SVC:

Just on the subject of RTN hunting.
Is it done only by a scout special sensor or can X ships which count as scout for TacIntel find RTN nodes?


This will shine some light on whether L.K.'s S-Bridge could be used in X1R to liberate CXs and the like for RTN node hunting.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 10:07 am: Edit

I have only rarely changed history, and only on minor things such as one Fed CS turns into three or it turns out there were some variants of E5s.

I have never changed the history on anything as significant as this. We said from the first X-ship that there were no size-2 x-ships and never would be. I have not heard a single valid or worthwhile reason to change that.

DNXs are munchkin ships. They won't ever be historical. I'll be happy to include them as "impossible to build" designs, but NEVER as historical ships. Period. Full Stop. End of Sentence.

I trust I'm not going to have to delete every future post that mentions them, right?

As for Admin Shuttles at War, while a cool title, I'm still very unclear what is supposed to be in X1R.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 02:13 pm: Edit

SVC,

What I see is this, in order of importance:

Supplementing Module X, filling out the selection of combat hulls, CLXs and DDXs, some CCXs such as the Rom Novahawk and regalhawk, etc. The WYNs especially have holes to be filled.

PFTXs, Limited X-carriers and X-escorts with an eye toward filling out the X-ship role in RTN hunting.

Final Cut of XP refit rules.

X-Monitors, civilian and/or auxiliary X-ships.

Third-tier-race X-ships such as conjectural Seltorans.


That right there is more material than X1R can hold.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 02:45 pm: Edit

re: DNXs

Look, a real way to test just how disgustingly overpowered is to take a simple (ha!) DLX, and add the Medium DN conversions for DNLs (introduced in R9) to it instead of a standard DNL.

You have to add a few boxes here and there though. Like an additional Disruptor on the C5X (since disruptors get +50% increase), increase the phaser banks added by 50%, and such. Increase the MC from 1.25 to 1.5.

But seriously, the ships are there already there if you really, really want to try it out once for laughs.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 02:45 pm: Edit

Plus scenarios, mini-campaigns and enhanced background history.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 04:03 pm: Edit

I don't see any need for X-carriers and certainly not for X-escorts. X-PFTs, maybe, for RTN hunting, not during General War.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 06:33 pm: Edit

SVC,

You have suggested equal coverage of the GW, ISC war, and Andro War. These could be looked as three themes around which to organize the types of X-ships and scenarios for X1R.

GW:
Creation of the CX ships and rise of the X-squadrons. X1 covers this; need only to add a few ships and scenarios.

ISC Pacification Campaign:
X-squadrons refocused to deal with ISC echelons. In C2 it says that between Y186 and Y188 ISC forces roamed more or less at will within the entire know galaxy as far as Lyran space. X-squadrons have the range, strategic speed, and combat power to selectively challenge ISC forces.

X1R would add ships such as CLXs, HDWXs, and CSXs to various races to expand X-squadrons. Need both historical and general scenarios. X-support units such as freighters and X-Ops bases could be added at this point. The ISC has so sort of special “pacification-mobile base”; include a non-x and x version.

Andromedan Conquest:
This third period begins Y188 when Andromedans attack. At some point (Y195?) races would again change some X-squadrons to hunt the RTN. Races would use the collective design and combat experience to build or convert ships for this duty. Ships like the X-PFTs or a scout-ship with 6 PFs and 6 fighters would be built.

My opinion is the Feds would build more than just one specialized ship, like the GVX, for RTN hunting. The Feds use the F-111 and A-20F as their PFs. I suggest a few of these specialized RTN hunters would be conversions of ships like the DCS/ACS type ships into X-carriers; or creation of a X-scout carrier with 6 heavy fighters and 6 regular fighters (F-18Cs or F-15Ds). The HDW-X in CL# 34 can provide an escort. Carrier escorts currently can’t rearm F-111s and A-20Fs. So the single HDWX-E could rearm F-18s and carry extra supplies. The current FCF (FCA) can resupply the squadron; no need for an X-version.

The X-ships built after the early Y190s could be different than the ones built for the GW and ISC conflict. These could be, in a sense, a second wave of X-ships incorporating design and combat experience from the GW, ISC conflict, and the earlier stages of the Andro conquest. Any new weapons, drones/plasma, and attrition units etc. could be added at this point. These improvements (whatever they are) would be based on the collective design and combat experience to date and what has been obtained/stolen from other races.

RTN Hunter Squadrons examples: X-scout carrier, HDWX-E, CLX, and DDX; or: GSX, CX, DDX, and DGX. I think the X-carrier will have a better chance at surviving an encounter with RTN bases that are defended (such as a BS with a Concretor and 18 MWPs) than the GSX.

For the Andromedan Conquest coverage there are a number of additional ships to add. The X1R campaign could be how the galactic races did an “Operation Cavalry” thing and broke through the final Andro base defenses to the three routes.

By SSG Staley Aaron M. (Awwwdrat) on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 08:54 pm: Edit

"As for Admin Shuttles at War, while a cool title, I'm still very unclear what is supposed to be in X1R."

Doesn't matter, it won't get produced until 2012 anyway; and it'll get published next to the "FC: All the ships you wished we did for SFB" module.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 12:37 am: Edit

Aaron,

such pessimism! I would think that someone in your position would highly value optimism.

By SSG Staley Aaron M. (Awwwdrat) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 01:01 am: Edit

What's to be optimistic about? All I see are pawns being repainted. Heck, I even see the Roms get an X-mauler (CL34), but it doesn't get the "impossible to build" designation; it gets "Unknown" with the comment in the rule "Ultimately Rolandus chose not to convert one of his few K7R hulls to this design." i.e. it's not "unknown" it's "conjectural"; which I can live with since quite a few campaigns allow conjectural ships but WILL NOT allow impossible to build ships.

Imagine this, take the Fed SCS. It's LPW. Add the normal X-ship shield and warp increase. Remove the Photons and replace them with a 6 F-111 shuttle bay (or even 6 regular fighters). Replace the AWR with cargo. You now have an excellent unit to lead an X-fleet (I'm not EVEN talking about a squadron). Put it near the end of the war and call it unique (or at the very least "conjectural", but not "impossible to build"). There's nothing "Munchy" about that, it supplements the FLEET (not squadron) with fighter/PF capabilities, giving more room for your rooks/knights/bishops and pawns, and it (being the command and control ship) can last longer in the thick of the combat with the extra protection.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 01:32 am: Edit

Shrink it down to a cruiser hull and send it in. A number of X-Cruisers have the requisite 6 heavy weapons, even.

By SSG Staley Aaron M. (Awwwdrat) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 03:17 am: Edit

A cruiser hull will not survive in intense X-fleet battle long enough to serve in the command role. (How many times do I have to point this out?)

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 05:19 am: Edit

I think we're all forgetting about the missing X ships. The Lyrans for example have no FFX and the Klingons have no EX...and probably should to fight Fed FFXs.


Also, how well would an Xed heavy scout deal with an RTN node??? It might well be the RTN hunter that most races designed.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 10:04 am: Edit

---

Quote:

A cruiser hull will not survive in intense X-fleet battle long enough to serve in the command role. (How many times do I have to point this out?)

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 10:28 am: Edit

"What's to be optimistic about?"

That you are alive and well fighting the good fight.

X1R will get done. If you can't get DNX's to be conjectural at least then make a dea with your campaign group. You could XP them too. You won't get the X-engines but you could double the AWR, triple the Batteries, double the phaser cap and increase the shields.

I know you want it one way and it sucks when you don't have support for what you want. I cringe every time is see a "PASS" on the Star Fleet Assault module in the '06 product survey. I really want that. But I'm not about to call out "Oh great, SFA is never getting done."

Are DNX's as not-impossible the only thing that will make you happy? Is there no chance that X1R might contain other cool stuff?

By SSG Staley Aaron M. (Awwwdrat) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 10:55 am: Edit

"That you are alive and well fighting the good fight."

I'm keeping that quite separate from this issue.

"X1R will get done." Considering my disappointment with CL34 and the MSB not being released Origin's 06, you will understand if I disagree.

"If you can't get DNX's to be conjectural at least then make a dea with your campaign group."

If I can't make a deal here, what makes you think I will be able to make a deal there? They are after all the same sorts of folks. (Unwilling to consider any good point made by anyone.)

"I really want that. But I'm not about to call out "Oh great, SFA is never getting done."

