How about National gaurd ships to X1 TEC.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 08:00 am: Edit

---

Quote:

The NCL and DW engines use the same hot-warp technology used for the engines used on the CF. Part or the main reason the CF and NCF (and DNL) are fast is the reduced hull structure. See Module R6 (R0.0). I don't know of any reference to "fast warp".

---

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 09:06 am: Edit

Mike,

Perhaps same and outgrowth mean different things in the context. Below is a direct quote. Please note fast warp isn't a term used in this section. I don't know if the term or phrase, fast warp, is used anywhere else.

(R0.0) Fast Cruisers: ..."They were an an outgrowth of the same "hot warp" technology that yielded the war cruisers and war destroyers-ships with more warp power than was needed for top tactical speeds."

Hope this clears up what I was trying to say.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 02:55 pm: Edit

...but that doesn't mean Hot Warp = Fast Warp.

A single tech advance in warp drive could be used two ways.

1) to make smaller, more powerful engines suited for mass production (Hot Warp)

2) to make full-size engines that are superior in performance and reliability, presumably at a greater cost. (Fast Warp)

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 04:16 pm: Edit

John,

Yes I would agree. Something is different between the NCL engines and those used for the CF besides size. NCL engines were able to be mass produced but the CF engines had production problems

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 08:09 am: Edit

---

Quote:

A single tech advance in warp drive could be used two ways.

---

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 09:29 am: Edit

MJC
A telescope is NOT just a microscope looking through the other end. Try it and see how far you get.
regards
Stacy

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 12:42 pm: Edit

...moreover both stem from two-lens optics.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 12:02 am: Edit

I get it that the focal lengths of the lenses need to be set for each optical divice...sheesh.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 02:21 pm: Edit

...is that all you get?

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 11:52 pm: Edit

Besides figuring out MJC has been looking through the wrong end of his telescope and me not understanding fast warp from hot warp where can we go with the idea of post GW fast XP ships?

I like the idea Tos suggested "If production of hot-warp ships were to convert to fast-warp an empire could cover the same ground while relying on fewer hulls and less cost." My impression is the Fed CF engines had production problems but I don't remember that this was a problem for other races.

An assumption then is what ever the production/technical problems were these could be solved. The second assumption is a fast ship doesn't require a streamlined hull shape just a reduction in the number of heavy weapons. Are these two assumptions reasonable? Is the class of ship we are looking at a fast CW? Such as an NCL with different engines (2x15 warp or 3x9 warp) and reduced number of photons and a few extra phasers.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 02:08 am: Edit

A fast ship DOES require hll modifications, however.

If you want to bull your way to a faster startegic speed, you need X1 engines.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 09:43 am: Edit

Lets take that path a bit further. If we were to create a new build D5X with fewer phasers and 24 X-Warp, would it be a ship class we would want to propagate? Basically take a D5K SSD and fly it with full X-rules.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 10:32 am: Edit

I think that would be a plausible ship, if it were sufficiently less expensive than the true D5X. "Sufficiently less expensive" doesn't necessarily mean build cost. Suppose, hypothetically, that the two 12-box warp engines are not the FX engines, but a full size D5X engine that has been "de-tuned" to produce less raw power but also has much lower maintenance requirements. Assume the ship has the same strategic speed/range as the "real" D5X but is much cheaper to maintain, long term. In combat capability it falls somewhere between a D5X and an FX. Is that a plausible ship? It seems to me it might be. In F&E, O&M (operations and maintenance) costs are abstracted out of the system. But really, they would be a huge factor in the overall "life-cycle cost" of the ship.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 11:00 am: Edit

So, you'd have Ph-3's on a suposed full X-ship?

I can't see a straight conversion happening (D5K SSD as X-Tech).

At least you'd have the D5C with the Ph-3's converted to Ph-1 with 30 warp.
(dang, I'm missing my D5X SSD's!)

