| By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 04:39 pm: Edit |
It's already been established in Module X1 that Y205 will see X2 technology. I'm basing the rest off that premise.
| By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 04:43 pm: Edit |
sure, 205 will see one X2 CA. But the whole fleet is gonna be mainly X1 ships by that time.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 05:25 pm: Edit |
That can be changed. 205 is too short a time for X1 tech.
| By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 06:18 pm: Edit |
I think X2 would be more 215-220
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 12:44 am: Edit |
"So, if GW is Diesel.
then X1 is gas turbine.
and X2 is nuclear power.
Several Diesels will be able to kill a nuclear warship, but at high cost. A Gas Turbine would probably be very close in combat, but is much less useful strategicly, becuase of fuel consumption."
I love that analogy.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 12:45 am: Edit |
"The 50% increase in BPV per tech level comes from extrapolating the other levels. EY->MY, MY->GW, GW->X1."
Where do you get this 50% number? Disclaimer: I don’t know anything about EY.
MY->GW: Fed Y143 CC (137) -> Fed Y168 CC+ (147) -> Fed Y175 CB w/Fast Drones (170). That's a 7% climb to the start of war and an 24% climb to the end of war. That ship progression increases 24% over 38 years.
GW->X1: Fed Y175 CB w/Fast Drones (170) -> Fed Y181 CX (240). That's a 41% increase to X1.
The Klingons go Y143 D7C (139) to Y175 D7W w/Fast Drones (167/20%) to Y181 CX (250/50%).
The Gorns go from Y140 CC (124) to Y170 CC+ (150/21%) to Y175 CCH (171/38%) to Y182 CCX (260/52%).
I could go on but I'm tired. What do we know so far? In the 40 years From MY to fast drones command cruisers increased 24%/20%/38%. For simplicity I’ll average that out to a 27% increase. The increase from CCH to CCX averages to 48%. Obviously the conversion to X1 tech was significantly more profound then the war upgrades.
So from my research the 50% increase concept between each period doesn’t hold water. I accept that increase for X1 but not X0.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 01:32 am: Edit |
The X0 inflationary BPV we did see occurred in no small part due to the war. In Y205 the races are standing down from war (and broke). So what is the war premium associated with converting star ships to war ships? This premium should now be reversed as we move from war ships to star ships.
The Feds were capable of building 2 DN, 2 CX, 2 CA, 24 NCL, 28 FF. That’s 58 ships/year, probably more than they could afford. Before the war the Feds entire fleet consisted of 94 ships! The fleets of Y204 must have been many times this number and in urgent need of mothballing. Enter the Second Naval Treaty of Washington. The Feds could probably settle for 200 active duty ships.
Until Y200ish the Andro War was a series of devastating losses so fleet production through Op: Unity (Y202) would continue to be high. If we assume Andro wartime production was only half of capacity that’s 30 ships a year for the Feds. At that rate of production paring the fleet down to 200 ships means you are retiring every hull more than 7 years old. If we are assuming a large replacement of hulls with new construction beginning in Y205 we have a paradox to resolve.
Contrary to belief that production would swing to 100% X-tech near Y200 we might have the opposite effect post Y205. With so many surplus ships the ones that are the most expensive to operate would be retired first. X1 ships still cost more to run than XP ships so I can see X1% actually dropping from 20% of the fleet back down to 10%, roughly equating to one small X-Squadron per F&E fleet.
I’m not a military history expert. How many ships did our navy build in 1940? How many in 1944? How many in 1948? What did we do with all of the left over warships from WWII? How did we keep our shipyards from going bankrupt as we reduced construction post war?
Politics and economics, war and peace: We need to base our conjectural background history on these pillars.
| By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 01:57 am: Edit |
Well.....I agree with the idea Tos has here. Smaller numbers of warships. However, I do not think you are going to mothball the most advanced ships you have. No way.
The size of the US Navy is more or less 1/3 of what it was in WWII. But, the ships that are out there are the newest, most expensive ships of the day. CVNs,SSBNs,SSNs etc.
