Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through August 03, 2009	25		08/03 10:26pm
	Archive through August 07, 2009	25		08/07 07:21pm
	Archive through May 05, 2010	25		05/05 08:55pm
	Archive through February 24, 2011	25		02/28 04:10pm

John,

Regarding you post from 3:04 pm on 23 February, I'm not so concerned as you about the gatling phasers being "overkill". (Note that although you say "adding gats", the actual proposal calls for the 2 gatling phasers to replace 2 phaser-1s.) Yes, the Fed X-cruisers have a lot of firepower at close range. But there are in fact ships that outgun them at 2 hexes, which is how close you have to get for the phaser-Gs to be effective anti-ship weapons. Lots of Hydrans do so, once you take their Stinger-X fighters into account. But to take a non-Hydran example, from a historical Fed enemy, consider the Lyran BCX from X1R. It has 6 disruptors and 14 phaser-1s. The Fed has 2 GX drone racks but the Lyran has 4 X-tech ESGs. The Lyran also has more power, both generated and reserve than the Fed. I believe the BCX is advantaged over either the standard CX or my proposed version with the 2 gatlings. I don't think overkill is really a problem.

My concerns with this design are 1) Could the Federation build it? and 2) Would they do so? I can see no reason why the answer to the first question wouldn't br "yes". And I do believe they would build at least a few of them.

By Dixon Simpkins (Dixsimpkins) on Sunday, February 27, 2011 - 05:18 pm: Edit

'What X-ships r needed?'

I think that, sooner or later, DNXs should be done, even if they are only cnj/imp. I suspect that many players, myself at least, want them. (I have made some homemade ssds on my laptop that I may or may not submit to ADB. At the moment there doesn't seem to be much interest at ADB for big X-ships.) At least DNLXs should be done for the races that didn't get one in Module R9.

Otherwise, I think that DCSs should be converted to full Xtech and used as fast RTN hunters. Fast, better shielded and better armed, with sensors and lots of mega-fighters and PFs as attrition units-they are perfect for the role!

As for the Fed NCLX, this should only be published as an unbuilt ship. If the NCLX is to be consistent with the design of the NAX it would only have 4 phot, 9 ph-1 and 2 drone-gx. This is the same armament as the DDX. It seems pointless to build a ship when another, smaller one is almost as good. Any NCLXs should be converted into (superior) NAXs during construction.

I am new to the forum and have not read much of the archived posts, so forgive me if someone has said any of this already

By John Rudd (Johnrudd) on Sunday, February 27, 2011 - 05:39 pm: Edit

"What X-Ships are Needed"

Can probably guess my answer from another thread:

I'd like to see X-ships for the simulator races.

(I'd also like to see cadet ships of the simulator races ... since you know, they're training ships in the first place, and the main people who probably see them are _cadets_, and I'd like to see SFBF cards for the simulator races, and maybe F&E rules for the simulator races, but that's sort of outside of the scope of this thread)


Another "X-ships I'd like to see" -- Tournament X-Ships (not balanced against non-tournament ships, but X vs X tournament ships).

By Dixon Simpkins (Dixsimpkins) on Sunday, February 27, 2011 - 07:54 pm: Edit

I think a Module C4X is already being planned, though I dont know if it's in the schedule yet.

Aren't X-command cruisers fairly equal in BPV already? Maybe it's just me but I don't really see the point to X tournament ships. (No offense intended)

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, February 28, 2011 - 04:10 pm: Edit

I would think as X ship squadrons become more dominant that there would be an increased emphasis on building some additional "Fast Ships" to support the X ships.

NOT because a fast ship is anything like as good as the X ships, but because the Fast ships can be built without using up the relatively scarce X "EPs." And they can keep up with their speedy deployment movement.

So I'd propose that there were fast ships built with (or without) partial X refits intended to aid the main X ships while not using much (or any X resources).

Examples.

A Fast CW scout with a X refit of its batteries.
A fast DB ship. CW or DW based?
A fast FFT (ie a combat minitug) to bring along those crucial supplies on raids.
A fast mini PFT (it might only have 2 mech links and special sensors, but it brings repair capability).
A fast counterpart of the HDW. Probably would be CW based and have fewer weapons but used as a JOAT ship. Commando raids anyone?

