Heres a Proposal:

Automatically move any and all posts of MJC regarding X2 to the Humor section.

Now Seriously...

For the record (and for what its worth) Im firmly in the X2 is more capable than X1 generally, but not necissarily in Combat.

My opinion is that X1 should be treated as the Fleets DNs, called in for Firepower missions which is what they excell at.

X2 is what is used to do everything else.
I dont believe it IS possible to build better than the X1 loadout without becoming Munchkin.( at least until there is a need for it)

Remember that the Empires are recoving from a DEVESTATING war economically.
It makes no sense to build more heavy warship designs even with all this new technology - what are needed are picket and explorer ships or ships with this capacity as their primary missions.
i.e if your picket sees something 'bad' that it cant handle its mission would be to shadow and give location info for the X1 fleet to come and deal with it.

P-5s and P-6s are probably Ok as an advancement if kept in limited numbers on Vessels.

I dont see new X2 cruisers being built as there shouldnt be a need for them at THIS period of history.

X2 frigates and/or Survey classes yes, in order to reestablish and enforce the Empires Borders.

Look at all Empires Survey ships (GSC, D7/6E, SpH-C etc) How can X2 make them MORE capable in the roles that these classes perform? Putting bigger/more guns on them (with the exception of the SpH I suppose) does NOTHING for their mission, and its precisely the sort of choice that the Empires will be needing to make. The classic Economist problem of 'Guns or Butter'

Why throw away classes that do their job well in order to replace them with shiney new cruisers?
X1 refits for labs etc will make more sense.

All the 'fast-build' War designs will be sold off or scrapped as they are just not needed.

So this is my vision for 'Trade War' era Fleets

X1 War fleet - This is the combat core of the fleet. Consisting of the X1 ships that survive the GW/ISC/Andro war, plus some gradual new construction.

GW era Survey Fleet - consisting of GSCs and Scouts, maybe even PFTs. Modified Space Control ships may be an option here as well (acting as Survey Command Vessels). There may be some X1 Scout ships and Xp GSCs here if they arent all being required for the X1 Combat fleet.

X2 Picket Fleet - This is all new construction. Primarily Frigate and maybe destroyer class picket/Patrol ships. These ships will be fast and well capable for their size, but need to be flexible enough to perform many and any mission. Most importantly they should be cheaper to build than a cruiser but with a similar effectiveness in general missions, otherwise why bother building them. They should NOT be able to equal a Late War CA in combat effectiveness/firepower/survivability but would probably give anything earlier a fair run for its money. Certainly I see them as a match for CLs and even NCLs ie precisly the older classes that have been sold off.( so just as a ball park these should have an EBPV of say 75-90 with a BPV of 125 )

Old stuff - Late War Dreadnoughts and Battle Cruisers being relegated as Monitors or mobile Command centers. Generally not common any more.


Remember this is all based on the post Andro war period, where the only fear is that there MAY be further Andro incursions, and the Empires know that they are all too badly hurt to prosecute a war with each other.
The Andros they can defeat as they have the knowledge and the tools to fight them now, so for now they can focus on reestablishing the Empire.

No mention or thought is proposed for the Xorks - they are not even a known threat at this point in time, so there are no proposed MJC refits etc - the X2 ships are as good as they can make at this time.

Please feel free to comment on all of the above - Im quite happy to discuss this further.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 07:19 pm: Edit

Nikolaus, I wanted to send you an email but your profile doesn't include it. I want to read more of your comments but you need to add your email address.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 07:54 pm: Edit

I agree with much of what Nikolaus says; been saying it myself, actually, for a long time. X2 should be better overall, but not necessarily at combat. X1 ships were made for that express purpose, and it shows. X2 shouldn't be.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 08:35 pm: Edit

Amen, brother.

By Nikolaus Athas (Nycathis) on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 09:10 pm: Edit

Hmm I cant fix up my profile for now but if you need to contact me my work email is nathas@bea.com, while my home email is nikolaus@optusnet.com.au

Im currently at work - (Thats what you get for working in the IT support industry - on a public holiday yet - shesh!)

In the mean time I dont see a problem continuing this discussion here as well.

By Nikolaus Athas (Nycathis) on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 09:23 pm: Edit

Adding a little more detail - more brainstorming I suppose.

Survey Command Vessels aka refitted SCS:

Change 12 Fighter to:

6 cargo
3 Heavy Shuttle

Standard exploration load is 3 Scout PF, 3 Std PF

Standard mission consists of SCV enetering a system and commencing Long range survey ops, 3 pairs of PF boost to nearby systems or points of interest. Hvy Shuttles are there for Ground operations/Surveys

XFFs should definately have some form of NWO bay maybe as large as 6 boxes.
Im going to try and put together my opinion of an XFF together if things slow downm a bit here

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 11:42 pm: Edit

There should be an XCA for each race.

