I like the Phaser-V for use on X2 ships. Allow it to fire as two P-3s for one point. Three for two is a waste.

So three modes:
Energy/Type
> 1.5= P-5
> 1.0= P-1
> 1.0= 2xP-3

Increase the Capacitor to three units of power for each Phaser-V. It makes sense that these ships would have a double capacitor for the P-V (2x1.5=3) and that maintains the standing rule that x-ships have double capacitors.

IMHO

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 12:51 am: Edit

I'm not real keen on the idea of multi-P3s coming out of my offensive phasers anyway. That's why I put XP1s on my ship. If an X2 drone or plasma is inbound and I need to feel defensive about it, it is not overkill to fire the PV at it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 02:32 am: Edit

I don't think in this case two P3s is too much. It would actually do less than the full potential of the weapon. Unlike before when you could raise the damage output by alot.

One P1 or two P3s would be a lower setting for the weapon.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 08:03 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Allow it to fire as two P-3s for one point. Three for two is a waste.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 10:12 am: Edit

So what I'm hearing from some is to make the Ph-V a bigger and better Ph-1, including a down-load option for defense, while others want it to be a single-mode, offensive phaser, with 1X phaser-1's mounted as defensive systems, since they can download? Sound about right?

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 11:10 am: Edit

Mike, the Klingon Boom needs a transporter.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 11:46 am: Edit

Mike, your Phaser-H is very powerful and if used I would hope only inlimited numbers. It's too powerful.

The Ph-V you presented has a top damage capability of only one point higher than a P-1 but with less of a degradation curve over range. It is a very powerful weapon but not so big as to be unmountable in numbers. I can live with it being the standard X2 Phaser.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 01:36 pm: Edit

Loren,

The phaser-H is actually an outgrowth of the heavy phasers from SFC. You'd only mount them in limited numbers, but they don't have the wing requirments of megaphasers, so they can have more or less normal mounts. Figure two on a CCX, maybe 1 on smaller ships. That was my thought, anyway.

I'm working on a design for a ship that reflects an alternate approach; smaller, faster, lighter, but with high-quality and different weapons. I'll get it up sometime today, hopefully.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 01:44 pm: Edit

I'm thinking I would like to develope my approach as well. Just to see if I'm crazy or not.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 02:11 pm: Edit

You should! Let me know if I can help.

Okay, here we go. In taking various suggestions and reading some posts, I have a second optional type of 2X ship SSD. Where the first one basically went with bigger and tougher, with basically the same equipment as 1X with maybe some improvements, this version goes the opposite direction. It's smaller, based of the NCL design , and has nifty new high-quality weapons in lower quantities. It's faster, more maneuverable, more flexible, and cheaper. Here's the SSD:

Alternate Federation 2X Cruiser

Note a few things that grew out of various discussions, and that aren't obvious from the SSD.

1: Advanced drones and ADD's. ADD's have a bit longer range, drone racks have four reloads. Less racks, but more reloads means better hang time but not so much throw weight.

2: NWO boxes. Could use these for command facilties, power, etc. Gives some flexibility 1X ships lack.

3: 2X warp. Existing warp boxes can increase output by 50%, like the Orions engine-doubling. However, there is no damage from this. If the engine takes damage, though, it's doubled.

4: Phasers. Uses the conjectural Phaser-V. This one can fire a standard shot for 2 points, or 2 phaser 3 shots for 1 point. It can also downfire as a standard phaser 1 for 1 point. Note that the phasers have a better arc, for greater coverage...a trade off for having less.

Now, this is a sort of mish-mash of various posted ideas, and other stuff I've been emailed. I know it isn't perfect, but the question becomes is this the direction people want 2X to go, or the previous ship? I realize the weapon tables are totally conjectural, but such things would be core to making a small ship like this.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 02:40 pm: Edit

Daniel K,

It has one...right behind the bridge.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 03:25 pm: Edit

Mike. First, I think that is a great SSD. It is exactly what I would have as a CL. I still want the two hull heavy cruisers in the game. Though those will take on the roll of Capitol Ship rather than work horse.

The SSD...it's a keeper.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 04:40 pm: Edit

Now the Klingon counterpart to the above. Similar concept, in that it's smaller and faster. Less weapons, but better quality, all that sort of thing. Again, this is just to see if this is the direction we want to go.

Alternate Klingon 2X Advanced Cruiser

Things to take note of:

1: Slightly different look; thicker boom, larger command area.

2: Follows the normal Klingon pattern, with heavier phasers up front. X phaser 1's on the rear, pushed waaaaay back, so that they cover the entire RA arc for better coverage.

3: Disruptors would have a capacitor system of some kind; not sure what yet, but my personal preference would be for one that held 2 points per disruptor, with a 1-point hold cost.