I would see anything not at least all X1 or better going into mothballs, except for carriers. The SCSs would form the main strong arm I would think. Fighters are still cheap, and the SCS is a great platform for them. I'd also see NVHs, and a few BCS. Everything else would be X1 in my opinion. Sure, a little more expensive to operate, but quality over quantity does actually save money.
| By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 02:33 am: Edit |
I could actually see a Fed fleet of about 150 or so after the Andro's are dealt with. DWs would go into mothballs, any old CL hulls would be scrapped, the oldest(unconvertable) CAs and FFs would also be put into mothballs.
Id see a fleet of about these lines:
1/3 FFX and varients. (say 30-40)
1/3 DDX and varients. (say 30-40)
12 SCXs (2xper fleet. Home,3rd,4th,5th,6th,7th.)
19 CXs (3xper fleet. Home 3rd,4th,5th,6th,7th.)
Yes, these are flag ships, but they are also the only crusier hulls ya got. Need some muscle, and while a DDX has the weapons, it does not have the internal fortitude.
2-3 GSX (2nd Fleet, on survey duty for the Fleet)
The GSC would be the rest. 3 Might be too many, but something has to replace the GSC eventually.
3xSCS (3rd,6th,Home)(I'd like to see these with an XP upgrade to non weapon systems only)
Now, would the escorts be X-ships? 9-12 escorts needed.
3xBCS (4th,5th,7th)(No XP refit allowed, but still an excellent ship)
Now, would the escorts be X-ships? 6-9 escorts needed.
3xNVH (3rd,6th,Home)(with XP Refit.)
They operated as carriers during the war, do they still? If so, would the escorts be X-ships? if so, 6-9 escorts needed.
If we go with Max escorts, that would be about 141 ships. Round it out to 150-20 with more FFX and DDX, and their new varients.
| By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 02:36 am: Edit |
Quote:Where do you get this 50% number?
Quote:Disclaimer: I don’t know anything about EY.
| By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 02:55 am: Edit |
So, if we look at a Fed YCA and a MY CA
Fed YCA:
84 BPV
Shields 24/20/18/18/18/20
2 photon torpedos - cannot be overloaded or prox
6 ph-2 in the saucer, none in the rear
24 warp
Fed MY-CA:
125 BPV
Shields 30/24/20/20/20/24
4xPhoton Torpedos - OL and Prox.
6 ph-1 in saucer, none in rear
30 warp
Fed GW-CARa+(full refit):
143 BPV
Shields 30/24/24/24/24/24
4xPhoton Torpedos - OL and Prox.
6 ph-1 in saucer, 2 in rear, 2 ph-3 in rear
1-G-Rack.
30 warp (2xAWR)
Remember, the difference between a P-1 and P-2 in the targeting/tracking system.
So, from EY to MY we have:
41 BPV.
17% shield increase.
Increase in Heavy weapon ability and number.
Upgrade of targeting system.
25% Increase in warp power.
from MY to GW we have:
18 BPV.
12% shield increase.
No increase in heavy weapons or ability.
40% increase to weapons systems.
7% Increase in warp power.
| By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 02:58 am: Edit |
Now, we can't really use the EY to GW differences......UNLESS, X2 will be a completely revolutionary ship that has things never used or seen.
I see X2 as being a completely successful integrations and use of X1 tech, so more the MY to GW jump. But, I would think the first X2 ships would have about 25% increase in weapons, more from ability that number, over GW ships. X2 ships that were built later, for War, would see that huge 40% upgunning.
| By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 03:25 am: Edit |
Just for the sake of arguement, what would the numbers look like if we use 50% over the Y130 ships for a conjectural X1 (not upgunned), then 50% over that for X2 (Y205)? To reflect the fact that Y205 ships will be designed as multi-purpose ships rather than upgunned WARships.
