Any PFTX's would certainly be full X-ships but the PF's would be standard technology... for the most part. I don't want to see need PF SSD's but had these thoughts about how PF might be improved in the X1 era.

Battery. I cannot see why you couldn't XP refit the batteries. The rule might be that the PF cannot repair the battery as an X-Battery although the XPFT could. THe PF could repair it as a normal battery then the PF finish the repair to an X-Battery later.

Warp Booster Packs. While X-Technology could not be applied to the warp systems of a Fast Patrol ship it did lead to a solution to the WBP damage problem. PF's on a PFTX have the new WBP systems that take damage normally (I.e., one box per damage point).

These two enhancements would NOT require any new SSD's although would require a Master PF Chart entry with an increased BPV.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, December 24, 2006 - 05:01 am: Edit

I think we should talk a little on the subject of DNX so that those who want to have conjectual DNXs can have a think about what they would look like.

Agreed, Heavy Weapon suite for the DNX would be beefed-up to deal with the sameness taste that sticking with CX heavies and increasing the Phaser suite would yeild.

Agreed BTTY would be the XP refit PFs would get, if they got the XP refit, which I'm not convinced of because of their "attrition unit" status.

By SSG Staley Aaron M. (Awwwdrat) on Sunday, December 24, 2006 - 06:24 am: Edit

There should be DNX's because I want them.

(To include BBX's) I still want to bombard Earth. (Where's my PEW36 explosive space modulator when I need it...).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, December 24, 2006 - 11:37 am: Edit

"About two years ago SVC very clearly said no DNXs. X1 versions of BCHs is also not possible."

And that has no changed. Doesn't mean we couldn't include "impossible to build" DNXs as a sales tool.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, December 24, 2006 - 12:34 pm: Edit

SVC,

Thanks for the clarification. Should X1R be selected for publication about how many counters (which I guess translates to the number of SSDs) would this module have?

By SSG Staley Aaron M. (Awwwdrat) on Sunday, December 24, 2006 - 05:48 pm: Edit

"And that has no changed."

It ought to change.

By SSG Staley Aaron M. (Awwwdrat) on Sunday, December 24, 2006 - 06:34 pm: Edit

It would be real nice if just for once, instead of putting out a limited game, i.e.:

"This small handful of units is what there actually were historically, however we have made all these conjectural units."

we actually get:

"These are all the units that actually served during this time period, however, feel free not use some of them in your personal campaigns."

This would REALLY be a nice change.

After all, only one race in SFB developed a battleship (Yet, the nature of sentient beings is to develop the equivalent or better of what the competitor actually has). Yet, this is not done.

At least an SCSX for each fleet would be appropriate. Or develop a carrier type vessel (with little to no heavy weapons) that carries droves of squadrons and flotillas.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, December 24, 2006 - 08:04 pm: Edit

And why should it change?

You know, there was a time in this game when an X ship meant something. It was a special ship, a rare ship, whose entry into a battle was a significant event. Where even an FX could be a pivotal ship that changes the course of the SFU.

But when BCHX, DNHX, SSCSX, BBX, and whatever other monstrosities someone can hack together, enter the picture, the specialness is gone. They are now just generic ships, and nothing more.

A DNX isn't needed for the game. It is just an excuse to try and create the most disgustingly overgunned and overpowered monstrosity possible.

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Sunday, December 24, 2006 - 09:38 pm: Edit

MJC, none of the source dates are calibrated past the first two sig figures, so adjusted for that, the average is 20 years.

Further, this is an approximation. Historically, the average for Y ships was ~16 years while it was ~23 years for "standard" tech. Making the period longer for X would make sense, but (further) over-extrapolates from the data (for example, would the approximation be +7.6 years, or ~+50% years? It would put the DNX(E) date as either +31 years or +35 years).

Third, count from Y181 at earliest, because we've been going YIS date to YIS date -- if we were going from first-service-date, the average would be longer because of the weirdness of the Fed CA. In any case, the imminence of X2 would tend to discourage expensive X1 DNX(E) production; the near prospect of the X2 cruisers would discourage such work.

Fourth, the command rating of the X-cruisers eliminates some of the impetus for a same-heavies DNX(E). Not all; there is advantage to a DNX(E) over an X-cruiser, as you pointed out. But it cuts the marginal value of the DNX(E), reducing the chance they'd be bothered with, especially with X2 visible on the horizon.

