Scott,

Put a six-fighter bay (F-15Es) in the saucer. The rear hull would have six mech-links (A-20Fs) and four shuttle. The DCS has 12 fighter racks so I don't see this as an issue for a X-scout carrier (or mini-SCS). This would be a limited class. I see a strike carrier as a different proposal.

In CL# 31 (XR0.4) XP-refits cannot be applied to X-ships, PFs, fighters, drogues...

I already made a proposal about type-IX drones in the XP topic. I also include PL-Ks. Instead of focusing on X-fighters I have tried to look at enhancing the current fighters.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 10:01 pm: Edit

I really hope we DON'T see any XP SSD's except for those historically special (of which I'd like to see a couple but not for every race and should be accompanied with a back story like the Hammarfield).

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 10:49 am: Edit

Loren,

An XP-refit fast BB would be interesting. A BBF could be the core of a powerful x-squadron.

What scenarios are you all interested in?

By Ed Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 12:04 pm: Edit

I agree Loren that we really dont need to see SSDs other than a few specialized ones. I do like the XP refits, it allows me to take the older ships in my case the Fed CC and CA add a couple of points of power and gives them a chance against late war ships. Always wished they would have gotten the same lab to apr/awr refit that most other Fed ships received, but they did not so onward with what we can get.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 01:05 pm: Edit

Joseph: If that were a historical ship of significance (and how could a BBF not be?) then sure, although it would be against the XP rules to put X-Tech on a SC2 ship (or BCH).

For the most part, and was generally agreed on earlier IIRC, XP should remain in the realm of a modification rule.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 01:25 pm: Edit

I'm still not convinced that an unlimited modification rule can't be abused. I'd rather see each race adopt their own particular upgrade path to enhance racial flavor or resolve particular short comings. Nothing that would result in an SSD change; only a separate BPV and YIS listing on the MSC.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 01:35 pm: Edit

Loren,

XP-refits are allowed for SC2 ships and bases except heavy weapons (XR4.1), which photons, plasma etc.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 01:48 pm: Edit

Tos,
Not our problem (yet). We're discussing what should go into X1R, not designing or playtesting XP.

Ed,
For X1R I don't envision any XP SSDs past those Tos has on his list, but leave the possibility open in case inspiration strikes.

Comment:
This is an X-ship module and that should be and remain its primary focus. XP is the secret toy suprise in the crackerjack box. If it merits many SSDs of its own, it should be its own product.

It also has its own topic, right above this one.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 02:35 pm: Edit

John, the rules for XP is almost certainly in X1R, which makes its discussion in scope by my reckoning. As I don’t favor XP SSDs and we have more than enough X1 ships to fill a module I don’t see very many if any XP SSDs making the grade.

Perhaps I misinterpret what problem you are referring to? Looking back it occurs to me you might be referencing the plasma fighter problem, which I agree is not today’s problem.

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 03:24 pm: Edit

At some point, you have to figure "X" technology becomes available to SC 2 units. It's hard to believe that, with DNs in the Y-era, MY-era, and GW-era, that there would never again be dreadnoughts put into service.

Maybe they're more for X2-era though.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 03:40 pm: Edit

Dale, look to a DLX as a "standard" X-Dreadnought.

Isn't it already as vicious as an X-SC2 ship needs to be?

Do you really want extra weapons for a std version of a dreadnought w/ MC=1.5, instead of having a "light dreadnought" weapons, and MC=1.25. A DNL saves 7.5 power moving speed=30 over a standard DN. So does a DLX. 7.5 extra power to devote to fast-loading torps.

What Andromedan ship can stand upto a DLX? Few and far between.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 04:27 pm: Edit

Tos,

I was never referring to scope, save that there is an XP topic and this isn't it.

I agree with your analysis and share your concerns about an open-ended XP. I only suggest that discussing XP design is premature.

