Tos I agree that nessecity is the mother of invention. And that the Andros would have driven a frenzy of innovation.

But I dont think it would have resulted in NEW hulls. It probably would have been research into applying X tech to some of the late war ships instead.

The problem is that the Andros have already been very limited over what they used to be. Almost any new Galatic innovation would just make an Andro fleet even more marginal than it is now. In duels Andro's can be deadly 1-1. But at the squadron level the balance is equal for the Galatics. While in a Fleet battle the Andros are severely outmatched.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 01:43 pm: Edit

Remember that Second Generation X-tech is going to be fighting the Xorkellians (AFAICT).

There WILL be a need.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 02:20 pm: Edit

Loren I was refering to more X1A stuff or even X1+. In regards to the Andro's.

The Xork's are supposed to make the Andro's look like SVC's cats compared to an enraged Kzinti Lyran clash.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 08:41 pm: Edit

Just thinking about this.


Do we want to measure the X2 ships against X1 ships or only against themselves.


Lets say we beef up the warhead strength of photons by 50% ( and have 4 of them in our oblique attack ) so we have 24 point warheads and we launch them out at R10 ( because we've extended the overload range to R10 ) and we're using 8 mini-Ph-4s in the attack...so 26 points of phaser damage.
For a total damage of 58 points.

Not only will that cream a CX but also the CX at that range will do...no overloaded Photon damage and about 8 points of phaser damage.

So a CXX could easily beat about 6 CXs at once and thus have a BPV of around 1440 BPV!!!

Although 6 CX might choose to use standards greatly decreasing the ability of the CXX to go around without taking damage.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 08:45 pm: Edit

The Fed X1 CX is 225 BPV. The Fed X0 CB is 170 with a full drone loadout. That's a 33% BPV increase.

33% more than 225 would be 300 BPV. That's a bit much in my book.

Lets see what happens when we take that same X0 CB and give it an outstanding crew. 170 * 1.50 = 255 BPV. Isn't that interesting. What does it mean? Interesting to note that the CX has practically identical boxes to the CB, excepting the warp of course.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 08:51 pm: Edit

So we'd be looking for a 250-275 pt CXX?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 08:52 pm: Edit

Tos:


The revised BPV is 240.

CB...don't you mean BC?


I'ld say that the CXX should be better than a BB, so 400+ is my opinion.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 09:34 pm: Edit

Six CXs against one CXX. Sure, no problem. I wish I could play that one. I'd take just three CXs and cream you CCX by the end of turn two. No, same claim, but with just two CXs.

MJC, come on. Look at all the numbers OK?

On the other note: 275 to 300 BPV should be the goal. One of these should just lose against a X-cruiser + one X-Destroyer. But easily beat a single X-Cruiser.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 10:45 pm: Edit

I think we should be aiming for something in the 350-400 range (i.e. equivalent to a X0 BB, able to stomp 1 CX, and slightly outmatched against 2 CXs)

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 11:06 pm: Edit

MJC: I mean the CB, the Fed Heavy Command Cruiser found in R5.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 11:18 pm: Edit

Those oddball Feds. Everyone else calls it a CCH, the Feds call it a CB.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 11:19 pm: Edit

MJC: Thanks for the reminder that the CX was bumped to 240 BPV.

I'll post the X1 errata here for this discussion:

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/X-shipCL23.pdf

Fed CX 240
Fed DDX 170
Kli DX 250
KLI DXD 260
KLI FX 130
Rom SKX 160
Rom K5X 150
Rom KEX 240
Kzi BCX 245
Kzi CCX 250
Gorn CCX 260
Gorn CMX 260
Gorn BDX 150
Tho CCX 220
Tho CPX 225
Tho NCX 240
Hyd LBX 290 w/ftrs
Hyd RNX 300 w/ftrs
Hyd DGX 280 w/ftrs
Hyd LNX 180 w/ftrs
Hyd SCX 220/150 w/ftrs
Lyr CCX 240
WYN FZX 150

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 03:49 am: Edit

Personnally...because I want the CXX to be in the 400-500 range...simply to be a lot like the Enterprise-B and also to about 4 unrefitted Fed CAs...that feels like 2 generational leaps forward to me.

