Alan: Don't waste your time looking in the books, this is just my conjecture. It's just an idea tossed out for discussion, not directly supported by the books. Though I feel that it is indirectly, as Cfant pointed out.

X1: (R3.205) D5X LIGHT CRUISER: The Klingons built new light X-cruisers based on the wartime D5 hull, just as many other races built CLs based on CW designs. It was, in one sense, the first true light cruiser ever to enter servise in the Deep Space Fleet. The design was fully capable, although not produced in the numbers of hte DX and FX. The DX was not that much harder to build, and the D5X was not cheap enough for mass production like the FX.
(R6.203) LIGHT CRUISER (HDX) Like most "X-war cruisers", this is not a conversion of the rapid-construction HDD but a true light cruiser built at greater expense to the same pattern.
OK, so maybe I have overstated my case a bit...

MTP: Thanks for the example. Much to my chagrin, naval history is a personal weak spot.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 01:03 pm: Edit

Alan,

There's an SSD that goes with that description. It's straight-X1.

Please redefine how it could be the "first X2 ship".

By Allan MacKenzie-Graham (Amg) on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 07:36 pm: Edit

John: I propose that the D5X is a completely new hull, not new in the sense that it has just been made, but newly designed, say between Y175-180. It was designed by engineers that knew about X-tech and could see what demands that would place on the hull. Like engineers developing the first nuclear subs, they would make design decisions based on the assumption that they would carry a nuclear reactor rather than a diesel engine, additional cooling, specialized containment, etc. They would strengthen structural elements that would be subject to greater stresses and know where they could reduce weight as a result of X-tech. Yes, the D5X is a straight X1 ship, the SSD says so. But what it doesn't say is that you can replace the Ph-1s with Ph-5s and not suffer shock. You can remove the DISR and put in X2-DISR and they will fire without melting all the power relays. Like the old Texas-class CLs (sublight through GW), it was designed and built well enough that X2 becomes available you can put it on a D5X without having to design a whole new vessel. This makes it the first X2 ship, or at least the first X2 capable ship. Put X2 tech on this hull and you have the first X2 ship. Replace it box for box. Keep the warp engines the same size. Replace the DISR with X2-DISR, replace the Ph-1s with Ph-5s. Replace Lab with ANY boxes, etc. Keep it simple. This is your first X2 ship. The F7 (I don't like XF5 or XD7 for that matter) will be smaller in proportion. A completely new design. The D9(?) will be bigger in proportion. A completely new design, but both will use the D5X (D8) as a template, a beginning. Don't let them stray too far. My modest proposal. We can eat children later...
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

BTW, thanks for everyone's feedback.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 12:12 pm: Edit

You sure took the long way trying to make that suggestion.

A simple, "I suggest that, since the D5X is a ground-up redesign, that it be considered a fully-X2-capable hull."

...would have been much clearer.

By Allan MacKenzie-Graham (Amg) on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 10:08 pm: Edit

Yes, well put. I was thinking things through as I typed.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 12:28 pm: Edit

Loren,

I have to take a bit of exception to your use of the phrase "peace minded" (in the "X2 Phasers" discussion). True, the galaxy (well, the Alpha portion anyway) is exhausted after the General War/ ISC "Pacification"/ Andromedan Invasion. But the defeat of the Andromedans in Operation Unity hardly guarantees that the Alpha Quadrant will be peaceful for a while. We have no reason to believe that the Kzinti and Lyrans have suppressed their fanatical race hatred of each other. The Tholians have to be constantly prepared for the possibility of another (and stronger) Seltorian force appearing. They have no way of knowing whether the next wave will show up in two years or one hundred. And all the Alpha races must realise that there could be other, hitherto undetected Andromedan outposts in unexplored regions of the galaxy.

Along with most of the people who have contributed to this discussion, I would like to see X2 ships that are "general purpose" rather than combat optimized monsters. But I believe that it is weak to assert the rationale for such designs as "peace mindedness" or some sort of treaty. (A "treaty" modeled in the Washington and London Naval Treaties following WWI is also bad history, with due apologies for those who support the notion of the "treaty". The Naval Treaties were the result of some specific and particular historical circumstances, most of which are not present in Y205. But the "Military History" topic is really the place for that discussion.)

I think the best rationale for "general purpose" X2 designs is that they would be the designs most useful to the various powers. At the start of the General War the various empires all had extensive infrastructure in place to support large fleets of pure warships. By Y205, most of this is gone. The key strategic task is exploring the remnants of their space and rebuilding. The most valuable ships in the "Trade Wars" era will be those that can explore and rebuild and fight. X2 makes this possible and this seems to me the strongest rationale for "general purpose" rather than combat monster designs. A treaty or "peace mindedness" just won't cut it, at least not in my opinion. SVC's opinion, presumably in consultataion with SPP, may differ of course.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 01:52 pm: Edit

I think you read too much into my word choice. I was in a hurry and didn't want to go into all the detail that everyone already knew what I meant. Or so I thought.

I'll explain what I mean or you can check the archives for the extremely long converstation on the subject.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 02:06 pm: Edit

I take "peace minded" to simply mean "not geared exclusively for, or built during, a war or state of open hostility". X1 ships were warships through-and-through...X2 (IMHO) should not be. Most agree, and that's what I believe Loren meant by his statement.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 08:43 pm: Edit

I think what L.K. meant to say was " 'PEACE MINDED' " rather than simply "peace minded".

It's like what Dr Evil said.
I was the only one to use "finger quotations" or so I "thought".

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 11:35 pm: Edit

Perhaps a better phrase, instead of 'peace minded' would be "multi-role ships".

A Y140 ship is designed to cruise around for 5-10 years performing various tasks: survey new systems, show the flag, border patrol, hauling ambassadors around, investigate monsters, settle diplomatic disputes, fight a monster, and an occasional fight with your neighbor's border patrol ships, where usually someone retreats once a shield gets knocked down.

A Y180 ship is designed for one thing, heavy combat. All other considerations are secondary. That's why, in Y180, CCs can be converted to CCHs, because you're pulling out the extra storage space to add a couple of phasers. The ship isn't expected to survive 5-10 years anyway, so there's no reason NOT to take out the extra stuff. In Y167 the NCL was the first ship designed almost exclusively for heavy combat. Strip out everything but the weapons, and you end up with a MC 2/3 ship with the same armament as a MC 1 multi-role cruiser. By Y180, the fleets have all been converted to heavy-combat ships, and the first X1 ships in Y181 are the next logical progression in the 'combat-first' mindset.

Fast forward to the X2 era, Y205:
The Andromedans have been defeated.
The galaxy has been allied (or at least co-belligerents) since the ISC invasion 20 years ago.
There's a period of relative peace, relative in the sense that empires are still protecting their borders and keeping an eye on their neighbors, but they aren't in the middle of a shooting war with anyone.

What does this do for starship design in X2?
It means that the Y205 ships have more in common with their Y140 multi-role ships than with the Y180 heavy-combat specialists. In game terms, this means reducing the number of phasers back to Y140 levels, although if a Y205 ph-5 takes up no more room than a Y140 ph-1, the X2 ship would still be able to dish out quite a bit.

As a reference to where some of us were heading with our designs, I point you to Vorlon's X2 page, which saw a lot of creativity in Summer 2003.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 01:07 am: Edit

Yeah...it's basically a return to the past style of warship design rather than a full warship design philosophy.
Starships designed to go out into space and do everything their owning governement needs them to do rather than starships designed to fight other starships.

Also there is the money aspect.
Most X2 designs are the result of R&D monies spent during the period Y180-202 and so are substantially better than their predecessors but since there isn't much money to build full warships, the handful of ships that will be built will be built to teach the shipyard workers the leasons of building these kinds of highly advanced ships in case General War II breaks out.
X2 Frigates (or destroyers if XFFs are committed to specialised roles) will be the bulk of the X2 production (although not all) and they'll be expect to perform the duties of full cruisers in the old style Y130-170 Fed CA mode.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, June 03, 2006 - 12:14 am: Edit

Comment posted here in response to comment in X2 Phaser thread concerning X2 ships and their similarity to MY ships:

While many people, including me, want to see X2 ships be like MY ships in some ways, I believe there are also ways in which they should not look like MY ships.