Now, whether the Order of Battle says that it is unique, or built by the dozen really doesn't matter to me, as long as the SSD gets in the module.

By Nikolaus Athas (Nycathis) on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 12:18 am: Edit

@Jeff: I agree that eventually there will be a XCA design but in my opinion the earliest we would see anything like that would be at the end of the Trade War Era as prototypes, once the Economies have stabilized and tensions start to rise again, just in time for the first wave of Xorkian agression.

At no time am I saying that there never will be XCAs, just that so soon after 30 odd years of total war and the economy in ruins the last thing the military will be able to get budget for is brand new expensive ships.

Actually it may be the Xorkian destruction of an X1 ship or fleet responding to an X2 Frigate that leads to the development of these larger classes.

ie theres something new coming from Corewards, its big its bad and it eats our combat cruisers for snacks...

Alternatively the end of the Trade War era can be attributed to the widespread rise of the XCAs, followed a few years after by the Xorkian threat.

But its all good Jeff, nothing IM saying is cannon. Its just my idea of a possible backround.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 05:50 am: Edit

Nikalous has convinced me to developed an XCM design that was still MC1 but thoroughly watered down by ecconomic restrictions.

It'll have no room for refit and be cheap to and have low firepower.

By Nikolaus Athas (Nycathis) on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 06:08 pm: Edit

Well consider this my Xmas present to the board!

(Getting MJC to try and design something reasonable)

By Allan MacKenzie-Graham (Amg) on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 12:02 pm: Edit

I would like to make a modest proposal. Module X1 already contains a few X2 ships. Since X2 ships are redesigns from the keel up, the D5X and a few other ships in X1 are in fact X2 ships. They have been designed with X-technology in mind from the start, taking advantage of previous designs (such as the D5's extended disruptor arcs). The D5X is the only Klingon ship in X1 that cannot be converted to. Theoretically, one could take a Y134 F5 to an X-starbase and refit it into an FX. As such, the D5X (or the Fed DDX) is in fact the first X2 design. This isn't to say that it won't be subject to refits in the following 20+ years to include X2 tech that is being discussed in other forums, but that it is the first of it's kind.
To further the point, I believe that it should actually be named the D8. Unlike the Fed CAX, one shouldn't be able to cover up a few ports and pretend that it is a plain vanilla CA anymore than one could disguise a C7 to look like a D7.
The D5X (D8), the first X2 ship, not just a refit with X-tech.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 04:46 pm: Edit

Why make and differentiation beween X1 and X2 if they use the exact-scame rules?

What's so special about being being designed and built for X-tech?

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 04:50 pm: Edit

Allan,

That might work from a historical standpoint, but that doesn't help with selling Module X2.

New designs are needed. And I don't mean "new" in the sense of "can't refit a ship into this", but "new" in the sense of "none of the players have seen ti before."

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 05:42 pm: Edit

Doesn't work even then. Nowhere in X1 does it say that all X1 designs are conversions. The first ships were, it's true, but there were plenty of new builds in the X1 fleets. A new build does not an X2 ship make; it's the technology and systems involved.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 06:22 pm: Edit

X2 is also defined as a higher tech level in GPD.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 09:28 pm: Edit

X1R could easily have some totally off the wall designs using X1 tech but in new and different ways.

By Allan MacKenzie-Graham (Amg) on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 01:34 am: Edit

John: I'm not saying that they should use exactly the same rules, just that the D5X could be the first X2 ship. Like the introduction of the D6 ended the EY (even though EY ships continued to be in use for decades afterwards), the introduction of the D5X (D8) begins the X era. The thing to keep in mind is that the D5X is not a D5. It is the new light cruiser, not a modified war cruiser. The D5X can be refitted with any of the new X2-tech that comes out, whereas the venerable D7 tops out at X1. Perhaps a better way of saying it is that the D5X is a precursor to X2. What I mean by designed for X-tech is that the engineers start with the fact that this ship can move 7 F&E hexes, that it will make mid-turn speed changes more often, that it will fire more weapons more often than GW ships. In effect what this will mean is that like the D6 was released from EY restrictions, the D5X will be released from GW or even X1 restrictions when the appropriate X2 tech comes along.
It is the first X2 ship because it can receive X2 tech, wheras the older designs cannot.