On another note, sooner or later the old tug designs are just too old to be worth building. The Klingon, Rom and Kzinti tugs IIRC are not even speed 30 capable. IMHO about the only guys that get "tugging" right are the Lyrans with their SR and heavy tugs that become super scouts (with a scout pallet) or pseudo BCs (with a battle pallet)...

The Roms start the GW with 2 rpmulanized Klingon tugs. Do they ever buy more? IIRC they never actually build their own "true" tug, using instead Sparrowhawks in the cargo config instead...

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, February 28, 2011 - 04:49 pm: Edit

Alan,

Regarding you post from 3:04 pm on 23 February, I'm not so concerned as you about the gatling phasers being "overkill". (Note that although you say "adding gats", the actual proposal calls for the 2 gatling phasers to replace 2 phaser-1s.) Yes, the Fed X-cruisers have a lot of firepower at close range. But there are in fact ships that outgun them at 2 hexes, which is how close you have to get for the phaser-Gs to be effective anti-ship weapons. Lots of Hydrans do so, once you take their Stinger-X fighters into account. But to take a non-Hydran example, from a historical Fed enemy, consider the Lyran BCX from X1R. It has 6 disruptors and 14 phaser-1s. The Fed has 2 GX drone racks but the Lyran has 4 X-tech ESGs. The Lyran also has more power, both generated and reserve than the Fed. I believe the BCX is advantaged over either the standard CX or my proposed version with the 2 gatlings. I don't think overkill is really a problem.

Hydrans always had more short-range punch than Feds. That's their thing. Same for Lyrans and phasers and power. Lyrans always had P-1s at Fed density and more power. Neither of these circumstances was seen as justifying adding P-Gs to standard-tech Federation combat designs. Personally I don't see that X1 has changed things.

Feds don't fight Lyrans normally, even less-so Hydrans. Feds fight Klinks and Roms. Adding P-gs to a fed fleet alters the way Feds play against these races. That's *why* standard-tech Feds don't get gats, whether as replacements or additions to their phasers.

Yeah the Feds probably could put gats on their ships, especially since X1 puts an end to carriers and frees up the limited supply of gats for other uses. Will they? I don't think the Steves will go there.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, February 28, 2011 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Michael,

I'm not sold on a bunch of new "Fast Ships" in the X-tech era. For one thing, I'm not actually convinced they would be cheaper to operate than X-ships, once the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs are taken into account. Neither SFB nor F&E really deals with O&M costs but they are a huge driver of real-world military equipment decisions. Do you have any idea how many military systems have been retired, not because they were no longer tactically and operationally viable, but because old technology made them more expensive to maintain and operate than the newer, more modern stuff?

The engines for "Fast Ships" were always built in small numbers. That suggests that there was never a large industrial base to support them. Spare parts would be increasingly difficult to obtain. There would be few engineers familiar with the technology and many of them would be nearing retirement age. And why were these engines never (at least so far as I can recall) used for "standard" cruisers? Imagine a Fed CAR+ or CC+ with the larger engines of the CF. Even if the standard cruiser weapon load meant the ship was no longer strategically fast, the tactical advantage of having that much power would have been significant. There must have been an even more significant reason why these engines were only used for ships that needed to be strategically fast.

So, we know from previously established SFU history that "Fast Ships" were not produced in significant numbers and most of those lost in combat were not replaced - strongly suggesting a diminishing industrial base and diminishing logistics support capability. X-ships were expensive to build and their engines were undoubtedly a major factor in that. But we also know that production rates later increased - evidence of an increasing industrial base. Only SVC can decide this, but if these ships follow the pattern that a lot of real world complex systems have followed, it is very possible that by the time X-tech is well established, a fully capable X-ship might be more expensive to build, but cheaper to maintain than an aging (and less capable) design plagued by parts obsolescence and DMSMS (Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages) issues.

By John Rudd (Johnrudd) on Monday, February 28, 2011 - 07:26 pm: Edit

Are the X Command Cruisers mostly/fairly balanced? or are they completely balanced? I would expect that, for an "X Tournament", you'd want completely balanced ... not mostly balanced. I just think it'd be nice to have the option, just like there are a bunch of "non-official" tournament cruisers. Just X versions of the TCC's.

(I think a better refutation of the idea is: does anyone REALLY want to play an X Tournament ... probably not, it was just an idea I had when trying to think "what hasn't been done, and hasn't been ruled out as not-possible").

Another of those questions (and probably pretty silly): Cadet X-Ships. Though, you can probably use X Frigates for that (in the same way that X Cruisers are "fairly balanced", but with the same question of "are they fairly balanced, or are they completely balanced?"). Just sayin'.


Of course, I'd still like to see official 2X designs for Captain's Edition... even if they're not using the same setup as the Commander's 2X material. In my mind, it could still be 1X technology, but applying the multi-role concepts of the war destroyers. Multi-role flexibility, something to reflect higher-endurance, and maybe something that reflects a return to "neutral zone battles" without having to do it the way the Commanders edition did. On the other hand, I've been away from SFB for a few years, so maybe that got filled in while I was gone.


The other thought I've had is: rather than follow the development of the different refits, drone upgrades, etc.. to just completely side-step the technology arms race, and so that there's only 1 set of ship rules in play ... what would you need to have an all-X campaign game? I haven't looked into the X reinforcements material yet (just ordered it today), but if you assume that everything uses X rules, even freighters, even capital ships, etc. ... what would that look like? What units do you need to fill in? What "previously not possible as X-ships" ships suddenly become "need to have"? What ships have to be absolutely ruled out? What gaps does that leave in the game, if you can't have/build/etc. non-X ships? Or do you already have everything you need in order to run such a game?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, February 28, 2011 - 08:21 pm: Edit

The bulk of the thread s 'round here are devoted to X2 ideas. Commander's X2 isn't considered very good by most of the posters.

By Dixon Simpkins (Dixsimpkins) on Monday, February 28, 2011 - 08:28 pm: Edit

John R,
I take your point about the X command cruisers and 'X Tournament' cruisers. I was thinking in terms of historical ships for another X1 Module.

I think that cadet X-cruisers would be great! I always liked the small cadet ships. I don't know how one could balance them, though, especially if you want to mix X-tech cadet cruisers with the regular ones. (This is probably the wrong topic to discuss cadet stuff)


I don't think the 'one set of rules' idea is going to work. I'm not sure but I think the old GW era ships continue well into the X-ship period. X-ships don't replace regular ships entirely, they are just very much improved versions. Mostly, they replace some of the frontline combat ships in the fleets, the support and logistical ships are still going to be older ships that use the regular rules. Module X1R contains rules for Partial X-refits (called XP) that allow you to convert any Middle Years or GW era ship to use some X-tech. I suppose this could be used in a campaign for everything that is not 'X-ship'. I don't play campaign games so I am not sure about the rules for this.

Mike Grafton
I think fast cruisers would be a bad idea against X-ships. They have weaker shields than X-ships of the same size and they don't have the heavy weapons firepower of x-ships either. I think they would be chewed up.

Mike
I take it back after rereading your post. Fast transports seem like a good idea for supporting the fast X-ships. They would,of course, try to keep out of the line of fire if the Xships made contact with the enemy.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, February 28, 2011 - 11:03 pm: Edit

Alan & Dixon,

the point is NOT that the fast ships are as good as or as cheap to operate, its that they can keep up and can be built with non X "EPs."

So instead of building an X Destroyer scout with some of your VERY LIMITED X building EPs & Dock Space, you build a Fast CW based scout.

And I would propose that these were limited builds in the "just gearing up to X" period.

Please also note that I am proposing roles for these guys NOT on the battle line per se. They would hang back (scout sensors are as effective at range 15 as range 0).

And the Fast CW HDD replacement lets us avoid a plethora of X variants during a time when every X build was needed for combat duties.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, February 28, 2011 - 11:11 pm: Edit

Michael,

I was under the impression that X ships are somewhat faster in Strategic terms than "normal" starships... a Fast CW HDD replacement is still a very expensive ship compared to a vanilla CW or a vanilla HDD.

What I am curious about (and again, don't have my rules available to check) is a Fast CW HDD just as fast in strategic movment as a X ship? (IOW are X ships, Fast CW or a Fast HDD all 7 hex operational movement hulls in F&E?

if they are, then you idea has merit, IMO.

