Archive through January 01, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
The "X" Files:
OLD X2 FOLDER:
X2 BPV:
Archive through January 01, 2003
The treaty of Versailles was one nation dictating terms to another.
If we assume the SFB races would agree to a treaty, Versailles would not be the model. The Treaty of Washington (1922) might be a better example.
Assuming of course, that they would agree to any treaty.
Versailles was all my limied grasp of history could come up with for defining naval limits. I'm sure all you military historians can improve on the example.
The Treat of Washington ( between the USA, Russia, Japan, France and Germany IIRC ) was agreat tool of eliminating the Anglo-American War of 1929 but look at what happened...
The Japanese when right out and broke the treat and the Germans did too.
IN the 23rd Century every Empire knows that any other Empire is cheating ( even those scoundrels the UFP ) and thus each empire has a duty to it'self to build ships on the quite, that happen to out run the limits of the treaty.
Look at the German limitations after WWI.
They weren't allowed to have HEAVY ATILIARY so what did they do...lots of research into ROCKETRY.
In a lot of ways the very limitations ( build a more deadly pocket ship ) windes up generating the scientific knowledge from which one build the Big DOOM'S DAY SHIPS.
If a treaty limited everybody to 4 heavy weapons on their CAs, it'ld take about 3 years for every race to have said...okay, PHASERS AREN'T heavy weapons, lets see how many Ph-4s we can stick on a CA....and okay, lets see how many Ph-4lights we can mount on a CA.
Which is exactly what we want, an arms race caused by a treaty that says you can't build arms.
I agree. Of course it would have to be tailored to fit SFB but the basic idea is pretty good. Exhausted from continuous war at the very least it would be viewed as a way to get a breather for a while. The Federation would sign in real hopes for ever lasting peace. Others like the Klingons and Romulans would see it as time to recover while feeling cofident they wont get attacked. The Gorns, Kzinti and Hydrans would sign because the others will but with high sceptisism. The Lyrans would sign because... " Why not? No one can really watch what we are doing and it is good for the Monarchy to want peace but we really can't control what the individual Dukes build for themselves."
The Tholians would sign because they are doing that anyway.
The ISC would sign and see it as a promise not to have the listed ships in others territory. They wouldn't see ships in their own space as counting for this treaty.
The Orions would promise to sign but never show up.
Okay...so what if DD2X where built to take the NCA role and the FF2Xs to make squardons as X2 squardons become doctrinally warrentted...but, the CA2X and CC2X never got built and remained purely conjectual or were built with a much latter YIS...perhaps just as the Xorks became a REAL threat the Ecconomies shifted from rebuilding themselves to building new HIGHLY ADVANCED CRUISERS?
Realised that I'd put this in the wrong thread.
My preference for X2 would be to have ships roughly as capable as X1, but with more diversity (eg. the use of more than one phaser type). The ships would be new designs, not conversions of existing designs, and would completely replace earlier fleets.
You want X1R which S.V.C. says is in the pipeline earmarked as SOMEDAY they definately will get around to doing that...someday.
MJC: “You want X1R”
You have stated an opinion. You have made it known that you wish the Y205 X2 period to be a quantum leap over X1. Others don’t share that opinion and desire a more gradual tech increase. I for one stand in support of Andrew’s entire statement, but that is just my opinion.
Agreed.
SVC posted this on the "X2 Timeline" topic.
I haven't read any of these new X2 topics and for all I know you guys have already gone places I won't be going, but just for purposes of your conversation.
Assume that Module X2 is Second Generation X-Technology, new hulls and new gizmos. Could be improvements of the existing (probably still have phasers) but could be whole new things.
Module X1R might be considered a reinforcements package for the existing X1 and hence would just be more of what was in X1 and, I presume, not part of your conversation.
I won't be paying much attention to the X2 topics until some time in the future when X2 is scheduled. Then I'll survey them for ideas and see if you guys reached a consensus. Could save me a lot of work; might waste you a lot of effort. Time will tell.
There appear to be two distinct products.
X1R appears to be for production X1-grade ships
It appears that SVC wants X2 to specifically deal with the next jump in tech.
I vote with SVC, that X2 be the next big thing.
I guess that puts me closer to MJC, unlikely as it would sound from the way we spar on other topics. 
X1R is a new concept I think. Born of this discussion. Or at least revieled in this discussion.
The definition for X2 remains the same as always. That definition is in a couple places where X3 is also defined as being assumed but would be the "Next Generation" and beyond the scope of the game. So I suppose that a decade from now we might see a X2R.
