Can we please remember to have corrected BPVs for X ships not in module X placed in X1R. E.g the DGX and D5XD in CL16 which weren't covered by the CL23 corrections.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 08:30 am: Edit

G3 would be a good place for corrections too.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 11:01 am: Edit

G2 doesn't have the corrected BPV's?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 03:06 pm: Edit

G2 has the corrected BPVs. It does not contain the BPVs that have not been corrected.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 05:58 pm: Edit

How about the Master Ship Manual? It's in "The Next Round" so that gives us time to fix any other BPVs as well.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 10:11 pm: Edit

While I would love to have the BPV for each ship and each ship refit listed in the Master Ship Manual, I'm not holding my breath. Feel free to suggest a Brodie box in the appropriate thread. You would be a hero to us all.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 02:31 am: Edit

I think I'd rather stay out of the box.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 09:31 pm: Edit

There have been a number of X-ships proposed and discussed but I don't think much has been discussed on support units like small ground and orbital bases and freighters.

The mobile base is in R1. What would an X-mobile base look like? What kinds of different or new ground (reasonable) bases are of interest? Maybe an industrial complex, space port, or capital city complex?

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 12:00 am: Edit

I would imagine those types of bases would also be in a non-X module, if there were enough interest in making a sequel to R1.

The ground-based ph-4 is so under-pointed that it isn't worth it to buy anything else.

For orbital bases, just do an XP refit on whatever systems can take it.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 09:55 am: Edit

I am gearing these ideas for X1R. If I have to wait for R1, second version it will probably never happen.

There is an XBATS, X-Sector base, and X-Starbase. I am wondering about
the XSAMS, XMobile base, and XOps base.

Mobile base: Could the 2xPH-1s be replaced by a single PH-4X, and the 2xPH-3s replaced by 2xPH-1Xs? Are the BAMs and Pods used for the the current X-bases regular tech or X-tech? Some new types of BAMS (XBAMS): a DX drone and ADD30 BAMS; X-heavy power BAMS that also adds 10 boxes to each shield.

Optional shuttle deck (R1.1G5): Could it be upgraded to handle the skiffs and couriers in Mod R8?

Star Fortress: It has been mentioned but I don't know if it has been described. Perhaps the regular and X-tech version could be included. Suggestion: It is a Starbase with an upper deck and lower deck module added. The upper deck could be four BAMS and the lower deck increases the repair, power, labs, and cargo capacity.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 11:53 am: Edit

Joseph Carlson;

I'm not sold on the idea of either a "Star Fort" or X-SAMS.

Regarding the Star Fort; in the CL (don't recall offhand whether it was CL 30 or 31) description of the X-Sector Base there is language suggesting that X-Starbases were already extremely rare because they were so extraordinarily expensive. The Star Fort would be even worse. It seems to me that it would be impossible to justify economically.

The problem with the X-SAMS is that X-tech really doesn't seem to gain you very much on that platform. Even with X-tech a SAMS would be a very weak combat unit, and unlike ships (the X-tech version of the Armed Priority Transport come to mind) you also get no benefit from higher strategic speed and longer range. There might be a place for an X-Mobile Base or Ops Base. But an X-SAMS is still too weak to fight. SAMS are really intended for low threat areas, despite retaining nominal armament. If you're putting a base in an area that is expected to be dangerous, you need a bigger platform to begin with.

Note also that the background material already establishes that well into the "X-tech era", non-X ships still significantly outnumbered X-ships. So I think it is a mistake to look for X-tech conversions of "everything". Rather, I think X-1R should focus on the smaller numbers of platforms that would become ssubstantially more efficient by adopting the still-rare X-tech.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 12:59 pm: Edit

In an odd quirk of the rules, bases might be more effective with a comprehansive XP refit.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 04:09 pm: Edit

A Fed SBX costs 1000 + the six modules. I expect with CO options it will be near 2000 BPV. So I would expect an SBX to be at the Capital planet/hex. I think some form of modular upgrade to an SBX that adds support capacity (construction/conversion/repair) and a small increase in defense abilities would be a viable option for the Capital hex SBX. I agree these would be rarer than SBXs. I am not suggesting a super combat potential structure.

Given what has happened to the Romulan from Remus to the Andros they would be a candidate i.e. they are xenophobic enough.

On the X-Sams I agree; an XP refit might make sense in some cases. The question for all these x bases is are the BAMs and Pods X-tech?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 05:10 pm: Edit

Do we need to upgrade bases more than they already are? Isn't it easier to add def-sats and minefields and attrition units and monitors and fleet elements and planet based units?

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 10:05 pm: Edit

I suppose the point of starting this discussion is just to generate some ideas.

