Different nomenclatures for a different era. Thanks for the reminder Jeff about the era.

Also, we need to include total warp when we mention Move COst. It's a better indicator.

In my proposal, I have two classes of starships:
A multirole patrolship (MC .25, Total Warp 14) and a larger ship (MC .66 or .75 Total Warp 22-28) that is rarer.

My patrolship is my focus now. It will have advanced tactor links to effectively 'tow' X2 cargo modules along with it.

Later on as the trade wars end and economies are rebuilt, the 'warships' come in. I have a fast, lean and mean 'destroyer' type ship and a big big 'get-out-of-my-way' ship.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 02:53 am: Edit

Is there any possibility of combining the Radio Controlled Fighter rules with the Super Inteligent Battle Computer rules to mount Super Inteligent Battle Computers on XFFs such that the nil or low crew requirements would allow them to be more useful in fleet battles and thus even if they are destroyed in a fleet engagement the loss of life does not weaken the war effort?


We might make the S.I.B.C. more dependable with a list of event that cause a die roll to see if the computer goes haywire and then only when "let off the leesh".
Such as rolling on the first trun an enemy BP beams over ( not counting H&R but counting shuttles transits ).
And rolling the first turn it is fired on.

If kept on the leesh you could argue than since the ship controlling the vessel does not have a super inteligent battle computer that therefore the XFF can not take advantage of some of the proactive activites like movement presidence and EA.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 10:30 pm: Edit

MJC, actually that's similar to something I had in mind except they're SC5 ships.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 06:31 pm: Edit

Having X2 Lyran PFs and Ints would be handy for racial flavour.

Perhaps having a limited self control ability for the PFs with XFFs having true S.I.B.C. abilities when let off the leesh.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 04:21 am: Edit

MJC, the problem is I suspect SVC would consider any general use of SIBCs to be DOA even in X2.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 06:49 pm: Edit

I don't think it's a good idea to keep the idea of attrition unit X2FFs.

I don't even like the idea of having the name 'FF'.

I really like the smaller ship idea, but it comes with its own set of I believe 'overcome-able" challenges.

Smaller ships vs. larger ships in an equal BPV immediately gives the sense of 'advanced' for the smaller ship.

Challenge: a 'FF' size advanced ship needs to take and dish out twice as much damage. A boring solution is to just double weapons damage and have double shields.

A better and much harder solution is to create new systems that-in effect-allow the ship to take and dish out twice as much damage.

We've talked about this I know, but this is what I think this thread should be about. Not attrition units but new units for a new era.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 07:48 pm: Edit

I agree, Roger. In the end, for damage-resistance we'll end up with "more boxes on the SSD" (necessary due to the mechanics of the game) but they'll be at least interesting and fun boxes (so long as they're not just Armor boxes with new names).

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 03:07 pm: Edit

I don't necessarily think we need to go to the 'more boxes' eject button.

There are some really interesting proposals and some that are not so.

My hope is a product that looks and feels advanced as well as meeting the mandates of playablity with GW/X1 et. al.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 03:19 pm: Edit

One idea: let X2 weapons ignore shield boxes but not General, or Specific Shield Reinforcement?

Another idea to help smaller ships, 'Shield Banking' Allowing X2 ships to 'bank' General, or Specific Shield Reinforcement over two turns.

ex. Turn 1, 6 points goes on shield #3. During turn nobody fires. Turn 2 shield #3 has 6 points (from last turn) plus whatever the captain want to add this turn.

I hope that makes sense.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 10:34 pm: Edit

A proposal for a Fed XFF:

Mission:
• Convoy escort through the devestated zones.
• Border patrol in peaceful areas.
• Varients include Police Flagship,

Start with the FFG SSD.

• Increase shields from 18 to 24 (X1 strength)
• Add a 2 box swing shield between each.
• Remove the ph-3s and ph-1s.
• Add 3 FX ph-5.
• Remove the drone rack; replace with 1 RA ph-5.
• Increase each warp engine from 6 to 9. (X1 has 8)
• Photons increased from 16 to 20 (or 24)
• Add an ASIF. 3 boxes for B and C, 2 boxes for D and E, 1 box for F and G.

The rest of the changes can be covered in the rules (non-SSD changes)

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 11:06 pm: Edit

I don't see an X2 ship in the convoy escort role. I see it as a rapid response to a request for aid from a convoy. There are plenty of GW era ships more suitable for convoy escort duty.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 11:10 pm: Edit

Jeff;

For whatever they're worth (.02 quatloos?), here are my comments.

1. I'm dubious that the Feds would abandon drones completely once they've adopted them. I think the drone rack should be kept.

2. I can't think of any saucer-mounted phasers with 240 degree arcs. I'm not saying there aren't any, but if there are, they are rare and unusual. I would give the forward ph-5s FH arcs and increase the rear ph-5 arc to RH.

Just my .02 quatloos worth.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 07:44 am: Edit

MMmmmmmm...Fed Drones.
The protection the Probe Drone provides a ship examining monsters is worth the Logitistics Hassel. For the Feds anything that reduces the chance of crew getting killed is a must have item.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 06:59 pm: Edit

I'm not saying the Feds completely abandon drones. Certainly the XCA and XCL would have them, and perhaps the XDD.

MJC, I disagree. The XFF should have a probe launcher, but if the ship encounters something THAT dangerous, it needs to call in a bigger ship. What makes the XFF worth building is that it's cheap.