100 BPV (Y140) -> 150 BPV (X1 not upgunned) -> 225 BPV (Y205).
So, Y140 BPV * 225% = Y205 BPV.
| Race | MC | Y140 BPV | Y205 BPV? |
| Lyran CA | 1 | 133 | 299 |
| Fed CA | 1 | 125 | 281 |
| Gorn CA | 1 | 120 | 270 |
| Kzinti CS | 1 | 116 | 261 |
| Klink D6 | 1 | 113 | 254 |
| Fed OCL | 3/4 | 98 | 220 |
| Gorn CL | 2/3 | 92 | 207 |
| Kzinti CL | 2/3 | 84 | 189 |
| Fed DD | 1/2 | 94 | 211 |
| Lyran DD | 1/2 | 79 | 178 |
| Klink F5 | 1/2 | 71 | 160 |
| Gorn DD | 1/2 | 68 | 153 |
| Fed FF | 1/3 | 71 | 160 |
| Lyran FF | 1/3 | 63 | 142 |
| Kzinti FF | 1/3 | 62 | 140 |
| Klink E4 | 1/3 | 55 | 124 |
| By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 04:47 am: Edit |
Oh, and thanks Tos for the comment on my analogy.
| By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 04:53 am: Edit |
Also, a comment on the change in tech.
2xYCA could not beat a MY CA I don't think, to many tech changes, even though the BPV is equivilent.
1xMY CA could beat a GW CA, thought it would be tough, as the BPV is close, and the tech is not different.
If we are looking at 280-300 BPV for an X2 ship CXX, then an X1 CX should be able to do combat with it. The BPV will not be too much different, so the X1 CX should have a fighting chance.
Is this the idea we are working under?
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 11:26 am: Edit |
"Is this the idea we are working under?"
I'm still stuck in the 'what makes historical sense' mindset.
How big is the Fed Fleet in Y202? The GW was a war of attrition. Did the Andros kills lots of ships? What was the Andro strategy?
As I understand it the Andros used their superior strategic speed to attack poorly defended key targets. They can swoop in, destroy the poorly defended what-have-you and swoop back out before reinforcement arrive. The problem is I'm not sure why the Andros did this. What long term strategy were these raids intending to accomplish? Was it a war of attrition? A war of base busting? Civilian terrorism? Capital assaults? Do we know? Does the GPD timeline have any useful info? Does F&E?
Why does this matter? If the Andros used an attrition tactic then the Y200 fleets are small. If they used a terrorism approach then the populous would demand that the fleets be huge and stationed defensively. There could be a 1000 ship difference between these extremes.
We have to understand what kind of war the Andros persecuted before we can figure out what kind of fleet exists in Y205 before we can figure out what the races would decide to build if new technology becomes available. We all have been talking about how big an X2 ship should be. But what happens if at the end of the Andro war the Feds have a warship fleet of 125,000BPV and they can only economically support a peace fleet of 30,000 BPV (4 times the size of the pre-war fleet)? They have a huge amount of attrition to account for. Why build anything? Even if the tech is improved?
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 11:43 am: Edit |
You might build a few prototypes of new tech but you would never get the funding to build more than a small amount unless they proved so economically efficient that they paid for themselves in saved maintenance. That's possible, but it still means retiring gobs of expensive to maintain ships.
Since we are not at war the decision is a political one, not a military one. Politics is complex but I think for this discussion we should boil much of it down to economics. The most economical to maintain ship classes would make up the bulk of the fleet.
| By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 01:22 pm: Edit |
Even today's Congress would not retire our CVNs, even though they are hugely expensive to maintain. Sure, the BBs were put into Mothballs, but not all the newest stuff.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 03:48 pm: Edit |
Our current naval strategy hinges on air power. If we could launch effective UAVs from subs you can bet we would start reducing our CVNs. Fed strategy pre-war hinged on the CA then slowly moved to the CVA. The other races were similar but they took it one step further to the SCS.
What would happen if there was no X2 in Y205?
The CVA/SCS is an offensive weapon and not much use during peace. It is also redundant with the DNH, CX and BCH. For gaming reasons I might keep 1 of each CVA/SCS, 1 DNH, 3 CX, 1-3 BCH so that players had a selection to choose from if they wished. They would be tied to a star base most of the time.
The CC/CCH class I would extinct by upgrading them to CX (no XP refit made). The CA(XP) and NCA(X0) might still have a few floating around.
