Of course! That's what I meant...the SSD's, as always, are nicely done!

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 01:55 am: Edit

Thanks Mike. Great outlines Rob.

I wasn't expecting the front NX-01 fins. Its cool, but not growing on me. I was envisioning more of a CF front end.

http://sfbfog.iwarp.com/SSD/Federation/XCM.gif

Well that took me several hours to modify, now I remember why I beg Mike.

Let me explain the drone racks. These are GX racks with a double magazine. I planned on making each magazine only 4 spaces but forgot. The advantage of this approach is you can reload one magazine every turn while firing from the other increasing sustained throw weight without increasing launch rate.

While the saucer is obviously different a less noticable change is the slicked back warp engines. I thought it looked cool so I wanted to point it out.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 08:16 am: Edit

Tos
Remote linking forbidden is all I get clicking on your ship gif.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 08:54 am: Edit

I can see it fine.

By Kerry Drake (Kedrake) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 09:16 am: Edit

Robert Cole:

Those SSD's are a thing of beauty.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 09:21 am: Edit

I'm getting it to now. Earlier all I got was remote linking forbidden.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 10:37 am: Edit

Okay. Got enough entries, emails, and stuff collected to put up several choices for the kind of ships people seem interested in. I'll put them all here, even though some have been up before; this way, they can all be seen together.

Choice 1: Federation CCX
This route makes the 2X ship larger, heavier, and more of a capital ship. Follows the basic progression from 0X to 1X, and extrapolates it out. Lots of 1X weapons, with modest improvements rather than fewer, newer ones. Highest BPV.

Choice 2: Federation CAX
This choice goes for a smaller design, based on the NCL. Faster, lighter, with newer weapons and less of them. Has better arcs, can "boost" engines, and has NWO options. Cheaper than the 2X CC.

Choice 3: Federation CMX
This choice, presented by Tos, is a mix of 1X and 2X tech. Major advances are longer overload range for photons, low move cost, improved drones. It has a somewhat more balanced approach to offense and defense, using 1X phaser 1's for defense and a modest number of phaser V's for offense.

Choice 4: Federation Advanced Tactical Cruiser
This is a new one, just put up for the first time. It has a mix of weapons, including the phaser V as a main weapon, plus a pair of phaser H's for extra punch. Smaller than the 2X CC, but slightly larger than the CAX. It focuses on advances in structure and design, giving it stealth, better maneuverabilty, and a slightly better move cost. It also has a special limited version of the scout sensor, that provides some of the benefits those provide, particularly in regards to seeking weapon control and defense.

Okay, there we go. These represent, as far as I can tell, the four basic paths that seem to come up the most often. The last one I did is probably the most radically different, what with engine mounted sensors, different phasers, etc. But, to my mind, it also reflects alot of the lessons learned by the Feds over the period of the GW, ISC war, and Andy war. Smaller profile, a bit of inherent stealth, engine mounted weapons, improved firing arcs, and better maneuverability.

So...let's hear some votes. Which is the best way to go? None are perfect, so don't get bogged down in the details. Just look at the basic direction they all go, and decide which you like best. That design can be refined a hundred times if we like, but we really do need to pick a direction and go with it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 12:05 pm: Edit

Choice 4 is interseting indeed. Special Sensors in the engines seem counter productive as SS are so sensitive and that is where they would encounter the most disturbance on the ship. I would prefer the ability of one SS built in. (Like in the Bridge where it would be actually used )

The layout and outline looks familiar and might be a "Generation" early.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 12:40 pm: Edit

Here's my CC, a stretched CM. The BPV is higher than I planned but that's the way it came out.

http://sfbfog.iwarp.com/SSD/Federation/XCC.gif

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 01:17 pm: Edit

Loren,

Not necessarily...the D5S and some other ships mount sensors on their engines with no ill effect. These would also be somewhat more advanced sensors, and more special purpose, so it shouldn't hurt. Besides...it looks different, something that seems to be a mandate from alot of folks.

Tos, nice job! What's the move cost, though?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 01:22 pm: Edit

Mike, ah yes, the D5S. Good point. I remember a little SVC intervention in the minis topic supporting exactly that. I withdraw my concern about the SS.

By Marcin Radzikowski (Marcin) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 02:27 pm: Edit

Mike,

I like Choice 4. Even though I was thinking of going in the direction of Choice 2, after seeing number 4 I have to go with that. I can "taste the 2X flavour" with better weapons, the special sensors, etc.

One question. Are the 5 batteries too much? Seems a lot to have the capability to store 25 units of power.

By Jonathan McDermott (Caraig) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 03:14 pm: Edit

The original Supplement 2 postulated that there would be very few ships to cover a large amount of territory. In that sense, the 2X ships needed to be pretty self-sufficient. For that reason, they had the multi-use HOLD boxes (which could serve as barracks, SHTL, and CARGO, IIRC) and carried special sensors. They also had improved DAMCON ratings, I think. We're again on the question of what the national military doctrine is.

I can see either way going. For myself, what I had proposed in my postulated X2 era (read: diseased, fevered ravings! ) was that the cruiser would be (at least for the Freds and the Klinks) the primary, multi-role, showing-the-flag unit. If hostilities broke out, the Feds (ad probably Klinks) would break out 'war combatants' from mothballs and storage. War combatants are smaller, combat-optimized designs that are generally crewed, at least in part, by reservists. They would form squadrons on their own around war combatant leaders, or around the cruisers.