And as you yourself point out, nobody really wants X-equivalents to the YDN and DNE, they want GW DNs upgraded to X-tech. Given the one historical example of how much time that takes, such ships are even more plausibly not included in the game.

Finally, my point is not that all these add up to a historical reason why there absolutely could not be a DNX(E), but a reason why the YDN and DNE classes do not constitute a historical argument there should be DNX(E)s or DNXs. I'm showing that the no SC2 X-ships during the period of the game is historically plausible, independent of any statement that SC2 X-ships were technologically impossible.

By SSG Staley Aaron M. (Awwwdrat) on Sunday, December 24, 2006 - 10:57 pm: Edit

"And why should it change?"

Because there is absolutely nothing interesting about a battle where the only ships available are the CCX,DDX,FFX.

"You know, there was a time in this game..." Yeah, and then guys like you folks who want to limit everything to a peanut (when we can have cashews, almonds and macadamias too) started encouraging limits on warships. If you want to relive the good ol' days, the modules for that are out. I'm one of the guys who wants something new and a little more interesting than the CCX.

"But when BCHX, DNHX, SSCSX, BBX, and whatever other monstrosities"

Good word, "monstrosities". Let's say I'm an Admiral that wants to win a war (or start one). Believe me, I'm going to want some special ships. Will I be interested in one that can wield the might of 3 cruisers? No I'm not, because there was a time when an x-frigate showed up, it was sthpethial, and could mean the turn in the tide of the battle. HECK YEAH I AM! Do you see my point?

"...someone can hack together, enter the picture, the specialness is gone. They are now just generic ships, and nothing more." Well then there's nothing special left in the SFU then, because there won't be anything special about the CCX,DDX,FFX other than I'm limited to just those. Well thanks for ruining my fun too, dude.

"A DNX isn't needed for the game."

I disagree.

"It is just an excuse to try and create the most disgustingly overgunned and overpowered monstrosity possible."

Ok, then write your own histories that blot out such ships. Some of us want to see things that will make the game more interesting (Like X-dreadnoughts, like X-BCHs,).

Mike West, I have nothing against you brother, but when you make a statement that basically says that I and others like me shouldn't be allowed to have what we want because "It is just an excuse to try and create the most disgustingly overgunned and overpowered monstrosity possible" I take offense.

X-ships were special when they first appeared. Now the General war hulls that are badly aging and in need of replacement, will be replaced by CCX,DDX,and FFX. What's so special about that? There is no Admiral (who I would keep working for me at any rate) that would do such a dumb thing. You want your force to win! That's why you make the best force possible - this stuff about DNX's being technologically impossible is rediculous - if they were technologically impossible to build, the B10 never could have been built nor any other SC2 unit. It's just another darn excuse NOT to make the game more interesting and FUN for everybody.

By SSG Staley Aaron M. (Awwwdrat) on Sunday, December 24, 2006 - 11:34 pm: Edit

You know that reminds me, I remember back in my teen-age years, the old game shop where I used to buy the old SFB stuff (Vol I, II, and III boxed sets). A friend introduced me to the game from one of the old zip-lock bag products put out.

Anyway, I bought the boxed sets studied the rules, and went back to the game shop to get with other players. But they had stopped playing SFB. Why? Because TFG had the "audacity" to actually release X-ships (gasp!!), OMG!

In my desperation, I simply said "So? you don't have to actually play with them, just use the other ships." Oh no, nope, they went to playing 5th fleet or whatever. So I ended up having to search for people to play the game because of finicky people who can't see past their own noses.

Bottom line is, no one should have to play in campaigns that allow "Impossible to build" ships. If you don't want stuff in your campaign, don't allow it, but let us other poor schmucks have campaigns that don't have to include "impossible to build shps" so we can have a little fun too. I want a DNX that says "Unique", or is "Limited" availability.

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 01:03 am: Edit

Aaron: If you want to use a DNX, who cares if it says "Impossible to Build"? If you want to use 'em, go ahead.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 01:23 am: Edit

Aaron: I'm sorry but this -

---

Quote:

Anyway, I bought the boxed sets studied the rules, and went back to the game shop to get with other players. But they had stopped playing SFB. Why? Because TFG had the "audacity" to actually release X-ships (gasp!!), OMG!

In my desperation, I simply said "So? you don't have to actually play with them, just use the other ships." Oh no, nope, they went to playing 5th fleet or whatever. So I ended up having to search for people to play the game because of finicky people who can't see past their own noses.