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 12:14 pm: Edit

Basically I'm talking about X-rules ships that don't have too much warp and too many phasers. It doesn't have to be exact box-for-box match but yes, I would like to see some ships mount non-P1 on X tech.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 12:21 pm: Edit

Loren,

I'm not quite sure what you mean. A D5C with 30 warp? That means it has X-technology engines like the D5X. But currently, you can't get those engines by "XP" upgrades. You have to go all the way to the full D5X. Are you proposing an XP upgrade that allows X-tech engines? If you're not, then (as I said), I'm not sure what you're getting at.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 12:34 pm: Edit

No, I thought someone was proposing a new lighter production version of a D5 based X-ship.

I guess I didn't review the topic back far enough. Sorry.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 12:53 pm: Edit

Loren,

Well, that's also what I thought Tos was proposing. I think he wants "X-ships" that aren't quite the combat monsters of the current versions (and are presumably cheaper to operate as a result.) You'll note his 09:43 am post specified "24 X-Warp". Since that's the same warp power as a standard D5, I presumed the reference to X-Warp meant it would still be "fast" in the F&E sense, even if its tactical power levels were more like those of a standard D5 (though with better reserve power since it apparently has full-X batteries). My comment about "de-tuned" X-engines to meet the power requirements was an attempt to find a rationale.

"Real world", lots of engines are tuned for maintainability and service life rather than maximum power. What good does the extra power do you if, when the bad guys attack, your jet is grounded anyway because of excessive engine wear?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 01:02 pm: Edit

Addendum to last post.

Real world, radars and other systems that transmit electronic signals at very high power levels are also sometimes de-tuned, and for a similar reason. A minor reduction in transmitter power can sometimes make a big difference in MBTF (Mean Time Between Failures) and subsequent system availability.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 02:21 pm: Edit

One of the big things that we know is that these ships are going to be built with the very small "X Points" part of an empire's budget.

These ships will be competing directly with X-ships for scarce resources. What follows is not a rhetorical question.

Tell me why an empire would spend close to the same resources on an X-Lite ship instead of a Full-X ship. Make that answer relevant to the ISC Pacification Program or the Andro War. What does a D5X-Lite give us that we'd want to spend part of the limited X-resources on it?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 02:37 pm: Edit

My head is still in the trade wars so its harder for me to justify this as an ISC/Andro ship. During the trade wars an X1 warship is overkill, an X2 ship is great but expensive and limited production, and a D5K is cheap but slow.

Allowing a D5K to be built with 24-box X-warp could potentially allow the ship to be faster (cover more ground, operate better in mixed squadrons) while being significantly less costly than a full D5X.

If it helps, think of it as taking a D5XP and strapping on the 24-box engines from an FX.

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 02:47 pm: Edit

John
The only possible justification for widescale production is if say you got say 3 X-lites for the cost of two "X Classics". Partials make sense during the era during the transition as they are perfecting the technology (In fact I recall references in the rules to just such).

That's the only possible justification I can see. But I'm getting the impression the price break wouldn't be that great.
regards
Stacy

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 08:32 pm: Edit

It has been said that XP will never be in F&E and I think that it doesn't need to be. If we can accept that historically any XP refits were never extreme (i.e., no ship was totally XP'ed out) then the difference is just a few BPV and will not cost any X-EP in F&E (maybe one for all refits and those were subsumed into the R&D budget).

A D5K will mostly benefit from X-BATTS, although a coupel X-Phasers in the nose could be handy. Going beyond that (level of investment) you are putting advanced technology on a hull that has redundancy issues. Better to invest in a full D5X which is something way beyond what XP could ever do to the D5 hull.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 10:47 pm: Edit

The draft XP rules states X warp engine upgrades did not happen independant of a complete X-conversion (XR1.11). One either has a D5X or a D5 with some XP refit systems. The starting idea was a fast cruiser with with XP tech.

The BPV for: Fed DDF is 109 (DD+ is 100); NCL+ is 124; DDX is 170; NCF is 163 (NCA is 147). If a fast NCL is about +10% BPV then it would be 138. Does one gain much over a FFX at 112 BPV? Also full X conversions of other non war production ships haven't be published. The FFB can be fully X converted. The FBX would fit between the FFX and DDX.

Using the NCF as an example aditional DDFs could be produced with a different set of smaller fast warp engines. The BPV with XP batteries added appears to be low enough to allow limited production.