Idea: The SAMs is a very weak combat unit and post GW not very useful in the devasted regions of the various empires. What about an expanded SAMS built on a double weight pod. It could have two BAMs and two pods (cargo and/or repair); one each per side. It could function as a supply point but not a repair point. Give it six NWO boxes and power boxes; use the HDW rules for these. BPV range aroung 50-60.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 02:53 am: Edit

For what it's worth, I can definately see X1 ships being made to lower standards of performance (for a saving in price) during the Trade Wars period as an attempt to get ships that can do the jobs they are needed to do during peace time.

A Fed BCJ isn't a great vessel for scientific research (not bad but the cost of using it for scientific/anti-piracy is immence having exactly the same CUs and BPs to pay the wages of but not getting the X1's ab bonus and having fewer probe drones because of X1 percentages) but a CX converted to a CLX (is this a CS-X???) with an MC of 0.75 and a pair of DDX 12 box warp engines and 2 F-Hull, 2 R-Hull, her Phasers #11 & 12 and one shuttle box and her Flag bridge boxes; all removed and re-organised to create a much smaller rear engineering hull. The net result would be a ship that can deal with monsters and pirates and still handle military activities but can be built in shipyards that can (or the ecconomy can afford to) build X1 ships but not X2.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 12:38 pm: Edit

MJC,

A Federation CLX needs to be built in an NCL yard rather than using the slipway for CA/CB/CX ships and variants. BPV for a DDX is 170, CX is 240, and GSX is 250. So a CLX is a X-lite ship, which does what a pre-GW CA did?

More X-tech ships were build during the Andro war but the number remained small (X0.0). We have discussed in various topics the number of X-ships, which I think includes XP ships. Non-X ships remain the bulk of all fleets. So I question the use of X-tech to make a less combat capable ship. I think the dilema of having a few X-ships in the fleet is what drives the development of X2 ships.

By ART TROTMAN (Drneuro) on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 01:23 pm: Edit

I must admit that I am new to this thread so I am a little confused: why can't the x-ships (1 and 2) represent improvements in technology over general warships, but maybe differ in the focus of those improvements? I do not know if someone has suggested this already but maybe the X1 ships could focus on improved combat ability while the X2 are better all around including improvements in movement(efficiency and maneuvarability), repair ability, shields/defensive capability, labs, electronic warfare/scouts, and power utilization? That way, an X1 ship is better equiped to defeat a non-x or an Andro, due to better weapons and increased efficiency/targetting systems-but against an X2, it would be less able to just destroy its target, due to the all around superiority of the X2-the X2 would have less trouble taking out a gw unit but would be slightly less armed than an X1 unit-in other words, a scenario involving combat only would be served better by picking X1 units; a scenario that involves more than just combat might need a mix of X1 and X2, and a scenario that has some combat but requires special missions and staying power(better ability to repair, defend, etc) would do better with X2. Am I making any sense at all here, or am I just repeating what some have already said-or maybe I am way off base-I can never tell

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 02:33 pm: Edit

Art,

A lot of people kicking this topic around make exactly your distinction between X1 and X2. Others are looking at X2 as a leap ahead in combat damage the way X1 was a leap over GW tech.

There is no consensus because nobody really knows what X2 is like, only what we think it should be like.

In this, your opinion is as good as anyone's, so dive right in.

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 03:02 pm: Edit

What X2 will in large part be born out of discussions in here.
It's my hope that X2 will shake things up a bit requiring people to rethink their tactical approaches to combat.

regards
Stacy

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 10:10 am: Edit

My hope is the X2 will be new and more advanced technology whilst X1R will show us the X1 ships that filled out the less combat oriented roles ( particularly in the trade wars period).

As to combat. I think the X2 cruisers should be a match for the Orion CX and the ISC CCX and that very match up would be something I'ld like to see.
Even if the XCA stays near the CXs (say 250-275 BPV) we would get battles with a different dynamic for each side. The X1s would try to get in close and hammer with their Heavy Weapons ( just consider what the DX can do at R5) whilst the XCA would look to fighting at a distance (R8)where her Ph-5s would be be advantagious and her rugged ASIF protected SSD boxes would be able to avoid getting too extensively damaged...on account of the fact that the DX has a lot of teeth to lose before she becomes toothless...but that assumes she's got power to move and run her ASIF and arm her weapons and even an X2 vessel has to make choices about power.
Admittedly I think an XCL should be the league of a DX but I like my X2 vessel to be a whole GPD tech-level better.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 01:08 pm: Edit

If a fully maxed out X2 Fed XFF+, with twin 24 point photons (with restrictions), 20 points of warp engine power (MC.33), an ASIF, an S-bridge, Full X-Aegis, 5Ph-5s and two GX2-racks slinging 24/8/40 drones and using regenerative shields with 30 shield boxes all round backed up by three 5 point BTTYs, comes in at 180 BPV; she will opperate in a distinctly different manner to the 170 BPV Fed DDX. Please let's not redebate any of these systems here.

