If the X2 is based on the BCHs, as has been mentioned in M:X1, the result will be ships that are about 10% bigger, got about 10% more power, and has about 10% more firepower.
At least that is the result I got when I used the BCHs as plattform. These percentages add up, however, so i don't know if a BPv increase would be limited to just 10%.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 09:12 am: Edit

There are a number of possible problems with using the BCH as a model for X2. Now, I realize that's what X1 says. But, it may not be a good idea depending on what the goal for X2 is.

If X2 isn't supposed to be about uber-ships, an X version of a BCH would mean almost no improvments in weapons and systems because without making the BPV excessively high. Think about an XBCJ. Even with just X1 type weapons and improvements, you would still be looking at a monster of a ship. That leaves no room for new and improved stuff like any boxes or ASIF's without having 300+ BPVs. Other than MJC, I don't know anyone who really wants super ships like that.

I submit that the comment in X1 can be ignored, or at least not taken literally. After all, there is a passage in Advanced Missions that mentions X2 ships having five point batteries, but elsewhere is written that only Andros had such things.

Let's consider a wild-card idea. What if you made X2 like XP; a set of refit values you could buy and apply to ships. You could make it a bit more expansive, I suppose, such as not limiting heavy weapons to SC3 or smaller ships, not limiting the amounts of reactors you can convert, etc. That way, you get something for everyone. MJC and others could have the 400 point cruiser they want by buying every possible upgrade, while other more moderate players could have the upgrades they want without having to have them all. The module could, of course, include some pre-made X2 ships, but the basic rules for conversions would be the meat of it. I dunno; but, it's an idea we haven't considered and maybe could bat around.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 10:50 am: Edit

Or the comment in X1 can be applied to a single class of ship.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 11:12 am: Edit

Mike, when Brodie put up the Gif for my CA on his webpage, you can see for yorself how a XBCJ would look. It's in no way Uber. More powerful, yes. But that is inevitable: the march of evolution you know.

Your idea sound something like (S7.0). While it would work for players It would probably be turned down by SVC because it would not work well as a basis for the X2 history.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 11:15 am: Edit

Loren, yes, myself I think it was applicable to the classic CA class. After all, if I get FE correctly, BCHs can, late war, be substituted for CAs/NCAs. If you can build a more powerful ship you will, in wartime, do so.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 01:26 pm: Edit

My Fed X2 CA

A few points:

*BD is increased, but the extra bonus removed.
This will not only reflect improved construction, but will also make Hets something of a gamble. which is as it should be IMO.

*Pay close attention to the ph-1 table.

*Speed after arming weapons and Hk is 15.
Same for a Car+ is 10, and for the CX it is 16.

*It can, as an option, carry figthers and is then treated as an Hybrid carrier.

*I am not a fighter fan, and the Joint Space Fighters are not much developed. The intention is to have one fighter design for both the Navy and Army.

*The fighters have a double space bay.

*MX racks are GX racks that can fire probes.

*The Special option mounts are NOT NWOs. Neither can they take wpns.


There is more but this will be enough for now.

Tnx again to Brodie!


[edited]

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 01:33 pm: Edit

Most welcome.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 08:31 pm: Edit

I think it would be better to have refits; moving from 8Ph-5s to 12Ph-5s or 3 point BTTYs become 5 point BTTYs or from Four X2 Disruptors to Six, than to have a buy your peices style game.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 08:39 pm: Edit

12P5, 5-point Bats and 6 Disruptors. Sounds just about right for a starbase.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 11:39 pm: Edit

Post deleted by author.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 09:46 pm: Edit

I'm tired of taking flack for believing that X2 ships should eventually have X1 numbers of X2 weapons after the treaty breaks down.
Gaining those weapons should happen over several steps with a high BPV refit price tag on each step, but it just wont hold water with players in the market place that a CX can have 12Ph-1s and a an XCA can't have 12Ph-5s ever.

I would also like to say that I feel the treaty will limit the XCA to ONE per EMPIRE for its duration meaning the fact that an XCA is a battleships killers is diluted by the fact that the best ship one is reasonably likely to get is an XDD.

Personally I don't mind making the XCA an MC1/SC2 unit with all the S8 limitations therein and cause people to use the XDD in the general cruiser role, by default.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 11:36 pm: Edit

MJC, the problem with that is then you only have one XCA. What fun is that? How many times do you expect a battleship to invade your territory? Are you proposing that the XCA sits in the starbase like the pre-war dreadnoughts did waiting for a war ("break glass only in the event of war")? Again, what fun is that?

SFB is about fighting starships. Players want to fly their cruisers.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 11:42 pm: Edit

MJC, no one is saying you can't put 12P5 on an X2 ship. They probably would but for the fact that you are talking about a Xork War refit and no one else here is talking about X2 in the Xork War.

Lets all work together on Y205 before worrying about what the ships look like in Y230.

On another point, why are you spending time desiging an XCA if only one will be built? Concentrate on the highest volume ships first.

I have long championed the concept of a treaty, but lately I've been taking a step back. It may still be necessary, but I'd like to explore a non-contrived way of accomplishing the same thing, without relying overmuch on translations of Supplement #2 and the mythical Organians.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 12:04 am: Edit

MJC, There are two different time periods here.

Y205, the Trade Wars, with more of an emphasis on multi-role ships, with little if any BPV increase over X1 (10-20%). 6-8 ph-5 on an XCA

Y225, The Xork Invasion. Open war, ships trading in living space for more weapons, replacing labs with combat systems, etc. 12-15 ph-5 per XCA.

The rest of us have been concentrating on Y205, but I think you're designing the Y225 ships.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 12:16 am: Edit

I have long championed the concept of a treaty, but lately I've been taking a step back. It may still be necessary, but I'd like to explore a non-contrived way of accomplishing the same thing, without relying overmuch on translations of Supplement #2 and the mythical Organians.