4: Advanced ADD racks carry 15 ADD's, instead of 12. As with the Fed ship above, ADD has better to hit chart.

5: Excellent turn mode and maneuverability.

6: Can "overdrive" engines as the Fed ship above.

7: 2 NWO boxes in the boom area, for whatever the player likes; cargo, command, power, etc.

That's it. Again, the question isn't necessarily about the perfection of the SSD; it's "Is this the 2X flavor we want, instead of big ships?"

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 06:21 pm: Edit

Can you do a SC3, MC1 version?

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 06:28 pm: Edit

Just a lurker's observations.

Do you really want X2 Klingon's mutining? Aren't X-Klingons immune to mutiny?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 07:38 pm: Edit

John, Yes I can. Just testing the waters a bit. This particular one relects a desire by several people to have X ships be faster (i.e., less move cost) and leaner, rather than bigger.

Scott, I wondered that myself. But, the 1X Klingons DO have security, so I put it here, too. It's definately something I've wondered about, though.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 08:05 pm: Edit

It's because active Security helps protect the ship from being boarded. SPP just made a post about that very subject a little while ago. He said they originally had flag bridge but that took away all the other benifits of the presence of security so they put it back.

Oh ya. It had to do with the presense of Flag Bridge not actually defining what makes a command leader (or the amount of command points).

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 08:07 pm: Edit

I remember that post to.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 08:13 pm: Edit

Security is handy against boarding actions. That Klingon has the ability to fire 93 ADDs in one turn. With the improved ADD chart that would more than make drones useless.

Your PV table has a pixel off in the 4-5 column.

I don't see why these ships need turbo warp. 32 warp on a 3/4 seems plenty to me.

The Klingon is still too big in my book.

I think the Fed's crunch is too high and self defense phasers a bit too low. Swap 2PV-FX for 2P1-360, and I think I'd rather see FH on a Fed's front phasers. I'd also prefer 3 forward photons and 2 aft photons, but that gets you into a secondary hull model. Right size though.

Where's the one I wanted? Christmas present?

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 08:54 pm: Edit

If the ship has G racks, is there a need for separate ADDs?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 09:24 pm: Edit

Tos,

Here's yours. My email is out of whack; sorry for the delay, but it required re-working some tables, and some work trying to get it all on while still making it small-looking, and somewhat different.

Federation 2X Medium Cruiser

For those not in the know, Tos asked me to make a ship based on his ideas. This is that ship. Basically formed from the layout of the Fed CF, with some changes, including a greatly reduced secondary hull, similar to the NCA. It has Tos's ideas about 2X tech, such as 3 point batteries, 10 point photons that can fire overloads to R12 but with a 16 point max, and improved ADD's (not the same as the ones posted earlier...these are Tos's, not anyone elses.) The ship has the shields of a Fed CX, and a 3/4 move cost with 34 warp. The white space in the middle of the primary hull is for command facilities on a variant.

Tos, sorry if it isn't quite right, but it should be close, at least in the core stuff (weapons and arcs, power, number of boxes, etc.)

Enjoy!

Jeff, I put them both on so that we could decide which route to go. Personally, I'd rather come up with a BX rack, that basically has a B rack with more reloads, and keep an ADD-15 for the Klingons. The G2X rack was the first one anybody proposes, so I went with it. Again, though, the emphasis to this point is on the basic design strategy of the ship; that is, smaller/faster vs. larger/more powerful.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 09:40 pm: Edit

Well... I'm a proponent of Tos' ideas. I want more X1 development before X2 is brought in.

However: If we are posting SSDs... try this on for size.

The design is Chris Fant's, but I've cleaned it up and formatted it. It has an increased move cost (ala one of Mike's designs), better phasers, heavier Torps, and a Regenerative Shield system.

So I present the Independence Class Heavy Cruiser

Other designs include the Victory (one of the coolest little ships out there), the Pulsar, and the Typhoon.

Note that they all have 'First Generation X-Ship' labels because they all still have 1X tech (BATTS, phaser caps, speed, etc), with 2X weapons.

42

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 10:02 pm: Edit

Rob,

Nicely done, as always. I'm interested in the regenerative shield...but I'd have to say that 30-point, R45 photons and R90 phasers are a bit much. For the "bigger" ship route, the first one looks just about right, IMHO, as far as the size and power of the ship.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 10:32 pm: Edit

...but increased warp power.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 10:52 pm: Edit

Like I said... not my designs. These ships presented are (like Mike's) simply to spark discussion (as if there hasn't been enough already).

And so I can show off some of my SSDs... they not be my designs, but they are my drawings, and I am quite proud of how they turned out.


42