If it were at 375 that would be okay ( 3 unrefitted Fed CAs but not as cool as 4 ).

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 09:02 am: Edit

A 2X CC should be in the 350-450 range IMO. Off hand I don't remember what the ISC CCX BPV is. But it should be at the top of the scale with 2X tech.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 11:01 am: Edit

I favor a much lower BPV range. An evolutionary change rather than a revolutionary change. One that doesn’t create the need for a proprietary game system.

The B10 program nearly bankrupt the Klingons and they completed only two. One would think if the need for 400-point ships was acute the races would have built more.

But the races didn't build 400-point ships. They could, but they didn't. Why? They were too •••• expensive to build and operate. X1 ships were just as expensive and they only built a small handful of these.

The Galactic races built small ships. From Y180-Y204 the mantra was build a more powerful ship in a smaller shipyard. The DW, HDW and NCA were born and replaced FF, DD and CW production. These are the ships the races were building in quantity and their BPV range is 100-150. Why would the races build a 100-point ship when they could build a much larger ship? 1) They needed more hulls, 2) They couldn’t afford more.

So what changes in Y205 after the Andros are crushed that suddenly requires massive 400 point ships? Nothing. The races simply wouldn’t build 400-point monstrosities not because they couldn’t but because there is no need. The Galaxy is at peace for the first time in living history. Smaller, faster hulls is what they need in X2. Give peace a chance.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 11:28 am: Edit

If you accept my premise then you are looking at the return of the Frigate. Other classes would include the DD and CL. No reason to design a cruiser since we have a peace glut of CX and DN (and it gives us somewhere to grow when the Xorks come).

I see the
XPOL at 80,
XFF at 100,
XDD at 140,
XCL at 180,
XCM at 220,
XCA at 260,
XCC at 280,
XDN at 320+

The races would start by building the XFF, XDD and XCL before the next arms race/war forces the development of the rest.

Strategically all of these ships would be the same speed as an X1 ship. They could be flown with any old crew and maintained at any old base.

The X1 ship and X1 base still represents the pinnacle of war time technology and the X2 ships mass produce this similar tech on new hulls with non-war missions.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 12:46 pm: Edit

Tos, I agree that after the Andro War that an XCL would be the most common built ship. But the desire for Cruisers would always be in the minds of the military. Building XDNs might be the desire as well but would probably be tempered by the rulling partys of the Empires.

I also FULLY agree that significantly larger ships is not the way to go. As far as mass goes, I think an X2 Cruiser should be 10% to 15% larger than X1, but with a focus on quality over mass.

That's why I presented the New Paradigm I did. Which was: Standard Warp equal to move cost which can be doubled (but now I think that way too much. I think it should be Power=Warp*1.5). While running Hot there would be no Orion type of burn out but the engins would take damage at a doubled rate. There are protections against this built in. I like the Structural Integrity Field idea. But I think it should only protect Hull and Cargo (and Barracks). It would be powered. Two points give you 50% more hits to the Hulls boxes. Reenforced at Four points you get 100% more hull hits. (I have a way of handeling actual game play)

Anyway, all this adds up to a very powerful ship that behaves like a larger ship but requires less mass and less marterials but much high technology. During missions of peace the opperate much like a GW cruiser with a few extra weapons. But in battle the can stiffen up and get mean.

Smaller than a montrosity, and less expencive to build than their battle potential. BPV would be like 250/300.

And yes, in this Paradigm, once you get past the shields and the Hull these ships start to die fast. Of course once you get that far into them they should be disegaging and you have won the battle. So, historically, the overall result would be less blown up ships.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 01:39 pm: Edit

Well, actually, that paralells today's modern navy. The ships from the WWII era all had big guns, and heavy armor. Today, the emphasis is on speed, electronic gear, and long range weapons. The modern navy ships of the U.S. are so lightly armored that any hit from missle is going to do serious damage. Just look at the USS Cole...a boat full of explosives darn near sunk it. Try that on an older, armored ship and you might ding the paint a bit. The question is, what kind of protections should a new 2X ship have? Better EW? Better ADD's or plasma defense? That seems to be a must if we go with smaller ships.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 02:03 pm: Edit

I agree.

X2 defence improvements to protect smaller hulls: Better shields, Structural Integrety Field (protects Hull, cargo, barracks), Bridge acts as one Scout Sensor, Chaff Drone (ADD round replacement)/Pl-D chaff, and improved maneuver via the High Impulse Turn (apply double move cost in impulse power to gain one 60` turn not with in four impulses of any other turn. Resets turn and side slip modes. No breakdown.).

Against Plasmas there is also the typical High Speed and more effective phasers (which will typically have improved arcs).

Some thing for Lyrans and Tholians will be needed to replace Ship Chaff.

Tholian idea: Snare Fist. R1, fires at SC6, if not destroyed then held in snare as normal. Can be charged to fire three times per turn.

Lyran: I don't know. Maybe if they could use partial power from their ESG Caps and raise two fields in one turn but not at the same time. Increase cap by one.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 04:13 pm: Edit

Correct me if I'm wrong, but during the Andy war, the most common ships were the NCA, CL, DW. The flagships were either DN, CX, or BCH.

What happened to the shipyards that were building DNs? They wouldn't have been mothballed, right?

I think the CXX should have roughly the same size as a CA, give or take a couple of hull boxes, but should have new and improved gizmos that dramatically increase it's fighting ability. For example, 10 EW that allows an offensive 2-shift.

While the B10 nearly bankrupted the Klingons, if there were a way to build a ship with the size and cost as a CA, but the firepower of a B10, that would be the new fleet flagship.

In modern terms, It would have been great to have a ship with the firepower of the USS Theodore Roosevelt in 1942. But the technology to do it didn't exist.

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

Remember that the B-10 cost so much because of much more than hull size. They had tonns of redesigns and breakdowns and accedents and political problems as well. The overdesigned it as well and could have reduced the tonnage. The B-10 arguement only relates so much.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 09:30 pm: Edit

Tos:


You are describing X1R.

SVC has already said that in time X1R will come to pass.

But a few proto-type vessels will be built when the new technology comes online, partly to see if the technology is as good as the simulators say and partly because one never knows what secret doom's day weapon the "other guy" is working on.

And with that handful being built, players will want to see the SSDs of those ships.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 09:33 pm: Edit

The B10 cost a ton because it was big...period. There are all sorts of problems from an architectural standpoint when constructing something that darn huge. Hull stress, dead space, off-axis thrust from four engines, yard space...all that weighs in. For all it's size, the B10 uses standard stuff...no more than a trio of D7's, and they cost pop-corn money. In this case, size DID matter. Given that, I think Loren is right. 2X ships will cost a great deal, but for vastly different reasons than the B10 or any other conjectural BB.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 11:19 pm: Edit

MJC: I was not describing X1R, I was describing X2 developed during a period of peace and economic exhaustion. Faster, smaller, cheaper. X1R will have to have even more modest improvements than what I've described to prevent the Andros from getting crushed.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 11:34 pm: Edit

The Andro war ended and the allied races had no desire to begin anew hostilities against their so recent allies. Enter the Second Treaty of Versailles signed in Y202, in which diplomats from all races met on Earth and agreed to strict naval limits. Articles 181 and 190 of the original are of particular note.

---

Quote:

ARTICLE 181.

After the expiration of a period of two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty the German naval forces in commission must not exceed:

6 battleships of the Deutschland or Lothringen type, 6 light cruisers, 12 destroyers, 12 torpedo boats, or an equal number of ships constructed to replace them as provided in Article l90.

No submarines are to be included.

All other warships, except where there is provision to the contrary in the present Treaty, must be placed in reserve or devoted to commercial purposes.

---

---

Quote:

ARTICLE 190.

Germany is forbidden to construct or acquire any warships other than those intended to replace the units in commission provided for in Article l81 of the
present Treaty.

The warships intended for replacement purposes as above shall not exceed the following displacement:

Armoured ships 10,000 tons
Light cruisers 6,000 tons
Destroyers 800 tons
Torpedo boats 200 tons

Except where a ship has been lost, units of the different classes shall only be replaced at the end of a period of twenty years in the case of battleships and
cruisers, and fifteen years in the case of destroyers and torpedo boats, counting from the launching of the ship.

---