Archive through March 22, 2006
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 Frigates and Destroyers.: Archive through March 22, 2006
By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 12:20 am: Edit

Quote:

Well it seems the first three SSDs I looked up, from different authors, each had different P5 tables. Can someone post a link to a reference SSD with the most accepted (at least for the duration of this thread) P5 and P6 tables? Clearly using the same chart would help make this discussion go a little easier.



There's a discussion thread called "X2 Library" that has the phaser charts.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 02:39 am: Edit

The XFF I have has a BPV of 130, with two photons, four P5's (2 FX and 2 RX), and a single drone rack.
Now with my XFF having 2 X2 Photons, 3Ph-5s and two GX-racks also at 130 BPV, it's getting kinda close, particularly since there's less overlap in those phaser arcs.

Both ships have less power than their X1 predecessor and more to spend it on.
Well I think the XFF should have more power than the FFX but much more to spend it on. Remember the FFX has quite a great deal of trouble doing her optimum thing because she'll need to spend BTTY on EW and then she'll be running out of that rather quickly (9BTTY power and 8 EW). And the XFF has more things to spend power on.

I do think, though, that three pulses is a bit much. Too much like a Phaser G.
Playtest be the judge. But I do think it's warrented because our thinking has been a bit heavy on the defence against type VII drones where the minimum damage of 3 ( or is it 4 these days ) of the Ph-6 shot allows 2Ph-6 shots to kill a type VII drone and we're all pretty happy with that. It stays in line with the GW IF drone being knocked down by a single Ph-1 and the VII drone being knocked down by a single rapid pulsing of the X1Ph-1 as two Ph-3 shots.
But what about a single shatter pack!?! 12 Ph-3 shots is hard to organise. Sure the ship should be able to take it on the facing shield but if you're limited to 2Ph-6 shots ( or even 2Ph-6 shots down graded to Ph-3s ) then you need to find six bearing Ph-5s instead of four and it takes a full XCA to find six bearing Ph-5s.
Meanwhile a DDX can rapid pulse her way through a shatter pack with her 6 bearing Ph-1s.
Then there's the drone heavy GW ships. If three Kzinti MDCs attack two 155 BPV X2 vessels ( maybe a 130 BPV XFF and a 170 BPV XDD ), do we really want to 6 bearing Ph-5 and four GX-racks to be resticted in their dealing with the 27 IF drones comming their way (or worse 27 IVF).
Sure it'ld be better to rapid pulse 12 of them down with Ph-6 shots than to run the risk that you don't roll a few too many lots of three points of damage but being able to employ 18Ph-3 shots gives the ships options. And you don't want to trade away all you phasers because then you'll be trading you heavies (four 24 pointers!?!) against their Phasers (9 bearing Ph-1s and 6 bearing Ph-3) and those ships have got a lot of power availible for movement whilst your dumping Warp into Photons and even with EW advantages, if they pick the range (R5) they can basically hammer you fairly badly (9x3.5 is 31.5 and 50% by 4 x 24 is 48) and then the MDC comes in and kills you Ph-3 shot through the downed shield Plus when the MCD is alphaed, it loses an ADD (forgot to add type VIFs to the drone-wave) 2Ph-3s and two Ph-1s where as you'll lose a Photon, four Ph-5s and GX-rack which is much bigger part of your total firepower.
S-bridge drones knock downs gives the X2 vessel options too. I'm for having a sliding scale so GW drones get kncoked as per special sensors but X1 drone only get knocked down on a roll of 1-2 and X2 drones only get knockewd down on a roll of 1. But X2 vessels really do need all the help they can get killing GW drones when they enter a drone heavy enviroment.


I think if an XDD is 170 BPV has two Photon, two GX-racks and 6 Ph-5s and meets a Kzinti CCH, it'ld better have something to defend it'self from drones more than just 8 bearing Ph-6s shot through rapid pulsing and a pair of type VIIs because it could easily be seeing six IVF drones in a single turn (no scatter packs involved!!!) and double that in a well timed wave and the Kzinti's still got Ph-1s and Disruptors to add to the mix where as the XDD is shunted down to only having Heavies (and four Disruptors plus 4 bearing Ph-1s beats two 24 pointers).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 03:19 am: Edit

Quote:

Quote:

I think an XFF with two 24 point Photons ( no fastloads beyond [range] 12 … Her heavies max out at 48 damage ( instead of 64 )


Try rereading before you insert something into someone else's statement, beyond 12 meant beyond 12 points of warhead not R12.