So far I haven't seen very many products release "on time" or at least the ones I'm interested in. As a matter of fact, to me it seems, most release "quite late". This may not factually be the case but it sure seems like it.

"Are DNX's as not-impossible the only thing that will make you happy?" It is one of the many things that will make me happy, but alas I will not purchase X1R without them; as NO ADMIRAL IN HIS RIGHT MIND WOULD ALLOW HIS ENTIRE REGIONAL FLEET TO BE COMMANDED FROM A COMMAND CRUISER.

Now as to Jeremy, Sir I disagree. It's fairly easy to get any cruiser you want, especially in an X-battle. When the target is a hardened SC2 unit, going after the command ship all the time becomes the not so brilliant strategy anymore. But you make the cruiser the command ship, they go after it first every time and guaranteed.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 11:01 am: Edit

Aaron, then we will have to agree to disagree. Good luck with the DNX.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 11:56 am: Edit

"NO ADMIRAL IN HIS RIGHT MIND WOULD ALLOW HIS ENTIRE REGIONAL FLEET TO BE COMMANDED FROM A COMMAND CRUISER."

That is probably true. So what does that have anything to do with whether it's possible to build DNX's or not? Answer: Nothing.

Why? Because DN's still exsist and to nip the question in the bud, a CCX is not the most powerful ship in the fleet. For the Feds as an example the DNG and the DNH are both superiors to the CCX. They will continue to command from those platforms. They don't have to be X-ships to continue to function.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 12:44 pm: Edit

I'm in basic agreement with Aaron. Without DNXs and possibly CVXs, we are pretty much left with pawns and no queens or bishops. And giving them the label of Impossible does turn them into filler material. At least never-built/conjectural ships are allowable to most people. Placing their service dates to Y195 or Y200 does avoid interfering with the "timeline" and does give the excuse that X2 ships came along before any more than a few were built.

As to waiting for X2 for any thing bigger than a crusier, I don't believe that X2 will ever be published for SFB. Given the development effort that it will take and the priority that Federation Commander has, if it is ever published I believe that it will be an FC like game. Regardless, I don't think you'll be able to mix it with SFB. (This of course is purely my opinion, so don't try making me prove it. There is a group of you who do believe, but I'm not one.)

As to the "preview" in CL34: The Federation HDWX has the same problem that every non-X HDW has; it doesn't do anything well. The Romulan KMX is interesting, but, like maulers in general, is a poor use of resources. The Kzinti FEX is both too small and unneeded; standard X1 ships perform the escort role well without specialization, although a Full Aegis refit would be useful. The Gorn HCDX would probably be useful in campaigns where planetary raids are possible, but doesn't lend much to fighting typical battles. So basically a bunch of pawns.

In terms of size class 2 ships were never built, I find it much more plausible that size class 4 ships were never built. Frigates are largely useless the day the General War started; by mid-War the only uses for frigates are as FCRs or FFTs. By the late war, destroyers (including war destroyers) are only built because of lack of shipyard capacity to build more crusiers. By the time X tech comes around, size class 4 ships are nothing but cannon fodder. I say drop the idea that there were size class 4 ships. (And the idea that anyone would put X tech on freighters or auxillaries is just nonsense to me.)

There is a problem with which ships are in X1, which is due to the vintage of that product. Probably 2/3 of the ships of SFB were published since that time. (And that is just the Alpha ships.) There has been many changes to the evolution of ships during the General War that are neglected. For example, the introduction of the Heavy Dreadnoughts now means that there are bigger and meaner; X Crusiers are not quite the match up anymore. In F&E, a 12-point DN was matched against a 12-point CX, and now it is a 14-point DNH is matched against a 12-point CX. In other words, the non-X ships got better and the X ships did not.

I was excited about X1R. But if it is a bunch of you can't have this and you can't have that, is it really worth it? (BTW I only get excited about the Alpha ships and don't count Y ships amoung the exciting. I buy the other stuff, but I want some stuff that excites me.)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 12:59 pm: Edit

I'm in basic disagreement with that. The DNH (and Klingon B10) is still King and the CC or CB was NEVER a pawn. The CVA is still the Queen and far more powerful than even the DNH, especially with megafighters.

In F&E the 12-point DN should not be matched up with the CX because by the time the CX was out so was the DNH so the parity is with that not the regular DN.

The time for X-ships to improve is Y205, and they will take the next step to the BCH level. Maybe later to the SC2 level; that history is yet unwritten so there is nothing to go back on.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 01:30 pm: Edit

X-tech is about more than combat power, it’s about strategic speed. The Andros are so fast that only an X ship has a chance of getting into position in time to repel or delay an assault. Only an X ship has a prayer to evade destruction should an Andro RTN base suddenly have more reinforcements than our scout can deal with. Non-X freighters and auxiliaries are too slow to support Operation: Unity. Non-X ships are just too slow to bring the war to the Andros. X-tech is needed to go on the offense.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 01:39 pm: Edit

Loren, thanks for responding so quickly to mine and just about every other post so quickly. We pretty much know where you stand again. I just wish you would have read my post better before firing off a response. I NEVER said a CC or a CB is a pawn; I said maulers and escorts are pawns; things to be sacrificed. You missed the whole point of the DNH; we have better dreadnoughts now than when X1 was written, but we get X crusiers based on pre-Captain's Edition designs. And I really don't care to hear about how this will all be better in X2 (post Y205); I don't believe that SFB will ever get there, so you're telling me something I don't believe.

I'm sorry if this comes off too gruft. I want something exciting and I see this headed towards ho-hum.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 02:00 pm: Edit

John, I just happen to be around so it was chance.

I was mainly focusing on Aarons comments and admit that I scanned your post with the intent on more carefully reading it on a second pass. Your first lines caused me to think of a few things I wanted to get down.

I appologise for not getting back to rereading your post immediately (I got distracted). I am reading it right now.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 02:21 pm: Edit

OK, John, I try one point at a time:

I cannot say when X2 will come about but I certainly think it will since there is not a lot left. Will it be years? Yes, certainly at least two with an optimistic heart.

The core problems with SC2-X is that the one best tactic for it is to close-and-hose. They are big enough to handle it and have enough weapons and power to just stomp in and cream a ship a turn. That very thing killed Supplement-2 and will kill X1R as well. It isn't the only tactic but when it works SO well why use anything else. Supp-2 was exciting once or twice but as soon as the Close-and-Hose tactic took over it was NO FUN. It is the lessons of the past that teach us that SC2-X is likely a bad thing.

I agree that SC4-X is not a useful thing in combat. In a overall racial fleet they have their purposes but not so much in squadron or fleet engagements. My X2 proposal askes that SC4 units no longer be combat units at all. However, during the X1 era they do provide ecconomy of force and sometime DO run into each other. Historically, an X-FF squadron would NEVER try to take on an XCC. They would, however, take on another X-FF squadron and that can be an exciting scenario. SC4-X doesn't exist to be fodder for SC3-X it exists to fight a smaller scenario. I personally enjoy a frigate on frigate battle. They are quick and challenging and I don't have to turn to FC for it.

FFX's are built to supply numbers and to apply X-tech to more hulls. This isn't an issue within SFB but certainly is within a real space fleet. Besides, you can only build so many of the SC3-X, why not apply your left overs to as many hulls as possible. The DDX is a very powerful unit, certainly as powerful as a GW Cruiser yet requires less personnel (a very big expense). Crewing is an issue in the late GW. NOt enough for a special rule but they did have to work harder to keep the ships manned with experienced personnel. Less crew, same power is an attractive goal.

The truth about X-ships and Module X1 is actually they got weaker because they were too powerful. It's not a matter so much of how powerful you might imagine the real ships might be but what can work in a game system. X-ships were toned down because they were too powerful within the limits of the game system.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 03:34 pm: Edit

Regarding the above post on X tech on freighters and auxillaries, it is nonsense to me. In the non-X world, freighters have about 1/3 the cruising speed of warships, and auxillaries have about 1/2. Freighters have very limited to dash (strategic) capabilities and auxillaries have none. Adding X tech to a warship increases its cruising and dash speeds by less than 20%. Adding X tech to a freighter would still be less than 1/2 of a non-X warship, and an auxillary is still less than 2/3. And unless you radically change their nature, they will still have very limited strategic capabilities. Existing non-X Tugs and LTTs are far better at supporting the attack on RTN. There is no need to waste SSDs or counters on things that will still be slow moving targets.