The CL/CM/CW seem to rival the FF for units produced. These would get XP tech and be the backbone of the fleet fulfilling the role of the pre-war CA. Generally unsuitable for X1 upgrade.
HDW is an odd duck. Very few were made and their modularity is more valuable than their combat potential. These would survive and might even get XP tech.
SC4: DW/DD/FF/FX different races call their high production ship by different names but some SC4 unit was always picked to be the production leader. These are also likely to be the most easily maintained ships and their ability for 2 FF to be in 2 places at once for the same cost of a single larger ship makes them compelling smaller ships.
So how does this all break out?
15% Heavy Command ships (CVA/SCS/DNH/CX/BCH/CA/CVB/B10)
35% Light Cruisers (CL/CM/CW/NCA/HDW/CV/PFT/SC)
50% Frigates (FF/FX/DD/DDX/DW/PFT/SC)
Survey cruisers, tugs, commando, minesweeper, etc. are mixed between light and frigate.
X1 ships are expensive, but useful so make up 20% of the totals. Everyone else gets an XP upgrade. Any ship that hadn't gotten an XP upgrade by Y203 would be first on the scrap list. Excess XP and X1 ships beyond the above percentages get mothballed (it gives something for the Xorks to shoot up later).
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 10:44 am: Edit |
Okay, in the Plasma thread, there's been some discussion about what will be around in Y205, and what won't. IMHO, one of the first ship-classes converted to 2X would be each races cruiser. Cruisers are plentiful, are generally well rounded, and have historically been the first ships to recieve new technology, either from refits or new construction. There may not be a plethora of them in Y205, but there should be a few, any way. More multi-purpose than the X1 CX's were, as they aren't specificially designed for war. If there is to be a second "run" of X2 ships for the Xorks (assuming SVC would allow it), then those X2 ships would be more along the lines of X2 BCH's, DN's, and CB's. Certainly frigates and perhaps destroyers would also be constructed during Y205, as well, and may even be the bulk of that construction. But the basic cruiser should be there, as well.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 11:09 am: Edit |
"one of the first ship-classes converted to 2X would be each races cruiser"
The Y205 ships used entirely new hulls, they were not conversions (X0.0)
"Cruisers are plentiful"
Cruiser production was 8% for the Feds per F&E. 40% of production was CW, 40% was FF. Included in that 8% is every cruiser variant, including the CX and BCH. Because variants ate up almost all cruiser production they created the maxed out NCA to meet the standard cruiser need. Upgradable Cruisers (X0/XP) are not plentiful in Y205.
"But the basic cruiser should be there, as well."
Many in the timeline thread see the basic cruiser being a light cruiser. It gives us somewhere to expand to when the Xorks arrive. Others feel there should be a CA(X2), but that it should be limited or unique construction. I don't remember anyone else (maybe MJC?) supporting the assumption that BB level cruisers be the mainline X2 unit.
| By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 11:17 am: Edit |
The Feds build 4 CAs a year. I see no reason why that would change in later years.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 11:22 am: Edit |
The Feds built 4 CAs a year. That's 2 CX, 1 BCH and a BCS. The CA class was replaced with the NCA.
| By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 11:25 am: Edit |
While I agree with Tos on many parts of the Timeline, the idea of there being no "CA" initially in X2 is a bit... disturbing.
Of course, another idea might be that X2 abolishes the CL / CW / CA and everyone simply has a C. Cruiser. Not Heavy, not Light, not War... just Cruiser.
I kinda like that...
42
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 11:30 am: Edit |
If the X2 is based on the GW BCH (as far a design lay out goes) that wouldn't make them a BCH. They would be the main line cruiser. I could see them recieving upgrades when the Xorks arive mostly because the designers would have considered the possibility that war could come from some where. There would be room to grow on all X2 ships. After all the warring of recent past you can be sure the races would learn to hope for the best, and prepare for the worst! The cheepest was to prepare for the worst would be to build your great new ships with some expandability.
This is not something that would be represented on the SSD but more a concept to go into their description.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |