There are significant differences between the Hydran style launch tubes and a balcony annd track system that the Gorns and the Federation use.

The balcony system in particular provides a significant tactical advantage over the inherent limits of launch tubes, or even ships that have 1 or two hatches that they use to operate shuttles and fighters (such as the Fed CVS and CVB's use).

Launch tubes might be "cool" on TV or SCI channel but in SFB's other considerations do have value.

(Please note, I am not arguing against Joseph's post, just offering a perspective on the subject.)

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 06:01 pm: Edit

Per (J1.532) each balcony is associated with a specific shuttle box. It appears that you have to keep track of which balcony door the shuttle came out of (see J1.58). I don't see how one could install a balcony and track system along the sides of the rear hull on an SC3 Federation carrier.

I have posted other carriers with a twin side tunnel deck. I think that would work for the rear hull. The launch tubes would be for an ACX's saucer shuttle bay; two tubes and one hatch.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 06:22 pm: Edit

Just for fun.

Fed BCX

Went with Option Mounts in the dorsal for better bang-for-the-buck. Configure it as you need it. Both dorsal mounts must be the same, and are limited to photons, GX racks, or Plasma-L's.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 08:19 pm: Edit

Maybe this really doesn't make much sense but why not also Ph-1X for the OPT mounts?

And the more I think about it the more I like the notion of a CVX. I think it just makes sense for the Feds (at least) to do something like that. I figure we'd see them late-Y190s or so.

On that note, I disagree that only the Hydrans would come up with X-fighters. I think the Federation would also go that route. It seems to me they'd want to exploit that technology given their superb fighters and carriers. That said, if SVC says it ain't so then it ain't so.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 08:38 pm: Edit

Has anyone considered the nature of a true flat-top?
Specifically the Shuttle bay is in the saucer section (which might be much squarer ) and the ship bits like the bridge and the AWRs and the Transporters and even the Photons might be in the "Engineering Hull".

Sure you're stuffed if you need to evacuate via ship seperation but when was the last time a CVA or CVB was lost!?!
The extra shuttle spaces could ( and indeed would ) (you might have a lift and balcony system so that the flat-top can be used to launch shuttles ) make for a better carrier and the risk to the men is no greater than with ships that can't seperate like the Fed FFB and NCLa+.


I wonder if this inovation would be as useful as the angle runway on modern carriers???

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 09:12 pm: Edit

MJC,

We are not dealing with "true flat-top[s]", but carriers based on the Fed CA. Personally something shaped like a soda cracker segement just isn't asthetically appealing. Now if SVC wants to license his product content to Nabisco maybe I will reconsider (get your fleet box; crackers of doom; free prize inside).

Seriously ships need to stay with the racial profiles for both the game and minis.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 09:32 pm: Edit

I think the SAO BISCUIT OF DEATH is kinda cool.

I was just thinking that maybe the X1R period could allow designs to move "out of the box" with reguards to racially consistant forms.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 09:57 pm: Edit

Perhaps. I will still say that the "out of the box" stills needs to be what that race would do in an advanced design.

A different area for some these different or strange designs would be monsters along the line of the Jugernaught. Example an X-swarm carrier. I made a larger type of swarm bot along the lines of a FiCon that carries via mech-links two swarm bots (swarm bots are NX). I haven't figured out how to make the NX Swarm-FiBot work without an interceptor EAF.

Classic Dark Chocolate Tim Tams sound better.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 06:24 am: Edit

You do of cause realise that I'm gunna spend the next week or so trying to aquire TimTams...and I'm no longer the shape I was when I was 16.


We actually I am but I've gotten bigger in pretty much all directions.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 03:39 pm: Edit

MJC, you are an expansive feller.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 04:16 pm: Edit

Especially after all the TimTams.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 05:28 pm: Edit

I have the SSD done for the Swarmnaut CVX. It carries swarm fighters and heavy swarm fighters. If any one is interested let me know and I can e-mail it to you. Alternately if someone wants to host it we can all look and laugh.

MJC,

Be careful or you will become the Tim Tam man. If you consume SAO biscuits with vegemite it may help.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, December 04, 2005 - 09:27 pm: Edit

JRC, send it to me I'll post it on my webspace for you.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, December 04, 2005 - 09:56 pm: Edit

RBN,

Thanks. e-mail sent.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, December 04, 2005 - 10:41 pm: Edit

In a different topic we discussed a juggernaut with star swarm robots. I made a Swarmnaut X carrier.

I am interested in your comments on the attached ship. Star swarms are in Module J1 (SM12). The single space swarmbot fighter has 2xPH-3s 360; fling reactor fuel as a PL-D (seeking or bolted) every third turn; max speed 15; has a 10 point 360 shield; core takes five points to destroy. I patterned the heavy fighter version after megapack-heavy fighter; Reactor fuel: each turn as a PL-D or every third turn as PL-F.

The ship has no labs as the fighter bots can function as a lab for seeking weapons identification.

The fighters are control so to speak by a control channel. Each channel can control six fighter (up to six channels), or six seeking weapons (one channel max), or 10 BP-strombots (two channels max). One channel may be used as scout channel. Range for seeking weapons is 35 (per G24.24). Don't know about the range for the fighter control, any suggestions? How many points of power for each channel? Is power required range dependant? How are these hit on the DAC?

Alternately I could change six of the control boxes to interceptor-bot links. Robots able to build a ship probably don’t need control.

The bays on the ship can be boarded and attacked.

http://constellation.radiocyborg.com/ssd_swarmnaut_cvx_jrc-1.gif

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 02:32 pm: Edit

With X1R on the move and a list of likely counters its time to start assembling SSDs. Lets coordinate here who is working on what so we don't have multiple people creating the same SSD.

When creating SSDs its probably better to under arm them rather than over arm them. These are the 'also-ran' X ships, not the front line bruisers.

Our working list of counters: http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/12031/15628.html?1166418550

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 02:35 pm: Edit

I've done the Romulan BHXP, SNXP and WEXP.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 03:22 pm: Edit

Tos,

But that's not really "our working list of counters". It's your working list of counters. There was never a general concensus on what should or shouldn't be included.

At 8:22 pm on 15 December I posted my suggestions on Tholian (including Neo-Tholian) X-1R ships. Obviously you disagree with my list, as you have every right to do. But if you're going to declare by diktat what the working list is, could you at least respond to objections and disagreements?

In particular, why do you keep insisting on the inclusion of the NFFX and NDDX? Not only is it already stated in the published background material that the Tholians cannot build any Neo-Tholian ships in this galaxy, but for reasons I already discussed in my post, they would be unlikely to build an NFFX or NDDX in this galaxy even if they could do so. Those ships are a poor fit for the Tholian situation in this galaxy.

I apologize if this post is excessively intemperate or whiny. It's not my intention. But your 6:31 pm post on 15 December made it seem you like you were asking for feedback. I gave you some, on the race with which I am most familiar. May I at least know why you rejected my suggestions out of hand?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 04:39 pm: Edit

Tos,

More regarding my previous post (and again, I apologize if this seems too argumentative):

You seem to want to get the list of ships/counters finalized quickly so we can start making SSDs. But I believe this has the priorities exactly backwards. It seems to me that making SSDs is about the least important thing we can do to make X1R happen.

Suppose, hypothetically, that everyone agrees the Feds really do need an X-Light Cruiser based on the NCL, but nobody actually makes an SSD for it? How long will it take SPP or SVC to come up with an SSD on their own? A few minutes? And if someone does submit an already-finished NCLX SSD, they would spend almost that long checking to see if it made sense anyway.

It doesn't really matter whether one of us makes an NCLX SSD or not. I believe that coming up with a coherent, well-thought-out rationale for why their should (or shouldn't) be an NCLX is a lot more important. And of course we're not going to agree on what ships snould or shouldn't be included. But suppose we produce, for each race, a list of "plausible candidates" together with the pros and cons for inclusion of each ship? The pros should be written by someone who wants the ship included and the cons should be written by someone who does not want it included. Then SVC and SPP will have more to work with when deciding which ships make the final cut. And if some of those ships don't have an SSD at that point, it's not really a problem. Or rather, it's a problem that's very easy to solve.

Making SSDs is fun (yeah, I like making them too). I just don't think it's particularly important that we do the SSDs for X1R.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 04:39 pm: Edit

I have a lot of the Romulans covered.