---

---

Quote:

Bottom line is, no one should have to play in campaigns that allow "Impossible to build" ships. If you don't want stuff in your campaign, don't allow it, but let us other poor schmucks have campaigns that don't have to include "impossible to build shps" so we can have a little fun too. I want a DNX that says "Unique", or is "Limited" availability.

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 01:39 am: Edit

Sometimes a ship class is unique.

Nobody in WWII ever launched a battleship like the japanese Yamato-class. Britain and the US built long-range heavy bombers. Germany and Japan never did. But they did build jet and rocket planes.

A wargame can dig out plans for Yamato-grade ships from other navies and asign combat stats. This is what SFB has done.

DNXs will not exist as "real" ships in SFB. Nor will BCHXs. This comes from the game's creator and designer. Conjectural SSDs may find their way into the game anyway. Unless SVC can be convinced to change his mind, conjectural is all DNXs and BCHXs are going to be.

End of story.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 04:03 am: Edit

Vorlon (and others)
I agree with Aaron in about every respect. And though I felt I could add nothing to discussion, Vorlons comment, "DNXs will not exist as "real" ships in SFB. Nor will BCHXs. This comes from the game's creator and designer." led me to remember that, many years ago, I proposed to SVC on this board the concept of partial X-refits which was very much on cue of what has already been discussed here. His curt response was that There will never be partial X-refits! The response was short, sweet and left no room for discussion, yet . . .
So, lets not berate him from trying to "convince" SVC and shoot down his ideas with "End of Story". Seriously, some of you guys are acting like its a personal insult to even consider what he is saying.

By SSG Staley Aaron M. (Awwwdrat) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 04:54 am: Edit

Glenn H, Exactimundo.

"DNXs will not exist as "real" ships in SFB."

John T: And I bet that just makes you thrilled that you've probably stomped on a few people's hopes (probably quite more than a few, but no one will ever convince your type of that).

The end of the story is really this, people are going to pick up the next X module "Advanced Admin Shuttles at War", look at the nice cover and put it back on the shelf. You want to run official campaigns with just CCX/DDX/FFX go right ahead; my campaign should not have to be "we allow the use of conjectural/impossible to build ships" (which doesn't attract players let me tell you) just because you want limits on yours.

END OF STORY.

By SSG Staley Aaron M. (Awwwdrat) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 05:04 am: Edit

Loren - They were simply pissed that TFG released the X-module; they didn't want the game system to advance into anything new (at least, nothing new that they didn't themselves create, submit to SVC, and get released into a Captain's Log). They desired to limit it as much as possible so their campaign didn't get "ruined". If they had any foresight at all they would have seen that it would have "enriched" it, so what did the spoiled rotten brats do? "We'll play something else" instead of just limit their game to whatever ships THEY were comfortable with.

By SSG Staley Aaron M. (Awwwdrat) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 05:10 am: Edit

Dale McKee: "Aaron: If you want to use a DNX, who cares if it says "Impossible to Build"?"

You would be surprised who cares. Apparently Mike West and John Trauger care. I bet there's many more out there who "care".

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 07:28 am: Edit

1. The focus of Star Fleet Battles is on "standard" warships in the General War Era. Within that frame of reference, X-squadrons are rare and X-fleets are pretty near unheard of; for the most part, X-ship work as force multipliers for "standard" squadrons/fleets, or as lone raiders and/or special mission ships. Adding X-battlecruisers and X-dreadnoughts and X-battleships and X-space control ships and whatnot is not in synch with the aforementioned frame of reference.

2. Yes, human/sentient nature and technical innovation demand that we keep trying to build bigger and better. Which is why the U.S. Navy has the marvelous Ohio-class battleship, with it's 22" main guns in three quad-turrets and a displacement of... no, wait, they don't. Instead, the Navy has cruisers that are improved to the point that they are more potent than the battleships of yesteryear. Kinda like a CCX.

Now, that being said, the one area that I am sorely tempted to request some development in the "Forbidden Zone" is non-Hydran X-fighters, and a refit to existing carriers (or perhaps a requirement that carriers that deploy them be new construction with the refit built in) to permit them to be deployed during the ISC Pacification and Andromedan War. That said, I'm not tempted enough to acutally make the request, because I'd still like there to be a place at the table for gun-warships in the game... and that place would be in significant jeopardy with anything more than very limited deployment of an X-attrition unit.

By SSG Staley Aaron M. (Awwwdrat) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 08:04 am: Edit

Space combat is not like wet navy combat (although the motivation for units presented in this game are from current wet navy ships and tactics). While we do have cruisers we also have carriers, y'know, those big huge things that have lots of fighters and helicopters on them.

Army calls them helicopters,
Air Force calls them helos,
Navy calls them choppers,
Marines just grunt and point.

And while X-squadrons are rare and X-fleets are near unheard of, they won't (shouldn't) be later on. And as far as the focus is concerned; yep, that's why there's Early years, Middle years, Omega, LMC, and whatever other project that's being developed behind closed doors right now. You are 100% correct when you say "Adding X-battlecruisers and X-dreadnoughts and X-battleships and X-space control ships and whatnot is not in synch with the aforementioned frame of reference." That is why it needs to be handled NOW and not a rush job prior to release.

By SSG Staley Aaron M. (Awwwdrat) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 08:15 am: Edit

Oh yeah I forgot, the only reason we don't have BB's right now is because there's no one left to fight on a major scale that a swarm of nukes won't take care of. Now tell me that the Feds, Klinks, Rummy's, and whoever else have nukes that can go from their homeworld and obliterate another homeworld and I may consider the notion.

By SSG Staley Aaron M. (Awwwdrat) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 08:45 am: Edit

Now, my discussion on this subject is over. I'm sorry if the bluntness of my remarks above have caused any offense or bad feelings; but it seems the only way to argue the point these days when it comes to having an open mind about broadening the spectrum of the SFB side of the house.

The folks that I referred to back in the old game shop were so closed minded on the subject because they just wanted a new product with new General War era stuff as an excuse to fight it all over again (when in truth all they would have had to do was wait for the next supplement to come out and they would have been happy). But no, they went the way of the has-beens.

Let's not be like them. I'm sure there's a way to include X-fighters (if handled properly) as well as any other type of unit.

And thank you very much Glenn, for seeing what I was really saying.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 09:07 am: Edit

Aaron, no thanks needed. I agree with your position! In my opinion, you've argued your position well.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 10:56 am: Edit

I personally don't have a problem with SSDs for X-DNs or X-BCHs. Technobabble or not, I also believe there are some valid reasons for not making them historically built, at least not in series production. I would prefer that X-DNs not become a mainstay of every historical fleet in SFB. I would be OK with one or two existing as unique builds (not unlike the B-10 or the Kzinti SSCS). The other races could have conjectural X-DNs and X-BCHs - they could have built them but chose not to. This is the way many GW classes have been handled (BBs, BCVs, CVAs (for the Gorn and Lyrans), many of the NCA variants) and it has never been much of a problem.

To me, the question is not if the SSD should exist - I think they eventually will one way or the other - it is if they should appear in large numbers in X1R. I would prefer some good variety, based on racial flavor and preferences, rather than an module full of repeats of the same class for every race. Maybe the Feds get a unique DNX, the Romulans a rare SUPX, the Klingons a fabled C7AX, etc (just some random examples). I'd like to see a mix of ships covering all sorts of classes (sort of akin to the mix you see in Advanced Missions). Everybody gets some sort of rare, big-baddy for those that want them, but in limited historical quantities. If players building a campaign want them in larger numbers, they can do so with having to fight the "but it says right here that it is IMPOSSIBLE to build one! - it will fly apart or blow up!" arguement. From my experience in four SFB campaigns over the last six years, that is the real issue. No one typically has too much of a problem with allowing a player to build at least one or two examples of ships that could have been built but were not, but you do run into problems when you want something that the rulebook said was "impossible".

I believe campaign players should be able to work it out regardless, but some folks get so emotionally hung up on the issue that it becomes impossible to reach an agreement.

Sorry for the long ramble here. I don't see any of the arguements above as unreasonable - on either side of the issue. I think a happy middle ground can be found that will work for everyone, even if it doesn't necessarily give everyone exactly what they want.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 10:59 am: Edit

---

Quote:

"It is just an excuse to try and create the most disgustingly overgunned and overpowered monstrosity possible."

Ok, then write your own histories that blot out such ships. Some of us want to see things that will make the game more interesting (Like X-dreadnoughts, like X-BCHs,).

---

---

Quote:

Mike West, I have nothing against you brother, but when you make a statement that basically says that I and others like me shouldn't be allowed to have what we want because "It is just an excuse to try and create the most disgustingly overgunned and overpowered monstrosity possible" I take offense.

---