Tos, you're probably right. Putting an XFF in a convoy escort role is a waste of its strategic speed. But it would probably be defending convoys more than defending the border.

The 240 degree phasers come from Module P6, which was retyped in the X2 Library thread:

---

Quote:

The one thing that I can promise you is that X2 will not be anything like the disastrous Supplement #2 of a decade ago.

WHAT WILL THE SHIPS BE LIKE?
If I have come to any single conclusion regarding the ships of Module X2, it is that just taking every ship and adding a few phasers and some power (as was done in Module X1) is not going to get the job done. We need to think in terms of an entirely new generation of warships.

It's a fair bet that the ships will have more reserve power, but we may accomplish that with a number of special function capacitors instead of just goosing up the batteries.

Perhaps the only detail that seems certain is that phasers will be grouped into a small number of larger groups with broader firing arcs. For example, a Federation 2X-CA might have six FX phasers in the saucer rather than having two LS, two RS, and two FH.

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 07:52 pm: Edit

Jeff,

I suspect that any Fed warship of that period, even a lowly frigate, will retain at least some drone capability. They are simply too useful to completely forego.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 08:35 am: Edit

---

Quote:

MJC, I disagree. The XFF should have a probe launcher, but if the ship encounters something THAT dangerous, it needs to call in a bigger ship. What makes the XFF worth building is that it's cheap.

---

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 11:47 am: Edit

Jeff, I think that line by SVC is not going to survive his own review of X2 when that time comes. Simply put it would make things too easy for the player.
I too have considered the change to Fa+R and FA +L, but am not sure of the benefits is worth the change.
What is better would be to eliminate RH phasers and beef up the 360s somewhat. That would increase firepower without becoming too ridiculous.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 11:54 am: Edit

MJC,

Sure you can use probe drones for gathering information on monsters. That is one of the reasons given in (FD6.0) for there development. Prode drones are restricted availablity (25%). A monster's MCIDS will fire at at a probe drone. So you are going to have one or two probe drones in the drone load out.

The probe launcher has five (standard) or eight (proposed). Probes are DF launched, require energy for arming, and can be used as a weapon. Ships need to retain the probe launcher.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 12:01 pm: Edit

Carl,

I dunno. We asked him as recently as last year if he intended to stick to the information he put in P6, and he said yes. Having FX and RX weapons is not a problem, provided you balance those arcs with the quality and number weapons. For an XCA with 4 FX phasers and 2 RX, that isn't too bad. But 6 FX and 4 RX is probably overkill.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 12:10 pm: Edit

An FX phaser suite for everyone would ruin racial flavor and make inter-racial ships and tactics too similar. Having all races rely on the phaser as the big stick is merely repeating the mistakes of X projects past.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 12:40 pm: Edit

The general impression I have is the X2 cruisers will in many respects follow the GW war CA pattern for each race. It appears the two races that use FX forward phasers are the Klingons and Romulans. The Feds use FH and the rest appear to use FA+L and FA+R. For X2 I would suggest that only the Feds chnage their forward arc change to FX. keep the rear hulls arc the same as on GW and X1 ships.

Example Fed: An RH rear phaser on a GW cruiser (P-1 or P-3) uses an RH arc. For the X2 cruiser with a phaser in the same location should use an RH arc also. It is diffcult to see how an X2 cruiser could have these phasers now able to fire into the L and R arcs. Centerline rear and mid-hull pairs are a different issue. A centerline rear pair (or single) I could see using an RX arc. X2 Mid-hull mounts could use the 360 arc.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 12:56 pm: Edit

Tos, I agree with that. The phaser cannot be the heavy weapon of choice.

The two Fed ships I put on Brodie's page were an XCA with 6FX and 2 360 ph-5 (in the same place as the CC's), and an XDD that used the same saucer but no rear phasers.

I would also like to avoid putting RX phasers on a Fed, since it would make the Fed want to line up his shot on the oblique. That's too much like a Klingon mirror match.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 02:01 pm: Edit

Good observation, Jeff.
Myself I look at the whole picture for my X2 project; if I introduce improvement X for a race then I must ask the question why not others got it too. Turnmodes, for example, if the Fed get TM C then why shouldn't the Klinks (who clearly was more skilled at that aspect of design) get better turnmodes too? And if a Klingon CA get a TM of A, then should the SC 4 ships get AA?(!)

So getting FX for Feds, means the question why the FEDs and ROMs don't ger 360 arc WILL come up.
And there will really be no good answer, as it technically was wrong from the start (IMO).

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 02:28 pm: Edit

I still think (as I have argued before, and I think Mike Raper agrees, or at least used to) that there is one race that should definately be "phaser-heavy" in the X2 era, and that's the Tholians. This is simply a logical consequence of the web/phaser interaction. I would like to see Tholian ships with disruptors/photons still at the X1 level, but with more phaser firepower than their counterparts in other races, whether this is achieved through a "Tholian-unique" phaser like Mike's proposed "phaser-x" or simply an unusually large battery of phaser-5s.

Webs make the balance between phasers and torpedos different for the Tholians than for every other race in Alpha.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 02:50 pm: Edit

The Tholians are in a war of survival against the Selts (even though they are not currently around they know they are coming) and will likely continue on a war footing.

If there is to be a race that does not receive X2 tech, I'd like it to be the Tholians. Their needs are very different from every other Empire and should be met in differnt ways.

Lets solve what to do about the Tholians last.