NovaHawk-X, Regalhawk-X, SuperHawk-X CC, ThunderHawk-X CC/PFT, SparrowHawk-EX PFT, SparrowHawk-HX Transport

Possible Additions
ROC-X DN, ROC-XB RTN Hunter, Improved KEX, SparrowHawk-F Mauler,

I independently built versions of Tos' romulan XPs but the only difference is that he beefs up the shields for BH and SN and I don't. We do differ a bit on the War Eagle-XP, however.

BCHXs, on the slim chance they're useful:

BlackHawk-X, PrinceHawk-X,

Also a small Klingon:

E3-X,

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 04:42 pm: Edit

Final Note. I wasn't trying to disparage the work on the "old Romulan" SSDs you just did. And I hope the previous post wasn't taken that way. What I do want to do is express a philosophical difference I have with you regarding how we, the players and board posters, can best contribute to making X1R a success.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 05:07 pm: Edit

Alan: I have no disagreements with you regarding your Tholian suggestions. I am not advocating my Tholian list and only my Tholian list. I haven't even studied the differences between our posts, hence my lack of comment. The counters ultimately selected are not my decision, they are ADB's, and they will review your comments.

I reposted the counters we submited by SVC's request almost three years ago. Things have changed in three years and I'm sure there are many that would now be in dispute.

Feel free to contribute any X-SSD you would like. That said, I feel you have a better chance of getting any particular ship you desire published if you have posted a workable SSD for it.

This topic servers one other use. I have not received a response to the latest summary I e-mailed SVC (a repeat of the original post from 2004). I have seen posts implying he doesn't 'grok' what it is X1R is. I am hoping that having seen some representative SSDs he will start to 'get it'.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 05:23 pm: Edit

John, the only thing I noticed different with the WEXP is an extra tractor beam and some shield boxes. Given that we differ by 20 BPV I think one or more of us has it wrong.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 06:44 pm: Edit

Tos,

I think that's right. I just saw the layout differences. I think we both started with KE SSDs, truth to tell.

My WE SSD says that your version's spare trac needs to go.

The shield box differences aren't anything that concern me.

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 06:47 pm: Edit

I am happy to see that this module may seriously be considered for development in the near future. So, please forgive me for shamelessly promoting my prior work. The following is compiled and edited slightly from my original posts dated:

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 10:13 pm
Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 08:47 pm
Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 09:02 pm

My concept was that there would be a need for a true light cruiser that is a bit more durable than the DDX, cheaper to build than the CX and was capable of being reconfigured for different missions (ie similar to a HDW). The primary reason I settled on a Multi-role/HDW style CLX is that by the time X-ships are being produced the Feds are not going to be able spare any CX production slots for any variants other than the GSX. There simply aren't enough hulls to go around. Add to that the fact that the DDX while it may be capable of going toe to toe with most opposing CLXs, it doesn't have enough 'mass' to be a light cruiser. I will concede that the DD and by extension the DDX is one of the most sturdy and well armed move cost 1/2 starships. However, despite its appearance, SFB tends to treat the Fed DD(X) as no different from any other size class four ship and as a result doesn't have the space to provide some of the 'heavier' variants. Secondly, I feel that using a HDW-style configurable starship could mitigate the opportunity costs of producing light-cruiser variants. There would a slight cost increase to produce such a vessel at the start but it would reduced the cost of building flexible multi-purpose ships.

Multi-role Fed CLX

The option mounts E and F are limited to phasers, drones and non-weapon systems. When I created the ship I had given quite a bit of thought about where to place the option mounts and decided to place them in the FH phaser position rather than the 360 position for a few reasons:

1. Artistically I had a problem placing the two option mounts in the aft hull while keeping the N.W.O. and AWR options in the primary hull.

2. Also, when the CLX would be configured as a CVS or CVH/PFT it will be reduced to eight phasers and thus the 360 phasers will allow it to maintain five phasers at minimum in arc for defensive use. Using the 360 position for the options would leave the CLX in these configurations with a weaker defensive position.

3. I felt that in moving the options mounts from the FH position, I would have to place either three or four PH-1s in the FH spot in order to keep with the precedent set by the DDX and CX.

4. I wanted to add something new and different to the CLX without it coming completely out of left field.