The DDX has exactly the same EW and more power with only 6 points less BTTY avilible ( and the same number of BTTYs kills both ships reserve supply ) and the DDX has more phton firepower, firing off four 12 pointers every tuirn or even building up a 64 point blast which the XFF+ just can not do even with her monster photons). Plus the DDX has 9Ph-1s to the FFXs 5Ph-5s (such is the advantages of other systems the FFX has because in a straight comparison it should have 6Ph-5s) so at point blank range; the DDX becomes a real monster and the XFF really has to work hard to counter that!

So yeah, the X2 ships will have more science but they'll also have good combat...it's just that the combat will require new and different tactics to be victorious.

By Dan Doulas (Magnum357) on Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 06:55 am: Edit

If people do not mind, I would like to ask a question about X1R's Overload Phasers. As I understand it, part of the reason X1 needed "fixing" was that Captains would just Stick around Range 5 with Overloaded Phasers and use there Heavy Weapons optimally at this Range Bracket. I fully understand that this doesn't seem right but is it possible that Overloads (of a sort) could still be kept in X1?

I read in another part of the X-tech board (can't remember where), Micheal John Cambelle suggested why not put some sort of different variations of Overload Damage outputs to X Phasers and possibly have it vary by different Races aswell.

What if you had two types of X-phasers, a type Ph-Xa and Ph-Xb. Ph-Xa would be very similar to the old Overload X-phasers from before, but instead of producing 1.5 times the damage out to Range 5, have it only produce damage out to range 2. Ph-Xb would have an Overload Function aswell, but it only has a Range of 5 but produces 1.25 points of extra damage. And of course Overload would cost Double the amount of power as firing the Phaser normally. These two Ph-Xa and Ph-Xb would vary from race aswell. Feds and Roms might use the Ph-Xa for hard hitting up close firepower and defense against plasma, but the Klingons might prefer the Ph-Xb because it has a bit more punch for long range. As it is right now with X-1R, it just seems like X1 ship's Phasers don't do a whole lot different then GW Phasers. The Rapid Pulse is a special feature, but it can only be used against small targets. Or if this is too much of change for X1, perhaps its a good suggestion for X2 Phasers? With Overloads set like this, it might make it possible for GW Ships to at least have a fighting chance against X1 or X2 ships.

Anyway, has anyone ever suggested something like this before for X1R (MJC suggested this for X2 I beleive)? Would it work, or would it still just create another "close and hose" situation like before?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 09:06 am: Edit

I think you're thinking of the X1 FIX proposal which was for three different kinds of Phasers. Double shot Ph-1s (12 impulses apart), regular overloaded phasers and double damage Ph-2s.
What happened really was that X-ships got the ability to take advantage of a negative EW shift which old X1 ships couldn't do and generate a full 8 ECM/ECCM instead of 6 plus 2 free ECCM (which tended to result in all-attack all-the-time battles which caused their own close-and-hose tactics), so X1 ships retained their fearsome reputation but become much more heavy weapons centric as they hit better with their own heavies and also enemy heavies miss more.


By the way, have you been listening to too much Michael Buble?

By Dan Doulas (Magnum357) on Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 05:33 pm: Edit

Michael, I might have heard this idea from this "X1 FIX" proposal, not sure really. I just read somewhere that you suggested a varying Overload feature for X2 ships and thought that might be a neat idea, but I just was thinking of 2 basic settings.

With the idea I proposed above, my guess is that even with a Ph-Xa Overloaded to Range 2, at that range it would be difficult to stay at that range for long and perform "close and hose" tactics by the X-ship and a GW ship could still give an X1 ship some problems if it can stay out of range 2. As for the longer range Ph-Xb, it has the same range as the old Overload Phasers (range 5) but only producing 1.25 times the damage means it won't have as much punch and is more for medium range-hard sniping then a full blown Point-blank weapon system. And for both weapons, requiring Double power (or 2 points per Ph-1X) would mean that it wouldn't be very effecient to keep firing your Phasers at these settings all the time. Most likely, I would think the X1 ships would use regular Ph-1 settings more often then not.

And another side effect that could actually be benefical to all this is that these Overloads would be useful against PF's/Heavy Fighters or Advanced Drones or Plasma. But if all this is too much for X1 ships, perhaps this could be used for X2? I hope this is not a contraversal subject, just something I was curious what others would think about this idea for X1 or X2.