The Klinks and the Feds.

Of course, it will be impossible to keep them out from the other topics completely , and that was never the intention.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 01:18 pm: Edit

You got Klingons twice. Here and in Eastern Races

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Eagle) on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 08:16 am: Edit

I know that. But you try split it up then

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 08:47 am: Edit

Okay, here's some thoughts on 2X Klingons. IMHO, R&D into any advanced tech is going to be to enhance what abilities a race already has and prefers. Klingon ships are characterized by having better than average maneuverability, fast-firing, accurate weapons that don't have a huge punch, and good forward shields. Keeping that in mind, I'd think a 2X Klingon would want to maintain the turn rate and BD ratings, increase power and speed, and improve the disruptor in some way. I don't think it needs to be any more damaging than it is, nor should it fire any more often. However, I can see two places the disruptor could be improved for 2X that wouldn't totally unbalance the game, but would enhance those things a Klingon likes.

First, I'd give 2X Klingon disruptors all the benefits of UIM, but with no burnout. The UIM could still be destroyed by H&R raids, but otherwise it keeps on ticking with problems. That gives the disruptor a modest increase in accuracy without wholesale changes to the weapon or the to-hit tables themselves.

Second, there was something from the supplement 2 rules for the Klingons I actually kind of liked. It was the capacitor system for the disruptor. To my mind, that's a perfect Klingon thing to have; it gives them a speed advantage for a few turns, and shows they've been further improving their basic heavy weapon. It's not a game breaker, but does give them some flexibility and a way to keep maintaining high-speed run attacks.

For the Feds, I'd do something similar, in as much as I'd improve what was already there. Fed ships are characterized by a good phaser suite, close range punch from the photon, solid shields, and somewhat poor maneuverability. To improve on that, I'd go with a modest increas in the number of phasers, and better firing arcs. Just as the BC lowered the engines to give the left/right phasers a better arc, to my mind the Fed 2X ship would do something similar. Again, not a game breaker; just more what's already there.
The photon, on the other hand, is tough to change without possibly breaking the game. So, rather than making it "better" (i.e., more accurate) I'd try to make it more flexible. From the EY to 0X, the photon got the ability to be overloaded; from 0X to 1X, it could be fast loaded. For 2X, I'd go the other direction...let the photon be underloaded like the mini-photons in P6. It conserves power, and gives the smaller ships a chance to fire all their photons without sacrificing so much speed. Also, a modest improvement in photon arcs would be nice; say FH instead of FA, for instance.

I have no doubt that not everyone will agree with some of this, but it's a conversation starter, anyway. Thoughts?

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Eagle) on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 09:33 am: Edit

Well, I think the feds should take the route of the current US. Instead of coming up with creative solutions to problems they instead spend money and computer problems on it to get the result they want. (this is just a broad generalisation)
The Russians OTOH had to be clever. The AA-11 "Archer" missile, for example, and the simple helmet-mounted sight they deployed in the 80s, is one example. (The missile used simple "paddles" get the effect of trust vectoring)

So, less fun stuff for the Feds, but more solid perfomance. The Klinks, and other poor races, would have to be clever.

I think the Feds would think protection (shields)
and firepower (more photons).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 04:00 pm: Edit

Mike, in all the "fix the Photon" discussions I've read the increased arc is the best I have ever heard. Adding 30` to each side would allow Fed ship to operate in a saber dance pretty good. It's so simple too. No special rules. Nearly all the serious problems faced by the Feds can be mitigated by more flexable maneuver.

Good call, Mike.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 04:07 pm: Edit

The Feds really do fly boats. Not only do they have louzy turn modes but a fairly restricted firing arc. Fortunatly the original D7 did too. But that changed for a good portion of the Klingon fleet.

The D7 is supposed to be bigger and better than the D5. That is not nessasarily true. In a duel a D5 has an exelent chance to win if it can play on it's strengths. Mostly because of the FH Disruptors and a good power curve.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 04:26 pm: Edit

Exactly. And that's why I feel like maneuverability is something the Klingons focus on. Turn modes may not be something 2X can effect, but a way to keep speed up while still powering all your weapons is something that sounds very klingon-ish to me. That's why I like the disruptor capacitor rules.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 05:11 pm: Edit

Mike: The Klinks really could use the Capacitor system. But how would it apply to the other Disruptor races?

