MJC, You are probably the only person to think of the Gx-rack as a probe launcher.

For a ship that isn't a specialized scientific research vessel, the Special Bridge is a huge (and IMHO, sufficient) improvement in the research capabilities of the ship.

The Special Bridge has the same ability as a Special Sensor for gathering intelligence. A Special Sensor + Lab combo generates 10 science points at range 15, while a lab by itself only generates 1 point 1/6 of the time at range 9.

OTOH, I can see the value of putting drone racks on an XGSC or some other science ship, for the very reason you give.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 12:30 am: Edit

MJC: Umm, at the very least X2 ships will be scouts for info gathering just like X1 (we don't even need to discuss special bridge).

Feds also get more probes than other races and those probes might be better than earlier versions (I proposed that new probes actually work like probe drones and the launcher is capable of launching both types but not actual drones since the new probe is not shaped the same).

Many ships aren't going to be on an exploration mission but capitol ships and cruisers might. These ships would retain drones racks. Additionally Destroyers would as well being the only X2 ship that remains a true warship (IMO).

Energy to arm a probe is cheeper than the cost of storing and maintaining a probe drone I imagine.

Also, as I mentioned before, the drones can be added in times of need as a refit, except this time it will be even easier since they would replce the NWO spaces on the multi-mission units.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 12:37 am: Edit

Hey guys, I just thought of something. Remmeber the whole thing about my proposal where the CA (or CM) and CC were different classes and many of you didn't like that idea of a CC being a totally different hull than that of the CA?

Well, it just hit me. How about a new class to replace what I was calling a X-Command Cruiser: Capitol Cruiser. Still XCC and there would be no Command Cruiser as the CA would have all the command capabilities anyway.

Capitol Cruiser would fit the definition of what I had designed too. Which was a X2 unit based on the BCH (per the line in the X rules regarding what X2 is). Also I had proposed that these Cruisers would be limited like a DN and function as fleet flagship (so each race would get one each year, one per border fleet + home and then around again to a max of two per border + 1 home and 1 Special).

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 12:44 am: Edit

Jeff and Loren,

Interesting posts. For the X2 G rack how many spaces and how many reloads? Is there any thought to going back to a 4 space G rack with 3-4 reloads; a X2 B rack with 6 spaces that fires 2x per turn, and Jeffs suggested X2 C rack, 4 spaces that fires 3x per turn?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 01:30 am: Edit

Some time ago I had proposed that X1 was a sub-set of X2. That much of what was X1 was actually results of a work in progress (of course this can be said in any case right?). The need for more powerful units drove X1 but drone technology had already been driven for quite some time so X1 actually had the pinicle of drone technology available to it.

That said I proposed that most drone tech remain the same as X1 (racks and frames) and that X2 would only introduce new modules.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 02:11 am: Edit

For everyone except the Kzintis, use X0 or X1 racks. The Kzintis get a new rack that can hold 4 and fire 3 per turn (i.e., shoot everything at once, if one of the drones is a big one.)

For everyone except the Klingons, use X0 or X1 modules. I'll post my new proposal for Klingon drones in the drone thread.

Key question

Ship classes

I have posted this before, and it has been critiqued as "plain vanilla", but I think it's a starting point from which the other proposals are varients.

This is also based on a political situation being similar to Y130.

MC 1 1/2 - Never built.
X-tech didn't work on DNs during the GW, and it still doesn't. By Y205, an XCA is the equal of a DN in combat power, but is much cheaper and upgradeable. The ship class follows the line of the wet-navy battleship: Supreme in its time, but its time has passed.

MC 1 1/4 - Never built.
Same reason.

MC 1 (XCA) - Fleet flagship.
Fills the role of a GW DN or MY CC. Rare, impressive, and an enforcer.

MC 2/3 (XCL) - Mainline cruiser. Not a "war" cruiser.
Fills the role the CA did in the Middle Years. Do the dirty work, patrol the front lines, handle the important duties.

MC 1/2 (DD) - Workhorse.
Fills the role the FF and DD did in MY. Sent to places that weren't important enough for a cruiser, or used as part of a squadron when a cruiser was needed but unavailable.

MC 1/3 (FF) - Support ship.
Usually seen in the backwaters, as it is too small and vulnerable to handle mainline combat. It is also seen as a source of varient ships.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 03:23 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Energy to arm a probe is cheeper than the cost of storing and maintaining a probe drone I imagine.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 04:54 am: Edit

On Federation philosophy.

Question:- Why does the Fed SC have 8 scout channels?
Answer:- Because it has 8 Labs.
Question:- Why does it have 8 Labs?
Answer:- Because the Fed DD has 8 Labs.
Question:- Why does the Fed DD have 8 Labs.
Answer:- Because the Fed CA has 8 Lab boxes.
Question:- Why does the Fed CA have 8 Lab boxes.
Answer:- Well you see...

...You know how it has been written that 8 Lab boxes is little better than 6 Lab boxes and two hull boxes!?!
Well it's not actually true, not when dealing with SPACE MONSTER scenarios, where 8 Lab boxes is 33% better than 6 and 100% better than 4...addmitedly the Probe launcher causes ship with four Labs to have some chance of collecting scientific information and ship with four ( like the Klingon D7 ) tend to also have drone racks that can provide probe drones, but basically the Federation doctrine is different to the design philosophy of other galactic powers.

Specifically, if an agro-planet with a population of 150 men women and children is destroyed by a space monster, most Empires will say then even in a hundred years the ecconomic value of that planet will not be worth the value of a lost vessel and thus the correct S.O.P. is to send the right ship (a GSV or scout) to deal with the planet.
Federation S.O.P states that the morale loss in the sector of having an entire planet of 150 souls lost to some monster will be so great that it will put a dent in taxation and thus reduce the number of ship that can be built to such a degree that it is better to send a ship ( any ship ) right frigging now, to deal with the space monster than to send the right ship to deal with the problem but have it arrive after the planet is dust...and since you are sending ANY ship, EVERY ship has to be pretty darn good at dealing with space monsters, hence the Fed CA, CC, DD and SC all have 8 Lab boxes.


This then would have a flow on effect in the trade wars period. Since Fed ships need to be able to deal with monsters before the monster becomes a threat to the morale of the Federation rather than before it becomes a threat to the ecconomy, they need good monbster handling abilities and probe drones help in that.
If an XFF has 4 Labs and a probe launcher and 2 G-racks, it has to get dangerously close to the monster in order to gather more information from the Lab/Probe-launcher combo than she'll get from the Probe drones...but she'll be awful good at dealing with monsters if she has all three systems.


If there was a rule that dring the trade wars period X1 and X2 ships ( especially Fed ships ) had an entire reload that was purely probe drones, then I could follow that particularly as the tradewars period are supposed to be a period of relative peace.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 06:02 am: Edit

Oops.

Question:- Why does the Fed DD have 8 Labs?
Answer:- Because the Fed CA has 8 Lab boxes.
Question:- Why does the Fed CA have 8 Lab boxes?

...most Empires will say that even in a hundred years the ecconomic value of that planet will not be worth the value of a lost vessel and thus the correct S.O.P. is to send the right ship (a GSV or scout) to deal with the monsterplanet.

...monbster monster...

...that during the...

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 08:05 am: Edit

Some thoughts on the above.

I humbly disagree about Feds and Drones. One thing they had to learn from the GW was that drones are a huge improvement to a ships abilities. Not including racks on X2 ships would imply that they either have something better, or didn't learn a thing from the GW. So, an improved G rack is in order, I think.

Types of racks. I have been experimenting with a BX rack and advanced ADD launcher for the klingons, so that they don't have the same launcher as the Feds do. Works like the B rack of old, but has two magazines and three reloads. The ADD launcher has three reloads as well.