Jeff: Absolutely agree. I'm dying to see the F7 or the D9, or what have you. I think that the D5X should be the starting point for thinking about these new designs. Expanded weapon arcs, slightly larger hulls that can accomodate refits and conversions, etc.

Mike: Yes, most X1 ships probably were new builds, but they were still built on the old CA and D7 hull designs. The D5X is a completely new design (and as such should have been given another name, hence D8), a CL not a CW. To use a ridiculous analogy, you couldn't put 15 inch guns on an 1850's ship of the line, but you could on a 1930 battleship that was designed to carry 12 inch guns.

Loren: Technology is a continuum, especially when you look across multiple kinds of technology. Perhaps the D5X is the first ship that uses technology that will fully be realized years later. Think that vacuum tubes outperformed the first transistors, but as transistor technology developed they gained the upper hand. Think of the D5X as an early transistor and the DX as a highly developed vacuum tube.

Michael: I am an incrementalist, so I like small logical steps (I am a scientist.) Nothing too crazy for me, I just want a logical progression, not a sea change. I think that many players feel that X1 was too different from GW and therefor refuse to play with X-ships. X2 should not be too far from X1 or even less players will go for it.

BTW, I speak of the D5X, but this is also true for the Fed DDX, the Gorn HDX (also a new light cruiser) and others. I would like to add that I would be interested in some races pursuing X1-tech with their fleets and others pursuing X2 until it becomes clear that all fleets must modernize or be left behind.

Does this make sense, or did I just muddy the waters further?

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 09:18 am: Edit

AMG: "To use a ridiculous analogy, you couldn't put 15 inch guns on an 1850's ship of the line, but you could on a 1930 battleship that was designed to carry 12 inch guns."

Indeed, the US Navy "Colorado"-class battleship was the earlier "Tennessee" design with double 16-inch turrets instead of triple 14-inch.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 09:47 am: Edit

Allen MacKenzie-Graham,

I'm afraid I'm not convinced by your argument. You state that "The D5X can be refitted with any of the new X2-tech that comes out..." but you don't cite any reference for this assertion. I'll check my books when I get home, but I sure don't remember anything being published that supports this. Is this your own inference or do you have a reference somewhere?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 09:57 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Mike: Yes, most X1 ships probably were new builds, but they were still built on the old CA and D7 hull designs. The D5X is a completely new design (and as such should have been given another name, hence D8), a CL not a CW. To use a ridiculous analogy, you couldn't put 15 inch guns on an 1850's ship of the line, but you could on a 1930 battleship that was designed to carry 12 inch guns.

---

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 10:05 am: Edit

Kinda.

The D5X(and all CWXs) is based on a D5 that is not built cheaply by "cutting corners". Its why you cannot convert them from existing D5 hulls. The D5 hulls made for the X-tech were built as full lifespan warship hulls, rathern than the low lifespan "War" Classes that had a much lower life expectancy.

Now, that's all economics. The SSDs are basically the same.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 10:07 am: Edit

I see. Thanks! So basically, we're talking a quality change, not a design change. Sort of like the difference between the standard model of a car and the super-luxury edition. Same car design, but one has better parts and goodies than the other.

Another thing to note; the book states that X2 ships appeared after Y205. The D5X was available long before then. I could see, perhaps, in the game history a blurb about how the D5X lead to the development of X2 ships for the Klingons through lessons of experience, but would not be an X2 ship in and of itself.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 10:21 am: Edit

That makes sense to me.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 12:06 pm: Edit

Ah, shucks. It figures that I'd forget my Battleships book on the very day that I would want to quote from it...

Anyway, in that book ("Battleships: An Illustrated Design History", by Norman Friedman) a naval architect is quoted on the differences between English and American design practices. He states that English shipyards prefer quickness over workmanship; he cites things such as lightening holes and other detail work, and rivet installations. He comments that English ships were usually completed faster than the equivalent American ship, but they often wound up grossly overweight compared to the design estimate (with a consequent need to drive the engines harder and shorten their life.)

I imagine that it's much the same with War Cruisers; there are many inefficiencies that could be corrected by another few months in the shipyard that shorten the design's life, but those don't come into play at the scale of SFB. For example, maybe the tuning of the antimatter injectors isn't held to as tight a standard, so the magnetic sheath burns through in a few months instead of a decade or more. Or the quality checks in the disruptor power-transfer unit are done with a larger gage than is really appropriate, so the holes in the combiner aren't drilled as precisely and the unit gets so hot that the disruptor crew has to operate it remotely.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 12:11 pm: Edit

Hey, I've got that book. Good, but very technical. Not exactly light reading.