See I don’t see this as a clear NCA advantage. Assuming you are using 12 point fastloads the two turn output of the XFF is 72, plus having the ability to fastload and a potential EW advantage allows you greater flexibility to take the risky range 8 shot. I would rate this XFF better than an NCA on the photon equation.
The NCA has four Photons where as an XFF would have two 24 pointers with the ability to fastload 12 pointers ( the ability to fastload 16 pointers would come latter as the Klingons move from 4 to 6 Disruptors on their cruisers but I digress ) so if a Fed FFX is looking at 2 x 24 x ##% + 2 x 12 x ##% with a possible but not garrenteed -1 shift and the Fed NCA is looking at 4 x 16 x ##% + nothing so one could argue that the XFF has a better out put but you're forgetting about the next turn the ships can arm.
So the XFF is generating 2 x 24 x ##% + 2 x 12 x ##% + 2 x 12 x ##% for an absoulute maximim of 96 if we assume no weapon loses ( of which an equal exchange of weapon hits will hurt the XFF more ) and the NCA is generating 4 x 16 x ##% + 0 + 4 x 16 x ##% which maxes out at 128 point of damage which is well in excess of the XFF.
One question to answer is. If an XFF has 3Ph-5s ( that take 1.5 power to arm ) two photons that can be armed as 24 pointers and an ASIF that costs 2+6 to opperate ( if you use it ) and has a house keeping cost of 2.5 and has 1 AWR + 3 Impulse + 20 warp engine boxes, exactly where does it get the energy to move ( probably 13 warp right there ) plus pay house keeping, arm Photons ( 6 for the left and 6 right ) which puts us at 3.5 points of BTTY being sucked up, and still play and win EW games???
If the NCA can win EW games ( ECM drone anyone ???) then the shift of the Photons of the NCA could be dramatic.

I’m not proposing that we need to have a 150 BPV X2 Fed, I’m asking if we did have a 150 BPV X2 Fed, what would be the appropriate armaments?
Try a slight varriation of my XFF ( on Vorlonagent's site ) with two 24 point photons 2 FX and 2 RX Ph-5s and 2 GX racks with regenerative shielding of healed shields equal to DamCon rating and you'll probably get to 150 BPV.

An XFF that goes to range 1 with an NCA is going to die, and should. An XFF will have a superior turn mode, superior power curve and superior long-range weapons. Why would it want to go any closer than range 8?
On a fixed map it may have no choice, plus it could make a mistake and charge the Photons and BTTYs far to heavily on a turn when the NCA is trying to pounce. Judiciious use of SPs could also get the XFF to slow down as it compensates for using it's phasers defensively. ECM drones could cause the XFF to wander closer to the NCA than it ought. In a fleet battle loaned ECM could have the same effect. Also in a fleet battle the NCA might commit a suicide tractor and might succeed.


X2 ships are looking to be sabre-dancing expecters with dew other options. I think that might not be fun but is a natural follow on effect of where we want to take X2. The other directions ( make `em weak as heel ) hold no logic and the other ( make `em even more super good at everything than X1 ) makes for ships that can't find opponents to fight. So we fall into the game where yes, the ships has an achilies' heel, specifically fragility ( and chronic power shortages if you try to do it all ).

X2 ships are more effective at 5-8. GW ships will be more effective within range 4. Within range 2 a GW ship wins. Can an X2 ship stay in the sweet spot? On an open map I say yes. On a small closed map, probably not. How do we compensate for this?
To some extent, that's upto the Steves to figure out. They've done it for Plasma ships so they should be able to do it for X2 ships. Knowing the right mix of Fixed and Floating maps to base the game on is going to be their call.
What we can do is develop ships that our players find fun and then the Steve's can toy around with those and find what they like and playtest the things they think are going to please the players out there.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 04:14 am: Edit

Oops, I guess I've spent too much time working with the FFB and gave the XFF an MC of 0.5 which is incorrect.

So, If a Fed XFF has 20 warp engine boxes, 3 impulse engine boxes and an AWR and pays movement of 9 points of warp ( 27 hexes per turn ) and 6 warp power to each photon (for a total of 12 ) and pays her house keeping cost of 2.5 points of power, she has 0.5 points of power ( specifically impulse ) and 9 points in her BTTYs with which to do EW tricks and any further activity such as tractors, transporters, recharge Phasers, holding SS, etc, etc, etc.
The XFF can sabre dance at R8 and probably give better than it gets...once, but the NCA has raw power and the heavy weapons to throw that raw power into action.
If we want to offset recharging BTTYs and Phasers by pushing the vessel into a three turn arming cycle then we risk the NCA either lobbing proxies for consistant damage or holding overloads as it screams in. And the XFF hasn't yet begun to S-bridge or ASIF.