Re: Jeff's ship. 325 seems a bit low. The ship has 52 points of warp, four 12 point photons, 8 heavy phasers that can fire in any direction within 270 degrees, good shields, an ASIF, four "any system" boxes that can be changed at will during the scenario, a three-box bridge and a turn mode of C. I think that ship can easily whip a BB, and needs the higher BPV.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 08:05 am: Edit

Nope. The Federation Scout has 8 scout channels because the 4 photons and 4 of its phasers were replaced by special sensors. (This is based on the Star Fleet Technical Manual by FJ.) It really has nothing to do with the number of labs; the '+' refit replaced half the labs with power, and it still has 8 scout channels. No other race replaced so many weapons with special sensors. Therefore only the Federation has an 8 sensor scout.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 12:13 pm: Edit

M.R.:

---

Quote:

I humbly disagree about Feds and Drones. One thing they had to learn from the GW was that drones are a huge improvement to a ships abilities. Not including racks on X2 ships would imply that they either have something better, or didn't learn a thing from the GW. So, an improved G rack is in order, I think.

---

By George M. Ebersole (George) on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 11:25 pm: Edit

I wasn't sure where to put this, so I'll put it here; http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v149/Warped9/ConjecturalRefit1.jpg

By George M. Ebersole (George) on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 04:16 pm: Edit

No comments on the picture?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 05:01 pm: Edit

Say, that's pretty neat. An interesting mix of TOS and TMP.

By George M. Ebersole (George) on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 09:04 pm: Edit

Thanks, Loren. Yeah, I thought it was a pretty nifty bit of art there. Myself that's how I picture a first-gen X-ship.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 12:51 am: Edit

If I may suggest: Blue in the warp drive nacelles instead of yellow/green.

Dunno if the ADB has given ot anything official colorwise, I just think it'd look good.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 12:58 am: Edit

I'd think that would be a fine design for X1 except that the rules state that the X1 and the X0 ships are indistinguishable.

Fortunately that is not the case for X2!

My X2 Cruiser design

The rule book mentions that X-Tech could not be applied to the BCH hull but that eventually those limitations were overcome and that these ships were X2. I also think that any X2 design would have lessons learned applied to those designs. Lower engines were a tech advancement that certainly would be part of the X2 cruiser design.

I modified, with permission and grant, a picture of the Enterprise from the Star Fleet Museum.

By George M. Ebersole (George) on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 02:04 am: Edit

That's a pretty sharp looking pic, Loren.

Myself, I always pictured X2 stuff as being Motion Picture/Wrath of Kahn era type of ships. But that's just me.

I like your picture a lot.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 02:17 am: Edit

G.M.E.:

My goodness that's good.


Guru L.K.:

What are you doing getting your human figures published!?!...this stuff is right on the money!

By George M. Ebersole (George) on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 02:17 am: Edit

John; not a bad idea. It's not my pic though, so you'd have to email the guy who runs the website.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 04:12 am: Edit

Wow pretty cool designs.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 11:34 am: Edit

Just for fun I thought I'd repost some of my old X2 concept art.

Fed XCM The idea was that the big X2 cruiser was expensive and served as fleet flags while this ship was the workhorse with internal counts similar to a standard CA.

Klingon XBC This beastie has forward swept wings that place the engine more around the center of gravity for increase maneuverability. It would have a Turn Mode like a D7. It's disruptors and Phaser arrangement would be similar to the C7 (with Ph-5's of course). This ship is a nod to the later Trek designs but still with a fully TOS/SFU feel.

Klingon XDD Slightly smaller than D5 it has somewhat better redundancy. Arcs on weapons are killer due to the physical layout. Disruptors are engine mounted, two FX boom Ph-5, two wing LS/RS Ph-5 (sometime Ph1X) and three rear Ph-1X RH (below the shuttle bay).


None of these were all that popular a few years ago but that's OK. They were fun to design.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 10:39 pm: Edit

George,

What I was suggesting was something like this:

http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/x1/ConjecturalRefit1v.jpg

...only done by a real artist, not me.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 10:54 pm: Edit

Not bad at all John.