If we're still working on what goes into X1R, discussion of how XP is implemented will muddy the waters.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 06:16 pm: Edit

I agree that SC2-X should wait until X2 at least; the core technology of X2 being what makes it possible. That said it might be interesting to go back to the early paradigm that a DN had cruiser weapons on a larger hull, maybe more phasers. Anyway, this is not X1R's concern.

================
I think SVC said it best way back when when he coined the module title X1R. He said it could be "more of what X1 is."

Simple. Just look at the X1 Fleets and fill in the obvious blanks. These should be blanks not easilly substituted by GW or GWXP ships.

X-Ships have two major advantages over GW-ships on a stratigic scale: Raw combat power and operational speed. A third might be their scanning range which is scout-like (but not an F&E issue although a real one).

If one or two GW ships can conduct the mission then they will and no X-ship is required. X-ship production is limited (I.e., no one turns all production to X-Tech only) so Empires will tend to produce X-ship where they are most useful.

The various Empires have three major issues to deal with:

A) The ISC. This really just requires strong combat squadrons and perhaps some fast scouting.
B) The Andromedans. First is more combat squadrons and defense but then RTN hunting is a major issue. This requires ships able to scout out and then immediately attack the RTN nodes. There is a need for some ecconomy of force here since RTN nodes could be anywhere and many. Two DDX's are more likely to find an RTN node than one CCX.
C) Recovery. X-Tech has the advantage of fast operational movement and better survivability. Recovering colonies in the devestated zones is vital for all races and the faster the better. Re-establishing bases is also important. Although the Alpha Empires are allied against the two new intruders they are only so because of them. The GW ended becasue everyone was exhausted and old issues are still on hold. All the Empires must consider what will happen once the enemies are defeted.

Chosing what X-ships should go into X1R should have the above as a guide line. What does an X-Fleet need to be balanced? What ships can best serve each Empires needs?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 09:49 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

This requires ships able to scout out and then immediately attack the RTN nodes.

---

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 12:51 am: Edit

Scott: Yes, but those ships were listed as "Impossible" to build. Of course you can ignore that in your local campaign, but I was thinking historically.

By the time an X-DN is possible, I figure the Andros are already out of the Alpha Octant...

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 04:10 am: Edit

By the time a DNX is possible X2 technology will have made it obsolete. I could see the DNX becoming available (maybe) as a desperate attempt to push back the Xorks, but that's not X1R.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 10:58 am: Edit

I think the core technology that make X2 possible should be the ASIF. Any SC2 ship or BCH should require the ASIF to be able to handle X-Tech of any generation. (ASIF: Advanced Structural Integrity Field.)

But I do agree, any such beast would not be a consideration for the X1 period in any case.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 12:54 pm: Edit

"MODULE C3A Andromedan Threat File" would make a nice complement to X1R. Considering the time period their histories and development can coincide and both benefit.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 01:05 pm: Edit

Hey Tos, I'll support you on that if you'll support me on Star Fleet Assault. I've been begging for that for years. (I've been told it is already largely written.)


Oh, wait... I already did support C3A... and for the same reason.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 01:56 am: Edit

---

Quote:

By the time a DNX is possible X2 technology will have made it obsolete. I could see the DNX becoming available (maybe) as a desperate attempt to push back the Xorks, but that's not X1R.

---

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 04:08 am: Edit

At some point, you have to figure "X" technology becomes available to SC 2 units. It's hard to believe that, with DNs in the Y-era, MY-era, and GW-era, that there would never again be dreadnoughts put into service.