Ah yes, this is what I've been thinking for years and I'm so glad someone finally said it in the right way. I cannot see a major galactic treaty actually happening. I can see LOTs of diplomats running around talking treaty, lots of posturing and possitioning. But I don't see any actual signing of any agreement that involves more than two races.

I mean how can any one even dream of getting the Federation, the Klingons, the Romulans, the Kzinti, the Lyrans, the Hydrans, the Tholians and the ISC to ALL sign the same document? The Xorks will be invading before they all can agree on what paragraph one will consist of. It would take years just to decide on a preamble.

But they would all be talking. Lots and lots of talking. Some possible agreements between pairs that have little or nothing to do with other races. Every race has different needs, different problems, and different phylosophical views. Do the Romulans stop thinking they are superior? Do the Klingons stop being wariors? Will the Feds stop trying to make a buck? Do the Tholians give a buzz what any one thinks?

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 12:28 am: Edit

I know it's artificial, but the Organians can MAKE them sign the treaty, and hold them to it for a few years.

"I hope you learned your lesson, now that you've had 30 years to kill each other"

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 02:16 am: Edit

Or treaty could simply reflect reality. Set the limits at whatever size each race could afford to keep operational. I like the treaty concept since it defines a clear difference with earlier SFB timeframes.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 06:08 am: Edit

Maybe I didn't make myself clear when talking about refits.
Not only would they cost ( especially with those kinds of changes ) but the Refits themselves would have a date of inception putting the refit in the era of "won't somebody rid me of these troublesome Xorks!?!".


I was thinking perhaps a year ago about the upgrade of the Phasers.
Specifically the Phaser coolant system couldn't handle the core heat problem generated by the Ph-5 and thus needed huge heat exchanger systems.
One day (shortly prior to the date of the phaser refit) a new and highly advanced (and even more toxic than the one in Balance of Terror) coolant fluid was developed that could transfere much larger quantities of heat out of the Ph-5 core and thus the heat exchangers could be replaced with those of a volume equal to those of X1 Ph-1s and that freed ships to mount X1 levels of Phaser-5s.
So it is possible to get the same ships without the treaty and we should probably come up with those in case SVC has a cow over the treaty concept!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 06:17 am: Edit

L.K.:

I've said this before.
I can see a lot of races (on the brink of bankruptcy) signing the treaty, especially if they sign with their fingers crossed behind there backs.


The treaty itself might also have a limited life ( say 15 years ) and the respective races began violating the treaty as they got closer to the termination ( say 7 through 15 years depending on how agress the particular race is and how infested with Xorks they are).

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 07:50 am: Edit

SVC has made it clear that basing ANY discussion of X2 around Xork stuff is a non-starter. MJC, you have no idea at all what a Xork looks like. Therefore you have no idea how effective the more reasonable Y205 designs everyone is coming up with will be against them, and no reason to beleive they are not enough. You are still lobbying for the Tyranno-Cruiser with battleship power and weapons. No one wants this but you and the most shameless munchkin players out there.

RE: Treaty. I have no problem with this. Treaties make sense for all and sundry because they are broke and financially unable to continue fighting. Even the Klingons would be forced to prudence at some point, so a treaty would be to thier benefit. The issue isn't the treaty, it's why each empire signs it. The Feds might be naive enough to believe it. The Klingons just want some breathing room and a chance to re-build. The Roms have internal problems galore, so a treaty favors them as well. Now...who breaks it first is the fun part.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 10:42 am: Edit

And don't forget the X1 ships are at the LIMIT. X2 refitsw would push them over it. Thats why you need new ships. Or to use an analogy; the F-15 with Amraams is still nhot as good as the F-22. And more importantly, nor does it have the GROWTH ROOM.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 10:51 am: Edit

I suggest we open an X3 topic for discussion of the Xork War and the ships to be found in that era. As long as we continue to mix and match eras we won't be able to make any progress.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 10:55 am: Edit

Guys, this isn't that hard. There is no X3...ther are no Xorks for purposes of this discussion. Just forget the Xorks! They don't matter, we know nothing at all about them, and have no idea how tough they may or may not be. Forget them. Focus on Y205, and let the rest go.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 01:04 pm: Edit

Loren,

After 30 years of war, I can see everybody's appetite for more blood a little dimmed.

A naval treaty could get passed just on the basis of containing an arms spiral that everyone's exhausted economies couldn't support. If the alpha sector races can cooperate to defeat the Andros, they can attempt to try to keep that newfound amity (lack of animosity?) going.

After massive human wars we have always seen something arise to try keep it from getting so out of control again. (We tend to create associations, the League of Nations, and later the UN) but a treaty would suffice.

Now such a treaty lasts only as long as it is convienent, as has also been shown by human history. Once the empires get their legs back under them, they will start to become self-agendaed again. Ultimately, most empires will see how far they can cheat without being called on it. The least likely to cheat are the Feds and ISC, who would likeley have a compensatory economic advantage in recovery (a combination of economies working better in open societies and the lack of "cheating" military spending coming back as more taxes spent on recovery or as taxes not collected)

For my part, I've never been thrilled to contiunue the Supplement 2 narrative of empires confined to their core territories with wide neutral zones. IMHO, anything from Supplement 2 has to *contribute* value or get chucked as part and parcel of Supp 2's failure. I see no value added in wide neutral zones.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 01:43 pm: Edit

John,

The wide neutral zones are part of established history; they are represented on the F&E map. Not sure we can get away from that one. Besides, wide neutral zones = lots of free territory to fight over and trade with, which gives us the ideal set up for the Trade Wars.