Just to toss out a silly idea. Silly because I'm happy with the removal of OL Phasers but what if phasers could be Over Loaded but doing so disables them. Not destroyed but you use CDR to get them active again (and does not count against CDR limit). It does mean you can't use the CDR points to actually repair things that turn.

Make a disabled phaser with a "D". Disabled Phasers can still be damaged.

That would limit thier use while keeping it interesting.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 12:00 pm: Edit

Loren: Let's say "no" and never think of OLP again.

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 12:34 pm: Edit

"These AREN'T the phasers you're looking for. Move along."


The SVorCe has power over weak minds...

regards
Stacy

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 01:18 pm: Edit

Yeah... um, what was I talking about. Oooh a peanut... mmmmmmm.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 11:17 pm: Edit

I was looking through C2 and X1. In C2(R13.1A) it says "In the end, the two years of peace enforced by the ISC (during which warship construction reached a peak) may have given the Galaxy the edge to survive the Andromedans." Those two years were Y186 to Y188.

In X1 (R0.200) "During the final war years (Y181 to Y185) most races produced only a few X-ships."

I will suggest that X-ship production increased some what and would be the GW designs. So part of X1R could be these ships.

In C2 (R10.1B) Survey ships discovered the RTN in Y195 and by Y198 the RTN had been heavily disrupted. Survey cruisers and scouts hunted the RTN bases for the cruisers to destroy. This included X-cruisers.

I will suggest that a second period of X-ship design (modifications) and somewhat increased construction occurred at this point. The X-scout and X-survey ships could include more specialized X-ships like X-versions of PFTs based on CLXs. Races could build an SC3 X-cruiser based mini-SCS (6xPFs and 6xfighters; Feds 6-two space and 6-single space fighters).

Additionally X-cruiser incorporating a decade of combat and design experience could be produced, which would different than those in X1. Any new weapons or variations would probably occurr during this second period of X-ship production. This would be the Andro war focus and coverage.

A few new Andro weapons and or ships could be included. Such as a small support unit that is like a tether-less drogue; has P2s and something like limited aegis; each P2 can fire 2x as a P3. Only mother ships could carry one of these.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 01:13 am: Edit

I think an X-PFT would be interesting. It could get to the delivery point faster.

Further, it would be interesting to see some rules about some minor modifications on PF's during the Andro War. Perhaps they could get an X-Battery and a small shield upgrade. Could PF's normally armed with Ph-2's get Ph-1's?

I don't see upgrading the torpedo, however. That would be too much stress and no longer a minor upgrade.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 09:23 am: Edit

I haven't looked at the X-Scout SSDs, but I imagine most could be rapidly converted to a PFT design to go RTN hunting.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 09:47 am: Edit

Joseph and Loren,

Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I thought SVC had stated there would not be PFXs, nor any X-fighters other than the Stinger-X. Obviously, this doesn't preclude CVXs and PFTXs carrying standard fighters and PFs. But I suspect (though it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong) that a PFX is a dead horse.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 09:55 am: Edit

Tos,

Except for the Fed GSX (and the closely related GVX) all the X-Scouts I can think of are based on SC4 hulls. Since most races already have X-light cruisers based on their CW designs (CL and CS designs for the ISC), I suspect an RTN hunter would be more likely to be based on the "War PFTs" that were themselves based on CWs. RTN hunting seems to me to be too dangerous a mission for a SC4 hull acting alone, even if it's an X-ship and brings along a PF flotilla.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 10:35 am: Edit

Alan,
I don't recall there being a ban on PFT-X's. I recall SVC had no liking for PFX's (X-Tech Fast Patrol ships) but I can think of no reason a Tender could not be an X-ship. Indeed, such a combo make good sense if you are RTN Hunting. What I was suggesting might be possible for Fast Patrols Ships is a minor XP-Refit; the battery and a minor shield upgrade.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 10:42 am: Edit

The Feds really need a CLX (NLX?). they go from CX/GVX to DDX with no stops in between.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 10:50 am: Edit

Does anyone know off hand if the CL published XP rule prohibits the refit on PFs? I suspect it does, though that could be readdressed.

One thing I'd like to see considered for PFs after a certain date is an elimination of the extra warp booster pack damage rule, but even so minor a change results in a BPV change (the Y190 refit?) not shown on the SSD.

One thing I'd like to see for fighters is for the Mega-Pack to become historically more common in later years and gain the ability to launch 2 (and only 2) type-VII drones. No changes to the fighter, which could still only launch non-X drones. There would be a small BPV upcharge for this capability.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 10:54 am: Edit

Loren,

I agree. I'm not sure what we're arguing about. In my 09:47 am post to you and Joseph Carlson I specifically said that I thought PFTXs would not be precluded. My 09:55 am post to Tos wasn't arguing against PFTXs. It was arguing that if RTN hunting was part of the mission, they would probably be based on the War Cruiser PFTs rather than the original Frigate or Destroyer PFTs. RTN hunting seems to be a single-ship (plus attrition units) mission and a lone SC4 PFT isn't survivable enough even as an X-ship in my opinion.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 10:54 am: Edit

Alan,

As for as X-tech on fighters, megapacks, and PFs you are correct.

A x-conversion of the sparrowhawk into a PFT-X would be a powerful ship with 1 PL-M, 2xPL-F, 7xPH-1s, and 4xSpecial Sensors. The Feds could build a scout carrier with 6x A-20F and 6x F-15E, 2xPhotons, 2-4 GX racks, 6-8 PH-1s and 2xSpecial Sensors.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 10:58 am: Edit

Tos,

I don't have my books handy, but I'm about 90 % sure that XP cannot be used to refit PFs.

Personally, I don't have any heartburn about very late (post-GW) era fighters gaining a limited ability to use X-drones. But again, I thought (may be mistaken) that SVC had already said no on that.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 11:54 am: Edit

JRC, how do you get a Fed Scout Carrier w/ that ammount of fighters(18 bays by my count)? A CVPX.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 03:46 pm: Edit

I think adding PFXs or X-fighters would overload X1R from a practical perspective. Too much space taken up on the counter sheet, for example. Too many rules to write.

An X1J or X1K module would be the place for that stuff. We may wish to shunt the concept of X-carriers or X-PFTs to such a module as well. Not as sure about that.

X1R would take more or less the form of Advanced Missions to Module X's Basic Set. It would have 4 definite and 2 optional components.

1) Rules (optional): X-ship rules with errata integrated in. This may or may not be needed. What's the state of Module X these days?

2) Rules: XP. Final version of XP refit rules.

3) New equipment or systems, if any (optional)

S-bridge refit?

4) Ship descriptions

BCXs as transitional ships to X2, maybe appearing starting in Y195. Unsuited for Operation Unity.

DNXs as conjectural ships


5) Scenarios and Campaigns

If Operation Unity has not been rewritten recently, it needs it, as PBEM OpU showed.


6) X-ship and some XP SSDs.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 06:19 pm: Edit

Module JKX?

I think that discussion of PFX's is going to be fruitless. A PFT-X is another matter and makes sense. It would give much added life to PF's and would be useful for RTN hunting.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 06:37 pm: Edit

Would the drone using race that builds a PFT-X beable to deploy PF's that could use X drones?

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 06:42 pm: Edit

Hey Tos, if a "X-Mega pack" is to carry 2 Type-VIIs (1-space X-drones), are the Plasma races going to be SOL with X-Mega packs since their is no "improved" Plas-D for them to use? (A saboted Plas-D can't count)

A Phaser possibly to compensate them?

So would an X-Mega Pack be something like this, equipment wise:

Klingon/Kzinti/Fed: +2 Type-VII, +1 P-3 FA
Gorn/Rom/ISC: +P-2 FA, +1 P-3 FA
Hydran: +1 P-3, +1 Fusion Charge each cannon or +1 Hellbore Charge. (St-X+Mega-X-Pack TBD)

X-Drones on fighters shall make them pretty vicious (considering a 1-space takes 6 damage to destroy and does 18 damage). Consider a NCV/CVS w/ 12 fighters with Mega-X-packs launching 12 Type-VIIs a turn for 2 turns. That's a lot of damage absorbed by the drones.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 07:18 pm: Edit

Plasma fighters are poor. Fixing them will take more work than I intended to invest. However, would you be amenable to replace your 2xD torps on your mega-pack with 1xL torp?

A VII drone replacing a I-S drone costs that fighter 1.75 BPV so even if the Mega-Pack provided the capability for free your fighter squadron still costs an extra 18 BPV.

How many D-Torps does it take to absorb the same damage as 24xVII drones? Answer: 9xD-torps at range 10. I'm not sure your comparison holds water.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 07:19 pm: Edit

Having this conversation makes me wonder about alternatively allowing a drone fighter after a certain year to launch IX drone in the place of VI drones.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 07:20 pm: Edit

I think an PFT-X with GW PFs would be okay for RTN hunting as the PF as attrition unit anyway but the tender is not. Giving the PFT extra firepower is handy in the RTN hunting role and so such should very likely be built.

Wasn't there some talk that X fighters wouldn't be but rather than X-mega packs would provide the X-ification of non-hydran fighters?

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 07:38 pm: Edit

Tos I don't propose "fixing" plasma fighters, but if 12 F18B+s are supposed to be "close to equal" to 12 G18Ds. (Both carry 4 drones or plasma D, the F18s then carry +2 Type-VI)

Yes the F18s are better because of the Type-VIs.

But then if both get Mega-X-Packs and the Feds are just that much better because of being just Drones vs Plasma, that sucks.

Its like going from a 75 (Fed)- 25 (Gorn) ratio, to a 90 (Fed) - 10 (Gorn) ratio of kills.

If you are "leading" this idea, all I ask is to not make the descrepency even larger.

By Ed Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 08:20 pm: Edit

John,

Which XP SSDs would you want included. With all of the possible XP variations what ship would get what on which SSD. so we automatically give a ship full Xp, partial XP. Maybe one thing that could be done on future SSds include all of the range brackets for a weapon, rather than just the range it is limited to. Put range 40 for all disruptors, but not that this ship only can fire too blank. Put all of the plasma torped types on the SSD whether a ship gets them or not. Those are general information, when it comes to specifics I am not sure how.