If we go with the old Supplement 2 story, with an overall drawdown of military strength, with the Federation and Klingons limited to 18 cruisers, then I can see 2X cruisers being multi-role powerhouses. Otherwise, I see a larger number of the CAX/XTAC designs as above.

I'm a big fan of the multirole cruiser concept, but I also realize that adding more functions to a ship takes away combat capabilities. How independant do 2X cruisers operate? We may have to 'fork' the concept process, one route going to the multirole indie cruiser, he other going to the 'advanced combatant' route, for 2X ships that are meant to operate in wolfpacks.

(One thing: should we adopt the Supplement 2 notation? In that, 1st-gen X-ships had the X AFTER the designator, such as CX, DDX, FFX. 2nd-gen X-ships had the X preceed the designator, such as XCC, XDD, XFF. It might reduce confusion?)

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 03:58 pm: Edit

I personally see the 2X ships being the flagships of their day, while the the leftovers from the GW and Andy war start taking up other rolls. Just as the Fed old CL got refit for every duty you can think of save hauling trash, the GW ships would start doing the same thing. 1X and 2X ships would start leading the fleet, and would be heavy on the combat and command capabilities ships in that roll would need. That's just my opinion, of course, but I think it's reasonable.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 04:06 pm: Edit

Hrmmm... Federation (Old) Barge...



42

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 04:18 pm: Edit

Module R23: Trashhaulers of the Galaxy?

By Jonathan McDermott (Caraig) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 05:17 pm: Edit

"It shouldn't be hauling garbage... I meant to say it should be hauled away AS garbage! Hahahahahaha--!" *SOCK!*

And so it began....

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 05:20 pm: Edit

Could be worse. How about those trucks that go around cleaning out the porta-johns. Now, that's a shitty job!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 05:40 pm: Edit

We used to call that guy the "De-Turd-Gent".

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 06:03 pm: Edit

That's it. We need an X2 Old CL

Aaaand an X2 King Eagle.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 06:05 pm: Edit

I recently wrote this as I am working on gathering my notes. This is how I see X2 forming.

• General premise: New ship designs are based of the lessons learned from 30 years of war and advances in technology. They will be slightly larger hulls built for a wider range of missions. Cruisers will be capitol level ships that typically operate alone but some times in squadron level combat. Fleet battles are expected to be very rare. Cruisers will no longer be fleet work horses but rather CL class ships will. Destroyers will fill in for less dangerous missions and act as support ships for larger hulls. Frigates will also fill in as totally specialized escorts, designed as a single mission type. There will be no frigate class combat only designs.

I think this reflects the changes our current Navy has been going through excepting for Carriers of course. I'm no military expert but that's how I see things playing out after all that has happened. And it would fit well into the comming history, what with the Trade Wars and the Xorkellians comming. Not that they would design for comming dangers but the designs have to be capable of surviving the threat. I expect that the end of the story of the SFU is that the history continues for all the races.

BTW: Something not mentioned before is that, as far as I can tell, there will always be a need for a TUG. Yup, no matter how crazy powerful your ships end up being, you are still going to need to get supplies everywhere and I don't see using capitol ships for that (though they should have some capacity to transfer goods, etc). Perhaps X1 Tugs could be designed and those designs last through the X2 era. There would ultimatly be a X-Battle Pod but I figure by the X2 era it would have been learned that Battle Pods are not effective in the X-Battle Field. In fact Tugs should generally be kept far from X-Battles. They are too important.

I had intended to back out of this for a bit while I work on some stuff but it seems I haven't the will power. I think I'm addicted. Is the a SFA meeting somewhere??

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 06:51 pm: Edit

General thoughts on Mike's Feds:
* All saucers should have some warp
* AWR should be obsolete. Put the warp on the outside where it's more useful.
* the CTX is rather short on labs and shuttles, so while the SpecSen implies a GSC role, it can't do it.
* the CTX SpecSen should be hit on drone, as it has 6 photons and 2 drone racks
* The CCX is a phaser boat: at R4, its photons do 64 (with 24-pt warheads). Forward centreline, its phasers do 61, even without overloads. Add EW or close the range and it gets even worse.
* I like the CTX/XCM rear photons; anything to stop all ships becoming phaser boats.
* I like the XCM's ADD table best. The CTX ADD looks rather too good.
* Scout systems are nice to have, but in quantity will play hell with the game balance you're used to (and force everyone to use lots of potentially unfamiliar rules). Kzintis will rule, as drones don't blind sensors.

Nice SSDs, though (except the XCM, which looks as though it's been shut in a door).

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 06:59 pm: Edit

I see the sensors (or something resembling a special sensor) becoming standard doctrine, after trying to fight the Andys for a while. When fighting the RTN, the Kzintis put special sensors on the SSCS, even knowing they would be blinded in battle.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 07:00 pm: Edit

Re naming: XCA, XDD, XFF, etc makes the most sense. It's not used by anything else, so there shouldn't be any confusion.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 07:08 pm: Edit

I just looked at Mike's Klink D2X. [[shudder]] By Jehosophat, is that thing ugly. No self-respecting Klink would set foot on board that, no matter its BPV.

I'm also not too keen on increasing everything's turn mode (eg the D2X is A). As the ships get bigger for a given MC, the turn mode should just about keep up. So the Fed XCA should be D, the Fed XCL C, the Fed XFF B, the Klink XCA B, the Klink XFF A, the Orion XLR AA, etc.

Otherwise you pack one end of the TM spectrum too much and lose some of the racial flavour (never mind that as everyone goes 31 with the same TM, you have to have secret & simultaneous movement, which is a pain royal).