A rough cut at the sort of ships I'd like to see:
Fed CXX
As for CX except +2 drone, +2 Ph-3, +2 hull, +2 shuttle, all in rear hull. (Could just use the BCH rear hull, which does this. Not sure whether to keep the plasma variant.)
Klingon DXX
As for DX except:
+1 Boom Phaser
Disr become FH+L/R
Remove two APR, add two impulse, pushing down the shuttle bay. Convert the existing drones into Shuttles, add two drone racks in the newly available space.
Replace two Tran with drones or ADD. (An Ex rack that can operate as either an E rack or an ADD perhaps?)
So pretty minor improvements to the current ships, but clearly showing a slight evolutionary improvement compared to X1, including incorporation of some BCH features.
These would be X1R ships on the face of them.
You would want to make boom phasers P-5's.
They're "new designs built from the keel up to use X technology", having modest improvements and being crewable by mere mortals. That might make them X1R or X2 depending on what each player wants from X2.
I don't think they need phasers substantially better than current X Ph-1; with even the weakest of the various X2 phaser proposals either would mop the floor with any current CX, let alone the non-X ships that are still in production during the X1 period.
BTW my estimated BPV for the Fed CXX I posted above is about 270 - about 12% more than the base CX, with most of the cost coming from the extra couple of Gx racks.
As a point of consideration, how much of a mismatch do people think X2 should be when fighting X1? How much should this vary depending on the race being fought?
(I ask the latter because general tech upgrades do affect the utility of different races - for instance the Klingon C7 has a pretty good chance in a duel against a Fed DDX, while the Rom NHK is going to have trouble).
Quote:They're "new designs built from the keel up to use X technology", having modest improvements and being crewable by mere mortals. That might make them X1R or X2 depending on what each player wants from X2.
Hhmmmmmm X1 with a latter YIS...that's exactly what X1R needs.
Quote:As a point of consideration, how much of a mismatch do people think X2 should be when fighting X1? How much should this vary depending on the race being fought?
It's generally agreed there. Almost everyone thinks that the difference should be as marked as...either:-
A Fed CA is over a Klingon D4.
OR
A Klingon D6 is over a Fed YCA.
Or somewhere in between. I have a hunch most people would prefere the differnce be the minimalised D6 Vs YCA rather than the maximised CA Vs D4.
Agreed. A 2X CC vs. a 1X CC should be about like a Fed CA vs. an EY Fed CA.
I like the ranges mentioned elsewhere: 300-320, if you include drone upgrades.
Using the F-CA: K-D4 match as a baseline for comparison, BPV of X2 ships would be a bit more than 50% higher, with combat power arguably favoring them at a substantially higher ratio. (Barring manoeuvre constraints, a Fed CA should be able to wreck a pair of D4's pretty easily - a single oblique range 4 pass will wreck a D4 in return for a Fed shield.)
At around 50% superior to X1, X2 cruisers would have BPVs of 400, more or less - current X1 cruisers vary from 220 for the Tholian to 315 for the ISC.
One idea to stop having a BPV blow out is to NOT give the X2 ships the same 50% increase in the numbers of phasers mounted on the X2 vessels.
In that way ( particularly with a slight increase in damage from Heavies and Phasers ( added on top of the sweetspot extention which should be the REAL X2 adantage ) ) the DAC and the Mizia actually become more deadly and thus the BPV of the ships won't skyrocket...horrendously.
Agreed. We improve the phasers, not simply add more of them.
It might be good to keep a CCX at 12 heavy phasers, mostly P-5's and maybe some P-1's. perhaps the Klingons will lag in P-5 deployment the same way they lagged on P-1 deployment.
I'd prefer but would accept a 16-phser CXX, but would prefer to stay with 12.
Yeah...An 18 Ph4Jr ship, is just waiting for an 800 BPV price tag.
| Ship | BPV | YIS | Change in BPV on previous vessel | Change in BPV on base vessel | life span |
| Fed |
| YCA | 84 | 83 (Can't find My CL12) | -32.8% | -32.8% | 51 Years |
| CA | 125 | 130 | Base | Vessel | 45 Years |
| CARa+ | 145 | 175 | 16% | 16% | 6 Years |
| CX | 240 | 181 | 65.5% | 92% | 24 Years |
| CXX | 300-450 | 205 | 25-87.5% | 140-260% | Unknown |
This is a revised table that assumes the MY years and GW period are two different Generations of ships.