One area that all X2 ships will have as a draw-back is that there are way too many things that can heavily draw on the little power they have!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 04:23 am: Edit

An R8 oblique, assuming the XFF did get a -1 shift to attack and a +1 shift to defend, would cause the XFF to throw out 8 points of damage from her 2 Phaser-5s and 32 point of damage from her two 24 point photons. Meanwhile the NCA is chucking out 23.33 points from her four Photons and 9 points of damage from her 6 bearing Ph-1s.
So we get the XFF's 40 points of damage squaring off against the 32.33 of the NCA.
It's a handy advantage if you can get it to work, but how often to you exactly guess 1 or more ECCM more than the other guy's ECM and 1 or ECM than the other guy's ECCM on the impulse of the primary exchange point when he can throw up 6 EW and you 8!?!
And with the combination an ADD-8 and Ph-3s the NCA probably has a drone advantage.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 08:05 am: Edit

Federation X2 Frigate

Here you go. I need to explain some rules so you can properly evaluate things. Keep in mind that I don't want X2 ships to be uber-ships, and that X1 should still be the best overall fighting ship on the scene; that's what they were built for, while X2 are not. They are more advanced, yes, and pack quite a punch, but were not designed specifically to fight. The X2 ships I used have equal to or less power than X1 and more to spend it on, so they aren't quite as easy to play. They feel more like GW era stuff, which is the feel I - and I believe others - prefer, particularly since the game was designed around that feel and balance.

PV: Cost 1 point to fire. Can down fire as a P6 for half cost. Can rapid pulse in x-aegis defensive mode as two P6 shots against drones, fighters, and the like. Can be hastily repaired as a P1. Capacitors hold 3 points. Note: I know there has been much debate over the power cost of the PV; I'm not here to go into it again. Given the power available on this ship and the various things it has to spend it on, I consider one point perfectly fine. Besides, I hate fractions and avoid them when I can. It's one thing to downfire and keep track of half points; but doing so when using phasers normally, and keeping track of quarter points when downfiring is too much. Keep it simple.

"Heavy" Photon. Uses same chart as X1 photon. Standards are 10 points, proxies are five. Arming ratio is the same as previous photons; i.e., 1 to 2. Overloads max out at 20 points. Can be fastloaded up to a maximum of 12 points. Fastloads of any size can be held. Decision to fire as proxy or standard is made at moment of firing, not during EA. Holding cost for up to 16 point warheads remains 2 points; 17 to 20 costs 3 points. Feedback damage is the same ratio as before. Cannot be hastily repaired. Note: I know some would prefer that the "big" overloads not be held. I disagree, for two reasons; one, these are the equal of a TRH, showing that the gap between galactic ships and Andros is starting to close. And two, the penalties inherent with such a big warhead are quite enough; consider the feedback damage they give, the increased hold cost and power expense to arm them, and you get a weapon that does great damage but is damned expensive to use. The feel is similar to GW era photon armed ships, which I like.

G2X Rack: Has dual magazines for faster reloading times. X2 ADD has better range and accuracy than previous ADD's and can be controlled by the ships x-aegis rig. X2 drones are the same as X1.

S Bridge: Can perform functions listed on the chart provided the ship has a single working lab box. Each function can be used, but only one at a time. There is no power cost for using these. note: The reason for no power is to reflect the overall advancement of the sensory gear on the ship. "Normal" sensors do not require power to operate, so I felt these functions shouldn't either. This is one reason I do not allow the S-bridge to have "active" systems, such as breaking lock-ons, attracting drones, or controlling seeking weapons.

Lab: Has a bonus shift of 1 on both gathering information and identifying seeking weapons.