Yes, but there was always a gap before the first SC2 hulls came into service:

Fed YCA Y79, YDN Y100, 21-year gap
Kli D4 Y78, C4 Y92, 14-year gap
Kzi YCS Y79, YDN Y95, 16-year gap
Lyr YCA Y79, YDN Y94, 15-year gap
Car YCA Y83, YDN Y96, 13-year gap

Fed CA Y130, DN Y148, 18-year gap
Kli D6 Y122, C6 Y150, 28-year gap
Kzi CS Y125, DNE Y150, 25-year gap
Hyd RN Y134, TEM Y150, 16-year gap
Lyr CA Y120, DNE Y150, 30-year gap

So we can see that it took an average of 19.6 years for SFU naval architects to manage to produce SC2 ships with CA-equivalent heavy weapons in the previous two generations of technology. So, it is reasonable to assume that if they'd been built, the arrival date of the first X1 DNs would have been roughly Y205, and they'd have had the same heavy weapons as the X1 CAs.

Instead, in Y205, the SFU's polities built the first X2 ships, which would suggest by the above rule of thumb that the first X2 DNs would have been ready for service in about Y225 -- which puts them past the end of the SFU timeline. So for SFB purposes, they never existed; the X1 DNs were displaced by X2 CAs, and no X2 DNs were built during the time period the game covers.

(To simulate the ships preempted by X2, you could take the existing Module R9 DLXs, reduce the heavy weapons to those on the equivalent CAX, increase the MC to 1.50, and give them YIS dates of Y205. Following the DNE-DN pattern, you could then up them to 150% of CAX heavies in Y220 or so.)

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 09:02 am: Edit

Isn't 19.6 years from Y180, July of Y199!?!
And isn't 19.6 years from Y205, July of Y224???...which is in the X2 timeframe.
Plus the war would provide accellerated development funding which should produce accellerated development.

Also a CA's heavy weapon isn't the end of the world for the DN.
Since the Fed CA has 6Ph-1s in Y148 and the DN has 10Ph-1s, would a DNX with only four X1 Phot-tubes and two GX-racks and a collossal 20 X1Ph-1s with sixty warp engine boxes and a 60 box shield #1 and 18 points of BTTY on an MC1.5 hull; be no better than the CX she would replace in the construction scheme and the money for a CX and a DDX!?! Admittedly if we assume the Fed CA was always ment to be the CAR then the DNX would only have 15 X1Ph-1s but it's still a goodly increase in firepower over the CX, particularly if able to fire in the FH, FX or 360° arcs.
I think she would be better, if only because X ships are limited to 6 in a squadron and a squadron with 6 including a DNX as its cornerstone ship would be better than a squadron with a CX as her cornerstone ship...at least in terms of upper limits.


Also if the DNX has too many Phasers, I'ld gladly see some phaser reduction in order to have six X1 Phot-tubes even if not in the tradition of CA firepower on DN hull.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 10:05 am: Edit

Actually the great drawback of the Fed DN was that she didn't have six Photons so she either had to be escorted by Fed CLs to keep her battlespeed ( which totally retarded the firepower of the fleet ) or she would out pace her CA cohorts and be isolated and destroyed ( usually after finding that she didn't have the firepower to deliver a killing blow ).
I don't think the X1 designers would make that mistake again. So a ship with a ratio that means it ought have a 15 phaser suite would more likely have the same phaser suite as the CX but six Phot-tubes which the extra warp power would easily support.
Even at the far end of the scale, a 16 phaser suite and half a dozen Phot-tubes would be more believible than a 20 phaser suite with the same photons as the CX.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 01:58 pm: Edit

I would want a DNX to keep its full run of heavy weapons. The huge number of phasers (not sure as many as 20) would tend to sap the class of individuality without the full run of heavy weapons, an issue that was not a problem in EY.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 11:36 pm: Edit

About two years ago SVC very clearly said no DNXs. X1 versions of BCHs is also not possible. X2 introduces (maybe) XBCH ships.

I think for a historical design the best we can expect for X1R is a strike cruiser (an SC3 ship larger than a MC 2/3rds CL). The current X1 module states that the most danderous CX built was the ISC CCX with 2xPPDs and 2xM-torps. Unless the history is changed the CCX is the upper end of the X-ship combat power.