Giving the Photons an increased firing arc would seem to be a signifigant improvement. But how would the new arcs apply to Orions? The Mountings are radically different.

SVC/SPP have said many times. That if one race gets a benefit and another race gets a different benefit. Then everyone would start saying that the other guy got the better end of the deal. And there would be no end to the complaining/harping for various rules changes. Until everything was back to the homogenized flavor we have now.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 05:34 pm: Edit

True, but most of the other benefits that have been put forward are fairly generalized. These are benefits of the 2X fleets, something I imagine would be pretty rare. Besides, even now, not all races get the same bennies and bonies. For example, not all disruptor races get the UIM. The Feds can make phaser-g's for fighters, but can't just slap them on any hull they please. If the powers that be decide a given benefit is for a races 2X ships only, it shouldn't be that much of a problem. The argument being, of course, that if the originating race can't refit their normal ships with this technology, why should anyone else get it at all? Granted, it isn't a perfect answer, but it's a start.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 12:10 am: Edit

Since this topic hasn't been used much, and I don't have a way to put graphics onto this site, I'll list my proposals here:

Stats for the X2 CA:

	Fed X2 CA	Klink X2 CA
Year In Service	Y205	same
Shields	45/40/40/40/40/40	same
Hull	12/4 (with SIF)	4/7 (with SIF)
Labs	8	4
Control	2/2/2/2	2 each (no flag)
Trac/Trans	2/3	4/7
Phaser type	Loren's ph-VB (1.5 power)	same
Phasers	4 FH - 2 LS - 2 RS - 2 360	11 (same as DX)
Phaser cap	30 (3 x 10 ph-5)	33
Heavy weapons	4 FA phot	4 FH disr
Drone racks	2	same
Drone types	same as X1	improved
Warp engines	24 LWarp - 24 RWarp - 2 CWarp	same
Impulse engines	4	same
AWR	2	4
Batteries	5 (3 pts each)	same
Sensor	6/6/5/3/1/0	same
Scanner	0/0/1/3/5/9	same
DamCon	6/4/4/2/2/2/0	same
Excess	6	same

SIF rules:

• Allocate power equal to the DamCon rating.
• The first hull/cargo/excess hit in any volley counts normally.
• Other hull/cargo/excess hits that turn bounce off the SIF field, up to the power allocated.
• May be reinforced. Allocate double the DC in power, protects 1 1/2 times the DC number of boxes.

• Each ph-5 takes 1 1/2 power to fire.
• Each ph-5 is represented by 2 boxes (similar to an SFG)
• For each phaser hit scored, one box is marked.
• If a damaged phaser is eligible to take a hit, the second box must be marked, destoying the phaser.
• A ph-5 with both boxes undamaged operates normally.
• In rapid-fire mode, an undamaged ph-5 may fire 2 ph-2 pulses, for 3/4 power
• A ph-5 with one box damaged may fire 1 pulse, but is not required to tie the shot into X-aegis.

• X2 ships may generate up to 10 EW points. However, no more than 8 may be used for offense or defense.
• The same -1 shift for extra ECCM that applies to X1 ships also applies to X2.

• 1 turn arming weapon
• max power 8
• max warhead 16
• holding as X0

• Standards may be held for 1 power
• OL for 2
• 2xOL cannot be held
• UIM and DERFACS are integrated into the chart
• No UIM burnout

• 8 to kill
• speed 32
• warhead of 24
• 4 half-space modules fit on a 1 space drone

• 12 to kill
• speed 32
• warhead of 48
• 8 half-space modules fit on a 2 space drone

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 12:57 am: Edit

Okay...45 boxes on the #1, you call that advanced tech?


4 FH Diruptors, what's that about, you should have 6...unless disruptors are going to get a much bigger improvement over Photons.


The Klingons should use Ph-1s on the Waist and Wing Phasers.

Drones, shouldn't be race specific.
Perhaps an availiblity in an earlier year for one race, perhaps different racial percentages for one race, but not race specific.
E.g it's better to say that the Klingons got General availbility for Ph-2 swordfish than to say, only the Klingons got speed 40 drones ( in limited numbers ).
YIS of speed 40 drones for the Klingons was 205 and 209 for everybody else is also do-able.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 01:45 am: Edit

Except the Kzinti would have faster drones before anyone else.

Wjy can't the ships mount 10 of the same phaser? They can all downfire as 2 defensive phasers, so there is no need for a seperate defensive phaser.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 09:38 am: Edit

Some ships, Fed and Gorn, should have the same type all over.

Other like the Klingons should have a cheaper phaser mounted on the rear to reflect their mean and lean fighting philosophy.

Why have Ph-5s be destroyed by those PHASER hits when you can Ph-1s die for 40% of the cost.

It's a question of what can be justified ecconomically Vs what must be provided militarily.

Really, who needs RA Ph-5s other than showoffs, any seeking weeapon you'll fir on will be crawling so you can have plent of shots to sand paper it to death.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 09:47 am: Edit

---

Quote:

4 FH Diruptors, what's that about, you should have 6...unless disruptors are going to get a much bigger improvement over Photons.

---

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 09:56 am: Edit

My opinion on X2 drones is this:

Klingon

• Enemies (Fed and Kzinti) tend to use phasers for drone defence
• A bigger drone has a better chance of surviving this type of defense
• There isn't much room to add in 2 more drone racks.
• So the Klingons would have 2 racks filled with better drones.

• Enemies (Klingon and Lyran) use different types of drone defenses.
• One defense in particular (ADD) does not care how big the drone is
• So the best way to suppress ADD based defenses is with bigger numbers of drones
• Therefore, the Kzintis would not be as interested in "How to make a bigger drone"
• as they would be interested in "How to put more drones on the board"

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 10:00 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Really, who needs RA Ph-5s other than showoffs, any seeking weeapon you'll fir on will be crawling so you can have plent of shots to sand paper it to death.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 10:04 am: Edit

Jeff,

Your Fed ship sounds very, very similar to one I worked on myself...just never posted it. It has a bit more power from AWR and impulse, 4 point batteries, 2 point phaser caps instead of 3, and marginally better shields. It also has a higher move cost, because it's bigger (all those boxes). Here's a link to it:

Federation 2X CC

I just toyed with this as a possible entry, but scrapped it and went another route. If you have some graphics you'd like posted, let me know and I'll do it for you.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 10:30 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Try someone who's being chased by a SP full of Kzinti drones. 4 ph-5 = 8 defensive shots.

---

---

Quote:

Who else would need 2 L-LR and 2 R-RR ph-5s?

---

---

Quote:

So the best way to suppress ADD based defenses is with bigger numbers of drones

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 04:08 pm: Edit

Okay, I can't help but think we might have better luck with this if we look at not just a cruiser SSD, but a range of 2X SSD's...then, we can pare down, or add on, as we see fit.

I'd abandoned these particular ones as not being "techy" enough. But, with some tweaking (such as adding the new phasers under discussion in other threads) they might do for a start.

Federation XCA
Federation XCL
Federation XFF

A few things to note.

• Each has a slightly bigger than normal move cost. That's from being a slightly larger than normal ship, one approach to X2 that's been bandied around. The other is that they'd be smaller.
• The weapon charts aren't very firm. Nothing has been decided yet, so don't worry too much about what the charts say.
• The BPV's, likewise, are not perfected. Playtesting would be needed to do so. But, these do reflect a range some are shooting for.
• Each ship has some NWO boxes. They would be filled according to need. The CA, for example, might use cargo and spare shuttles during peacetime, but Flag and cargo in war-time. Pick your poison.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Eagle) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 04:20 pm: Edit

Myself I want a REVOLUTIONARY X2. Not overgrown X1. Add some bisarr new system to the Feds Mike!
Nice work on the SSDs.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 04:56 pm: Edit

I'll mirror Mike's Feds with my X2 Feds. I can't link directly to the graphic so when you get here click on the next link: http://sfbfog.iwarp.com/SSD/Federation/

These use an entirely new hull design.

The XCL would have a YIS of Y205. The XCM and XCC would be XCL varients when the Xorks invade. The XBD would also be a post Xork ship. The key is to make the Y205 design expandable to give us something to counter the Xorks with.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 05:00 pm: Edit

Carl,

I have something that might fit "new and bizarre" for the Klingons. Look on X2 disruptors.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 05:10 pm: Edit

I think we should move away from the Xork ideas. Y205 will see a new cruiser. First X2 ship would be a CA class ship. Pride of the Fleet and all that.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 05:13 pm: Edit

A CC(X2) is fine as long as it isn't maxed out. We need somewhere to grow when the Xorks come-a-knocking.