Shield Regenerator: Very simple. For the power cost listed on the ship data table, the ship can regenerate that number of damaged shield boxes per shield, per turn, allocated during the damage control phases. It cannot regenerate reinforcment. So, if this ship was hit by an enveloping plasma and lost 10 points per shield, and it had it's regenerator operating, it would regain two points per shield at the end of the turn. I used this instead of an ASIF. I didn't like messing with something that changed how damage was allocated; tried it a time or two, and found it was hard to predict how effective it would be for a given ship because of the randomness of die rolls. I consder the DAC a critical and well-balanced part of the game, and am hesitant to interfere with how it works. I know that ASIF's are cited as a major reason X2 ships became possible, but I don't think that means you have to have one that affects play...after all, all previous ships had an SIF, which had no effect on the game at all. The effect the ASIF has is to allow these various systems to be deployed. I don't completely oppose an ASIF, but just decided to go another route...so please, don't start bombarding me with "my ASIF will work because" stuff. I'm sure someone will find one that works...I just don't prefer that approach.

I played this ship several times against a Fed CA+ and D7K. Pretty even. It does well if it can get in some good hits, but even with the shield regenerator it can't take damage like a cruiser. Like other frigates it's slow if it tries to arm too many weapons, so it has to be carefull in using it's photons...the opportunity to actually fully overload them is pretty rare (though it pays off nicely if you hit).

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 09:53 am: Edit

Mike, I've never seen anyone suggest an XFF with 12 warp. That certainly makes a difference in BPV. I trust your playtest for the BPV results. Had your XFF had the same warp engines as the 16 found on the FFX, which I was assuming, the BPV and style of play would be very different.

I think this deserves more discussion. Mike, you had posted a Destroyer few years ago D-19 that had 32 warp on a 1/2 MC. This new XFF shows a dramatic evolution of thinking. Could you expound on your current direction and how you got here?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 09:59 am: Edit

MJC, on your posted XFF you have a P5 table and no P1 table. You have P1 listed on the ship with no P5. What is the correct phaser armament?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 10:12 am: Edit

An S-Bridge has the ability to shut down drones, right? ECM drones? If so, it may be unbalancing.

Where is the S-Bridge topic?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 10:56 am: Edit

Well, when I used the S bridge it could not. It can identify drones, gather scientific information, detect mines, and gather tactical intel; that's all. It has no "active" components.

Why did I change this? Simple; testing and personal aim for what X2 should be. It's actually been this way awhile; since 2004 anyway. Just haven't really posted much. During the first bits of testing we did, we found that ships with more power than X1 that also had some of the various X2 goodies we came up with (shield regeneration, bigger weapons, phaser 5's, etc.) were just too much. So, I figured that X2 ships wouldn't have that much extra power because they don't need it.

A core tenant of my X2 approach is and has been that X1 ships were designed for war and are very nearly the best ships for that mission you can possibly get. They have relatively short lifespans and are difficult to maintain (hence the double minimum crew, for example) but they fight extremely well. X2 ships, to me, represent a return to more conventional ship design with a focus on quality improvements that help the ship perform all it's missions more effectively. They have the same strategic speed as X1 but have the long lifespan of GW pre-war ships, like the old CA's. They have great technical improvements that don't require excess minimum crews to manage; lots of automation, for example. They are well-balanced, well built ships that can do any mission well. But they aren't designed specifically to fight, so X1 ships still tend to be their superior or at least equal. Consider this Fed XCA, which weighs in a bit less than CX. Aside from the hull shape (sorry, I just like it), it looks alot like an old CA. Plays like one, too. The key to it being a success (to me, anyway) is that it can do all the things the CA can do, but better...without being a battleship in disguise.

The X1 ships have more weapons and power; the X2 ships compete by having better weapons, and more options to use the power they have. When we first tested against a big drone wave, we were all pleasantly surprised at how effective the G2X rack was at takin down fast drones, as well as how nicely the rapid-pulse, aegis controlled P6's can do. Thing is, there is a cost...using up all your phasers to defend against drones cost you a big peice of your offensive punch. And, you can't hold off a massive drone wave...a moderate one, yes. A huge one, no. The single G2X rack is a great and fun toy to have, but it isn't better overall than a pair of GX racks...different and fun, but not better.

Make sense? I'm sure not everyone agrees, but I fear that making X2 ships more powerful than X1 will turn many players off and make them hard to incorporate into a campaign.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 11:02 am: Edit

I wanted it to have the abiltiy to shut down one seeking weapon as a full action. However, I do see Mikes point about it be inactive type systems. The idea of requiring a lab I'm not sure about. On one hand I like it as a cost for no power. On the other hand I like that S-Bridge cost power. We need things to cost power on X2. Even if X2 has less relative power to X1 it should have more than GW.

Perhaps S-Bridge can use either/or.

