MJC sould the CB be on this chart as in intermediate step getween the CA and CX?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 01:46 am: Edit

No.


The CB ( or is it BC ) is the CCH of the Feds.

Now a table of YCC, CC, CCH ( ISC CCX ) and the CCXX could be of some use but we shouldn't go around saying that "the BCG or the CCH is a CA with a different YIS".

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 01:54 am: Edit

Fed CX is a command cruiser derivative - there is no CAX. Full list of 'best cruiser in production' would run YCA-CA-CC-refitted CC-CB-CX. The BC class could also go in there, but that is actually a different hull (though the CX shows some elements from it, such as the wider arcs on the side phasers).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 02:08 am: Edit

It's not quite a command cruiser.

An X-squdron of 6 ships could easily have 2CX but a task group of 6 GW ships wouldn't have 2 CC+.

I guess there are a lot of S rules that don't apply to X ships.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 02:28 am: Edit

MJC, don't forget that late in the general war all CA production was upgraded to CC (in F&E CC can be subbed for CA after ~178)

the distinction between the CA and CC basicly disappears, that's why there is a CX but not a CCX

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 02:59 am: Edit

from Module X1, page 17:

(R2.201) Command Cruiser (CX)

The SSD is also clearly based on the CC, not the CA (eg. it has flag in the right place and the rear P1 are 360).

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 06:02 am: Edit

The main difference betweeen a Fully refitted Fed CA/CC. (Not counting CCH.) A Flag Bridge and 240 degres on 2Ph-1's.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 02:36 pm: Edit

There is certainly a case for including the BCH on that table, as it is for all practical purposes just a better CC: it is a MC1 cruiser in a command role.

As for the X2 BPV itself, I'm willing to be persuaded up to 350 (for an XCC), but more than that is rather dodgy, simply because it implies too many rule changes.

The more rule changes there are, and the more dramatic they are, the greater the chance of breaking something.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 05:03 pm: Edit

MJC,

I would disagree that GW is a separate generation of tech from EY. EY has 3-4 sub-grades of tech ssociated with it also.

If you are going to make GW a seaparate grade, then the ship you want to include for GW is not the CARa+, it's the BCH. At the very least, the CB. In MY, the best SC3 ship for the Feds was the CC. In GW, it's the BCH. In X1 it's the CX.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 06:28 pm: Edit

the BCH is a DN substatute not a CC substatute

include the CCH (CB) on the table, it was in the same timeframe as the BCH but definantly a cruiser

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 08:52 pm: Edit

(X1.R2.201) Federation Command Cruiser (CX): In Y181, the command cruiser NCC-1749 Vincennes was converted...

(R5.R2.76) Federation Heavy Command Cruiser (CB): ... 1749 Vincennes.

The CX is a conversion of the CB.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 10:28 pm: Edit

A new timeline relevent to this discussion posted in the timeline topic.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 11:01 am: Edit

I haven't read most of the X2 discussions but I asked Petrick to glance over them and give me a head's up. His report can be summarized as:

"The guys in those topics are convinced that X2 ships must be so good that no X1 or non-X ship could possibly hurt one, and that any X2 ship could kill any non-X ship in one volley."

Petrick goes on to state that he thinks this current theory of the X2 discussion crowd is a BAD idea for the reason that it would be all but impossible to play X2 vs non-X or to play X2 vs X1. This would, he notes, further fragment the player base, as those who want to fly non-X ships could never enjoy a game playing against those who only want to fly X2 ships. The result is that the non-X players would never buy the X2 products and those who liked X2 would never again by a non-X product. This would reduce sales for both types of products below the point it would be profitable to print them.

I AGREE that this would be BAD. We need a system where in BPV is standard, and that 300 points of non-X can fight and often win against 275 points of X1 and against 275 points of X2.

If my 125 point Fed CA cannot whup your 100 point Klingon X2-frigate, then what you guys are designing here is not just wrong but totally useless to the company and would be ignored in any design process for X2.

So, anybody who is thinking in terms of Godlike X2 ships that cannot be hurt by non-X ships, get it out of your mind or find another BBS to discuss it.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 02:43 pm: Edit

Yes indeed.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 02:47 pm: Edit

SVC,

With X1 CA's tipping the scales at 240 or so, up from the 170-point CB it was converted from, it doesn't seem unreasonable to look at a 300-320-point X2 CA. Most of us have accepted that as a target.

Is that an appropriate target BPV?

If not, what would be? A little structure and guidance would go a long way toward keeping us on track

We have been kicking around ideas that may well create ships that overshoot our target range, true. OTOH, We've only begun to get past the "wish list" stage and start grappling with system interactions.

Stay tuned.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 02:56 pm: Edit

True. So far, I haven't gotten any vibes that suggest an X2 BPV should be better than a 1X BPV of the same value. Most do seem to think an X2 cruiser should have a BPV of over 300, though...enough to stand up to a B10 about half the time.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 04:01 pm: Edit

John. I don't think he was saying that 300 BPV was too much but that 300 BPV should be able to be beaten by 325 BPV of GW era ships regularly.

All levels of technology should be able to interact and if out BPVed should lose regualarly. If matched should lose 50% of the time (not counting player skill).

Personally I want X2 to require more player skill to be fully effective. I want a new challange. Old X2 boiled down to no tactical skill needed. I want a more dynamic ship. I want two players to be able to kick the snot out of each other is entierly different ways (and by that I mean entirely different tactics against each other in the same game) not just close and hose and see who rolls the dice better. I'll play Yattsi for that.

Every one basically wants that too, right??

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 04:14 pm: Edit

I don't have a problem with 300 BPV C2X cruisers. What I do have a problem with is one 300 BPV C2X cruiser that two 150-point CAs cannot fight at all. Petrick (and now I) have actually seen some suggestions that a non-X CA firing an alpha strike should, by whatever combination of rules and technology, be unable to hit or score damage on a C2X. That's not even close to going to happen.

I can vaguely remember old SPI did two tank games, one 1944 and one 1974, using the same rules. Supposedly, they were compatible which meant that you could have M60s vs Tiger-IIs if you wanted to. The problem was that the designer didn't want that to happen (even though the ad department said it could) so he went through and added 4 points to the AF and DF of all 1970s tanks so that even the best WWII tanks at short range couldn't hit them. THAT was not just technologically wrong but bad game marketing.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 04:21 pm: Edit

I'm assuming part of that goes back to the EW discussions that went on. I think that most of us that have been participating in the discussions thus far want a balanced X2, with 300-350 BPV CX's. But, there was some concern by some that simply making such a ship tougher by conventional means (e.g., more shields, bigger ships, etc.) wasn't creative or new; so, the possiblities of higher EW shifts were proposed. Such shifts would indeed make it all but impossible for a 0X ship to hit, and that isn't cool. I don't want supplement 2 again (super ship that can take a beating all day long) but I also don't want the reverse; normal sized ships that are so impossibly hard to hit or damage that they can thrash an 0 or 1 X ships they meet. We need a balance between "bigger" and "better."

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 08:47 pm: Edit

Thanks for the guidance, SVC.

Just to make sure I'm on the same page, correct me if any of this is wrong.

X2 CA at 300 BPV is OK
X2 CA vs. X0 NCA (300-160) = X2 wins, not even close, but not necessarily a win in one volley.
X2 CA vs. 2 NCAs (300-320) = X2 is at a disadvantage.
numbers changed after Loren's post

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 08:53 pm: Edit

Jeff, just curious, what NCA is 175 BPV?

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 09:05 pm: Edit

Loren, I think I misread something. Klingon D5W = 155 points. +12 for 12 fast drones in the two B racks = 167. Fed NCA = 147 + 8 = 155. But if I use 160 instead of 175, I get the same point across, so I edited the numbers.

David, I thought the BCH replaces the CC on the production schedule, not a DN. (Those who play F&E might be able to help.)

Here's my interpretation of what the production schedule should be, based on the Year In Service for the various ships and that most shipyards will produce the best ship available for the year.

Year\Yard	Very Large	Large	Medium	Small
Y167	DN	CA/CC	DD	FF
Y170	DN+	CA/CC	NCL	FFG
Y175	DNG	CB	NCA/NCL	FF/FFB
Y176	DNG	CB	NCA/NCL	DW
Y178	DNH	CB	NCA/NCL	DW
Y181	DNH	CX/BCH	NCA/NCL	HDW

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 11:35 pm: Edit

Actually, in 181/182 a typical build schedule for the Federation, for example, would be:

Basic.
DN, 2xCA, NCA, 12xNCL, HDW, 8xDW, 5xFF.

You could do this:
DNH,2xCX(for CA),NCA,3xDDX(for 3xNCL),9xNCL,6xFFX(for DW and 5xFF),HDW,7xDW.

Of course, you could build an SCS in for the SCS, along with her escorts, smaller carriers if wanted, scouts too.

From 177 to Y180 you would build 3xBC in place of your CC.

HDWs are not wide production units during the GW, but more of a special ship that you can build 2 per year, plus a few converions if one wishes. FFs are still being built, even at the end of the war.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 11:44 pm: Edit

Jeff, up here http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/21/51.html?1041351743#POST56928 you will find the entire federation OOB, including what can be subbed for what (BC is for CA or DN one per year Y177 or later for example

christopher, your numbers are for a single F&E turn which is 6 months

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 12:00 am: Edit

History also states that while the Feds may have been able to build 4 CX/year they only actually built 1/year until Y194 (R2.201)