If they are not, then it might not work out the way that you suggest.

either way, its something to check out before going any farther in the discussion.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, March 01, 2011 - 09:49 am: Edit

Mike,

I get that part, about "fast ships" not requiring XPs. But I think that there is some similar limitation (we just don't know exactly what it is) on "fast ship engines" as well. My evidence for this is that they were never deployed in significant numbers and that based on the stated costs of the CFs the answer can't be that the "fast ship engines" were simply more expensive. We can estimate the extra expense based on CF costs (both in SFB and F&E) and if that is all it were, those engines would have been deployed in much larger numbers, even if deploying them on a CA/CC/BCH would not have made the ship strategically fast. The tactical advantages of having that much extra power in combat would be worth the expense. So there's something else that kept those engines in such limited service.

I suppose I can see a very limited deployment of new fast ship types early in the X-tech era, but only for a few specialized missions. I don't think there would be anything like the number implied by your list in your 4:10 pm post from yesterday. What mission might justify a fast ship in the early X-tech era? I suggest a fast repair cruiser to accompany X-squadrons on missions too far from their bases, or conducted at too high a speed, to be supported by standard repair cruisers. The fast repair cruiser would not participate in the battle itself, of course. It would patch up battle-damaged X-ships so they could get home after the battle.

Jeff,

"Fast ships" (CFs, DNLS, etc.) are as fast as X-ships strategically, and have as long a range. That's not why I object to Mike's suggestion. I think that the historical background material and published deployments for these ships only make sense if the fast ship engines were in very short supply (reason for the short supply currently unknown). If I'm right, that is not compatible with a large number of new fast ship types.

By Dixon Simpkins (Dixsimpkins) on Tuesday, March 01, 2011 - 11:23 am: Edit

I can't comment on the F&E aspect of this debate as I am not too familiar with that system but I get the gist of what you guys are saying.

However, in terms of SFB, I still think that fast non-X scouts are going to be a high value target that is poorly shielded compared to the other X-ships. This is fine if the X-squadron only meets non-X-ships in battle. I guess what I am saying is "Can a non-X fast scout ship keep out of harm's way if the enemy also has X-ships?" This might require actual playtesting to find out.
Assuming that the engines for it are available at all.

BTW, shouldn't this be in the 'New Classes' topic rather than the 'X-ships' topic?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, March 26, 2011 - 03:19 pm: Edit

Tholian WDX Advanced Web Defence Destroyer

In Y179 the Tholians deployed the CPA specifically for web defense purposes. It is a CA with all disruptors replace by phaser-1s, so total weaponry consistes of 10 phaser-1s and 4 phaser-3s but no heavy weapons. I've never been sure why the YIS is Y179 since it is based on technology the Tholians had decades earlier. But a plausible guess would be that the Tholians could have built such a ship much earlier but never saw a need for it until the scare of Operation Nutcracker.

In any event, in the X-tech era the Tholians have the PCX for web defense but might also want something heavier, especially after the Seltorians show up. But X-tech cruisers are sufficiently rare that it seems unlikely the Tholians would devote one purely for the base defense mission. Instead I propose the WDX, based on the DDX. The conversion is very straightforward. Simply replace the 2 disruptors with phaser-1s.

Compared to the PCX the WDX has 3 more phaser-1s, 8 more points of generated power plus 3 more reserve power, and 6 more shield boxes on each facing. It would be approximately the same cost as a CPA but would not require a cruiser construction slot. The CPA has nominally more firepower and is more durable but the WDX has the X-tech EW advantages. The CPA generates more power but pays more for movement and housekeeping. Also, the WDX has both the X-tech maneuver davantages and is nimble. Depending on the specific forces involved and tactics used, nimble status can be a valuable advantage for a web defender.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, March 26, 2011 - 06:02 pm: Edit

Name proposals:

The Accountant, the Auditor and the Assessor.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, March 26, 2011 - 06:06 pm: Edit

Huh?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, March 26, 2011 - 08:23 pm: Edit

Alan,

from your post, Quote: "In Y179 the Tholians deployed the CPA specifically for web defense purposes"

You are, ineffect proposing a replacement for a CPA... hence the Accountant, the Auditor and the Assessor" PCX class.

Okay, I admit, it was a reach, but it was also meant as a joke. (the Initails CPA are also commonly used to refer to Certified Public Accountant.)

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, March 28, 2011 - 09:15 am: Edit

Ahh... CPA, I get it now.

I had actually been wondering whether the letters "WDX" had some significance in Accounting. But an admittedly brief Google search didn't turn up anything that seemed to fit.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, March 28, 2011 - 06:18 pm: Edit

Windows X upgrade?!? a future windows product that will do everything from figuring depreciation to putting out the cat?