Someday, when the Xorks S-bridge can have all the functions of a scout sensor and it will be called Advance Special Sensor Bridge or ASS-BRIDGE. :O

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 11:03 am: Edit

Booth...Now.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 12:03 pm: Edit

Quote:

But they aren't designed specifically to fight

I am in agreement with your points but I would rephrase this statement to say “designed exclusively to fight”. It’s a subtle difference but worth commenting on. YMMV.

Quote:

we were all pleasantly surprised at how effective the G2X rack was at taking down fast drones

Too good if you ask me. It’s not fair to the races like the Gorns and Lyrans who don't mount drone racks. On my latest release I dropped the range 3 1-5 kill down to 1-4, which I think is more balanced. Your thoughts?

Maybe its time for the Lyrans considered adding a GX2 rack to their ships in lieu of rapid pulse. They already use fighters. Would anyone consider this too much tech sloshing if kept to a single drone rack or ADD rack?

Mike, I like your XCA, but it doesn’t have the same limited power that your XFF does. I don't think a 40 warp XCA and a 12 warp XFF is balanced.

I’m concerned about your (and my) NWO allowing too many shuttles. I wonder if we can create a type of NWO that doesn’t have external access without a shipyard overhaul.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 12:28 pm: Edit

For whatever my opinion is worth, I would rather not see the Lyrans get a GX2 rack. I object to it partly because of the tech sloshing, and partly because it strikes me as a dubious design choice given the ESG. If Lyran X2 ships are falling behind in drone defense capabilities, technical improvements to the ESG seem to me the better fix.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 12:53 pm: Edit

Ya, Lyrans have ESG and reading this gave me an idea. A Quick Pulse mode. Take two energy for one point on the table (so twice the energy) and does an R1 ESG pulse with no delay. POssibly has a max energy output?

Also regarding NWO. I see to many of them in use I think. Four NWO on a full cruiser is max IMO. An FF might have two and a DD should have none (in all X2 the DD should remain a Combat centric unit).

Of course, I've always maintained that there should be NO pure combat version of an FF. Frigates in the X2 era should ONLY serves as support vessels (small escorts, scout and supply etc).

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 04:14 pm: Edit

I have a few questions.

Fed XDD: Why limit the ship to two photons?

X2 Photons: Has there been any consideration that a Fed XDD might have one heavy photon (X2-no fast loads) and two standard photon (X1-has fast loads)? An XCA would would have two X2 photons and two X1 photons.

Please note my view on an XCA may be different than the generally accepted ideas that have been suggested. I see the XCA as an X2 CA not a BCH level ship. I am also looking at the XDD replacing the DD, DW, and HDW classes for combat. I like Loren' idea on the FF class.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 04:23 pm: Edit

I really cannot see why the Feds would change their destroyer design to have two photons. 4 has worked on true DD hulls (DD,DDX) for a very long time, no reason to go backwards now.

4 still gives them a lot of teeth. Make it like the lolipop where if it powered them all it could not move.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 05:44 pm: Edit

Tos:

I've been meaning to correct that.
I'll email the correct SSD to you and if you could get it on the site, that'ld be cool.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 06:38 pm: Edit

I don't completely oppose an ASIF, but just decided to go another route...so please, don't start bombarding me with "my ASIF will work because" stuff. I'm sure someone will find one that works...I just don't prefer that approach.
Maybe this is bombarding but I would commend you look at the idea of having an ASIF that affects the DAC and a Shield Regeneration. That way you can bring things back to MY levels of intensity as the increase in firepower of X1 gets brought back to earth with increases in both shielding and internal toughness.

An S-Bridge has the ability to shut down drones, right? ECM drones? If so, it may be unbalancing.
I'm one of the few people for an S-Bridge drone knock down and of late I think tying it to the Aegis Identification System (D13.31) and stating that it can't be used outside of R6 might be a good idea for the purposses of keeping ECM drones attached to their vessel.

Maybe its time for the Lyrans considered adding a GX2 rack to their ships in lieu of rapid pulse. They already use fighters. Would anyone consider this too much tech sloshing if kept to a single drone rack or ADD rack?
Yeah, I would.
Now having one (or more on bigger ships ) remote controlled, unmanned fighter on all Lyran ships might give then the ability to put drones up for drone defense.
But alternately if every Lyran had a PF it could launch from an internal bay, that would also give it extra drone defense and be more in tune with the Lyran flavour.