Consider the D7. Prior to the "B" refit it had weak rear shielding. The Klingons eventually decided this was a mistake, and not only provided their ships with the refit, but designed later ships, such as the D5 and C7, to have good rear shielding from the start. Given their experience, particularly with (or rather, against) this thing called the "Hellbore", I can't believe they would design X2 ships with comparatively weak shields. That is a way in which Klingon X2 ships should not look like MY ships. And this doesn't mean that the X2 designs need be "perfect". But there are plausible and implausible mistakes, and a Klingon X2 ship with weak rear shields is an implausible mistake.

A similar comment could be made about the Federation. Their CA originally had blind spots into which no weapons could fire. The Feds fixed that problem with the "+" and "R" refits. A Fed XCA with blind spots would be an implausible mistake, and again, this is a way in which an X2 ship shouldn't follow the MY paradigm.

In my opinion, automatically modelling X2 phaser suites on MY phaser suites (Fed or Gorn with nothing but ph-5s, Klingons with phaser-1s but lots of them, Kzinti with a small number of ph-5s and lots of ph-6s, etc.) is a similar, implausible, mistake. It is not a way in which X2 ships should automatically look like MY.

I think racial diversity in phaser suites is a good thing, but it needs to be based on the unique technological and strategic issues affecting that race, rather than an automatic translation of MY phaser suites into X2 counterparts.

Just my .02 quatloos worth.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, June 03, 2006 - 01:09 am: Edit

Well there is such a thing as going overboard.

I'm sure if the Feds were to design the Y130 CA with the lessons learned in the GW, then it'ld have the same phaser suite as the CC.

The key is to have enough be the same to be racially flavoured but also to skip past the "fatal mistakes" that many MY ships had. Thus the Fed CL wouldn't have paper thinshields, and the Fed DD wouldn't be over-gunned/under-powered etc.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, June 03, 2006 - 01:20 am: Edit

I agree. I cannot and have not based phaser suites on anything from the past. However, there IS good reason to have X2 ships utilize lighter suites of more powerful phasers. Reducing the suites to GW-like in numbers is a serious cost and maintenance savings and who knows what other savings and endurence that contributes to. We know that Fast Warp ships have issues with too many weapons and while this probably won't be a disabling issue it does suggest there is correlation to efficiency.

X2 ships will have to have generally more range. Not necessarilly in distance (although I would think they would) but in time away for port and missions. War time missions tend tobe short but peace time missions see ships in deep space for longer. Maintaining huge weapons suites isn't the best fit for these parameters. However, no admiral is going to be satisfied with a significant loss of force. The Ph-5 in reduced numbers fits both parameters snug as a bug in a rug.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, June 03, 2006 - 01:30 am: Edit

I tend to agree with Loren.

The only part of the MidYears phaser suite that I would like to see X2 keep is the numbers (6-8 for a CA, 4-6 for a DD, etc.)

But I don't see why a Fed can't have an (FA-L, FH, FA-R, RH) phaser suite on its XCA. Just don't put 12 ph-5 on it and call it a Y205 cruiser.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 04:08 pm: Edit

I agree with Loren, Jeff, and Alan. It seems I also agree with MJC's most recent post, but our respective mileages may differ. Maybe MY isn't quite the right comparison, maybe Y168-171 is closer to reality?

I'm not suggesting using "equations" that defined those ships are what is needed, but the ships (more or less) were able to stand up in an open war. That may better define what the Galactic Powers would intend for their post-war ships: ships that aren't built with now-impossible wartime budgets but are vested with enough potency to withstand an initial major strike by a potential enemy.

How that is more clearly defined is subject to debate, but my thinking is that Y168-171 ships seem to suggest that capability (granted the Federation was a bit lacking).

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 09:30 pm: Edit

RBN:

The issue I have with your last post (granted a small one!) is that Y168-171 is right after the 4 PW and at the door step of the General War... the Federation is getting the plus refits, the number of phasers in the ships are increasing
and even if you dont use the the "prototype rule" that allows you to build a prototype ship up to 2 years before the YIS date, some races have new ship designs joing the fleets then.

Some races have their war cruisers in squadron service already... I guess from My POV GW ships are already joining the various fleets by year 168 (though the Fed NCL is still not one of the war cruiesrs in service at that point.)

You might be correct that MY isnt quite right, but I question if y168-171 is the right period either.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 11:55 pm: Edit

I think Y165-175 is probably quite right even if Rule Z allows the FFB, DW or D5 or other all-combat ships to exist in that time period.

Let's stop trying to say that it feels like year X and instead look to making them feel like year X but different.
I mean, if it feels exactly the same but with different numbers, then why go to all that trouble...why not just play; a year X battle.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 12:23 am: Edit

MJC, the intent is not so much to do Yx so much as it is to try to match a design philosophy of that period, but with X2 tech. I think you're basically saying the same thing.

Jeff, the X2 stuff wouldn't include the war-ship types because the war's over, so you'd want to eliminate those ships from consideration. Also the pre-GW period might be a good definition because the new ships would be built to withstand a first strike even if they're not built for war itself.

The end result is what has been suggested before: Ships that aren't built for war but for long-range expeditions, they exploit matured advanced technology, and they're built in times of economic constraint.

I think ships in the Y168-171 period (not war-ships) model that philosophy.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 01:29 am: Edit

I think it's fine to say that "X2 shouldn't have ship bristling with weapons like late GW and X1. They should have specs like pre-GW but with the obvious improvements that are a must. However, these ships should not be designed as 'war-hulls' but mark a return to the long-service-life multi-mission ship of the pre-GW era (with respect to racial norms of course)."

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 01:51 am: Edit

A new ship for the dawn of a new era.
The mistakes of the war are gone but the mistakes of the prewar are gone too and we are left with; functional (MY design Pilosophy) versitile (labs & Probes) responcible (rugged yet price conscious) competative X1 firepower parity) constructive (politically unthreatening) preceptive (S-Bridge) responsive (X2 strategic speeds), ships.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 10:25 pm: Edit

Interesting description, MJC. Does this still match your previously-proposed designs?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 07:46 am: Edit

I think it does; for the pre refit (IE Y205 trade wars rather than Y220-225 Xork fighting) vessels.
An XCA with 8 Labs (I think I should also try for 8 labs on the XDD) should perform all the scientific roles. An ANY Box and\or Cargo ( I'ld probably mount cargo ) and the S-Bridge; should be able to give the vessel some extra ability in all the non combat duties the vessel will be required to perform.
Four 24 point Photons and 8Ph-5s (in CX arcs) and two GX-racks; should be able to generate the offensive punch needed to keep pace with a Fed CX, Klingon DX, Orion CX or ISC CCX.


The X2 ships will have a big ask put before them:-
• Rebuild the Galactic Powers.
• Defend the GPs from each-other and Remianant Andro.
• Fight; Monsters and Pirates.
• Keep newly nuetral worlds from becomming a threat to the GPs.
• Secure trade...particularly with newly neutral worlds picking up warships at every firesale.
• Do it all, from the budget of collapsed ecconomies.
• Do it all, in a manner that is worth the credits, considering how many GW hulls are floating around.


It's looking like high adventure might be back in vogue!

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 07:11 pm: Edit

"I know that the Steves want the X2's to play nice with the old ships."

I think the key for X2 is getting the BPV right. And X2 cruiser is going to be (should be) vastly superior to and old CA, and (IMO) about as much of an improvement over X1 and an XCA is over an old-style CA. I've been away for a while, but when I was here, I always heard arguments about X2 being "unbalanced". Balance in SFB is determined by BPV, so I don't think anything can be "too powerful", rather it would be "underpointed" (underrated, undervalued, etc.)

The other thing that'd I'd point out is that by 205, many (if not most) pre-X tech ships will have been destroyed (in the GW, the ISC Conquest, or the Andro war), or have been scrapped in the general economic collapse following all the wars (if you doubt this, play the Y181 F&E scenario, where economic needs and the superiorty of X-ships causes battleforce after battleforce to go up in flames). X1 will most likely be prevelent, so any "balance" issues should be between X2 and X1. And as others here have said, versatility will be a big issue, since the number of ships will be small. I disagree that they shouldn't be bristling with weapons; they should either have more or better weapons than X1. These ships have to do anything and everything, and a fleet of X2 should have to be able to take on an X1 or S2 BATS/STB/SB.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 08:14 pm: Edit

Joe, that turns out not to be the case: "(R0.200) Conventional non-X-ships, including new construction, served until Y205 and beyond, forming the bulk of most fleets in the First-Generation period."