Edit

There has been discussion about a “Washington Naval Treaty”.

This is an idea. Suppose a companion treaty was put into effect by the Organians, which created a one hex non-military trade zone on either side of the NZ. The trade zone treaty allows for police type ships of any race anywhere in the trade zone and small reaction forces of a few FFs and one CA/CW. This treaty was signed in Y202 right after OpU. So the various races developed what came to be called the “Trade Wars Cruiser” a CL using X2 technology. Police forces used a few FFX class ships converted for police work.

The trade zones will be three F&E hexes across and surplus GW ships may show up as private fleets. Some had XP refits. Piracy, Corporate raiders, war lords, clandestine government support of various factions mixed in with legitimate trade and monsters. This provides a somewhat artificial way to exclude large battle fleets, BCHs, CXs, and SC2 ships so the X2 version of a early GW CA would be built. This also creates the need and reasons why these trade cruisers would be more general purpose.

The trade zone treaty also set up a process for trade concessions in the LMC. A larger cruiser was allowed by both treaties, A late GW CCH equivalent. This was really more of an BCH and became the XCA (races pushed the limits). XBCH was designed and prototypes built but full scale production occurred during the Xork invasion the next general war.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 07:55 am: Edit

---

Quote:

The Admirals will be expecting the CX to compete ( for the new construction monies ) with a DNG so going in with 16 pointers really isn't doing the job and hold Photons isn't doing the job. So the ship nees to be considered when arming Photons at the most expensive rate.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 03:18 am: Edit

A.T.:

My thinking really comes from the Cadet Training Manual where there is no WS, just starting with the BTTYs and Phasers caps full and everything (except drone racks ) being empty. Hence just arming Heavies but not phasers.
At a certain point I'm not trying to build a EA plot that would happen increadibly often but rather an EA plot that would cover the point I'm putting forward...that a CX isn't so fast once you try to maintain "a bunch" of those power requiring abilities are paid for...and that the XCA will fall into the same boat.


There isn’t any particular reason we need full X2 fleets during the Trade Wars. You are not going to be spending your time sacking Starbases. Taking a page from the Andro book, the X2 Destroyers and Light Cruisers form a rapid response network to be where you need them now.
On this I know of some reasons; you need to build a few ships to be able to have the workforce who are able to build the ships and you also need to keep up with Pirates whose X1 ( and indeed X2 ) vessels shall become more common as their wealth increases (as per trade-wars dogma).
I'm not saying you need lots of XCAs but there would be a constant production of XFFs or XDDs to keep the workers from getting rusty.


As to being a battleship in disguise.
If the BPV fits...
I indeed like it because it means the XFFs is a cruiser in disguise and that will be fun when it comes to recapturing lost worlds.

Also note that leaner/general-duty ships have a place in X1R.