Ya, Lyrans have ESG and reading this gave me an idea. A Quick Pulse mode. Take two energy for one point on the table (so twice the energy) and does an R1 ESG pulse with no delay. POssibly has a max energy output?
Actually, I'ld look to the Fusion Beam for guidance. It can fire every turn without a cool-down period unless it fired in overload mode under X1.
What if under X2 the Fusion could fire in Overload mode but because of the extra heat couldn't be fired in overload mode again just standard.
If that becomes the case for fusion beams, which is an extention of what happened under X1, we could take the ESGs to a new system.
Specificlly in the next turn you can reactivate a downed ESG but you can't have more than 3 points of power in it. This way over two turns you get the effect of having a 10 point ESG but it isn't any better in an over-run than a 7 point ESG. But for drone defence, it'ld be rather handy.

Fed XDD: Why limit the ship to two photons?
Money???
Treaty???
A change in the combat design philosophy???
If you have 24 point Photons then two give similar out-put to three 16 point X1 Photons...coupled with the -1 shift of X ships and you get out puts that are close to a DD+ ( 4/6 x 24 x 2 => 32 points of damage at R8).
I'ld say the Feds had their XDD allowed to carry 3 under the treaty and tried to save money by only having two, which then has the Refit additions to Tubes C and latter D.

X2 Photons: Has there been any consideration that a Fed XDD might have one heavy photon (X2-no fast loads) and two standard photon (X1-has fast loads)? An XCA would would have two X2 photons and two X1 photons.
If the Steves don't kill that ( which tube is doing what now!?!) it'll be killed by flavour. The Federation Photon is uniform (R30 in the GW even for the FFG) and opting for two different kinds seems unlikely, the Fed would rather have a change in their battle-plan and use four heavy Photon that couldn't fastload than a mix!

4 still gives them a lot of teeth. Make it like the lolipop where if it powered them all it could not move.
Two Photons and two GX-racks isn't that far removed from the Fed DDG. A Destroyer that can't sabre dance when the entire technology level of ships it is part of; sabre dance as their best method of survival, is a Destroyed!

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 09:17 pm: Edit

For the most part I believe X1 is considered something of an evolutionary dead end. X2 may draw more upon GW era ships, in my mind the Y168 Fast ships specifically.

Quote:

I am also looking at the XDD replacing the DD, DW, and HDW classes for combat.

The DD has been out of production for 40 years. The DW is the ship an XDD would seek to replace, though I do like your consideration that it could share some mission similarity with an HDW.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 09:40 pm: Edit

I think the XCL should be what is most like an HDW. It's just a better plateform.

XCC (BCH flag ship)
XCA/XCM (Main line cruisers)
XCL (prime workhorse)
XDD (pure combat vessel, long on pirate and border patrol, combat escort)
XFF (no core type but many variants. Each ship does one thing and does it really well).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 10:21 pm: Edit

To some extent we need to remember a few things.
The blueprints of the refitted MY period ships are not lost so if a CARa+ fits the role you can still build it. Then there's the fact that the XP being spent to by X2 ships is XP and not EP and so the construction of X2 ships will be limited. That being the case, the X2 ships will be the frontline vessels partly becuase their haigher strategic speed and range allows them to cover the terrirtory especially since bases have been wiped out in the near neutral zone areas.

Then there's the issue of the Orions...are they going back to watered down versions of their vessels...probably not.

Let us differentiate between role and level.
If an XDD has the role of a CW, it might well be the level of a DNL!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 10:27 pm: Edit

Quote:

For the most part I believe X1 is considered something of an evolutionary dead end. X2 may draw more upon GW era ships, in my mind the Y168 Fast ships specifically.


I don't see X1 as an evolutionary dead end, rather a solution where the science that had been developed was bunged in the microwave to get it cooked quickly where as X2 is what you get when you take they same science ( plus a little more ) and cook it for a long time over years and with lots of extra money and staff.
X2 should be the maturure extentions of X1.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 08:22 am: Edit

MJC,

Your latest XFF has been uploaded.

This is the last file I will accept as a .bmp. You will save more space converting to .gif than dropping to black and white. (I converted your SSD to .gif and cut its file size to 1/4 what it was)

I also strongly suggest you download the free SSDs on starfleetgames.com and use them as a basis for creating smaller and cleaner SSDs than cutting and pasting scans as you do now.

With a little selective grabbing from other people's sites (Mike, Tos, Loren) you should build up a library of hulls and pieces to make almost anything you want.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 10:45 am: Edit

I gave him the same advice and sent a mess of SSD fodder.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation