Made this as a place to consolidate the posting of various SSD's we're getting at this stage...it's easier than sorting through all the other threads looking for 'em.

This is the first of a new "look" for the Fed SSD's I'm working from. It has the latest tables posted in other threads, including the PV and PVI most of us seemed to agree to. It also has Jeff Tonglet's revised Photon table, with an overload range of 10 and some different range brackets. I like it, so I used it (though if you look, you'll see Jeff's name on it!) I'll get around to posting the others later, after I've dolled them up some to be more aesthetically pleasing. I'm also willing to store anyone elses on my website, so that they can post them here, as well...just let me know.

Federation XFF

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 12:41 pm: Edit

I see you got my e-mail and made it even better!

Great idea for this thread and mighty nice of you!

Thanks Mike.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 02:53 pm: Edit

Mike,

I just sent you my versions of the Fed, Klingon, and Kzinti X2 CA. Let me know if it came through.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 07:18 pm: Edit

Jeff,

They didn't. Try it again, and I'll put them up. Looking forward to seeing them!

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 08:00 pm: Edit

Here are two basic Cruiser SSD's...a Fed, and a Klingon.

Klingon 2X BC

Note that the Klingon BC has some different disruptors; they do a bit more damage. Each would be part of a disruptor capacitor system that will store four points of power per disruptor on the ship. The disruptors can be fired as standards for 2 points, overloads for 4 points, or as two standards with an eight impulse delay for 4 points. UIM would be integral (no burnout) but can be hit by H&R teams.

Federation XCC

The Fed ship has been up before, but now has Jeff's Photon (better ranges, and complete overload capability in one turn firing mode).

Both ships have some things in common that are part of my personal 2X vision...

• Both use NWO. This is to make them more flexible, though not so much as the DW's are.
• Both are physically larger than the normal SC3 ship, though not DN sized. This accounts for the higher move cost.
• An SIF of some kind is installed...we don't know what that is yet, though.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 08:10 pm: Edit

Nice ships. I'm going to make some changes and send them to you for discussion.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 08:31 pm: Edit

As an aeathetic thing, I'm not fond of anything that reminds me of Old X2 and both these ships do. But that's just aesthetics.

I also take issue with the 1 1/4 move cost (they're not DNLs) The engines are identical to X1 in power-to-MC ratio. There's no difference between 40:MC1 and 48:MC1.25

Both ships have NWO's. That was part of what made DWH's unpopular. Suggest it's a bad move.

Conspicuous in its absense is any kind of ASIF.

KLINGON BCX
Rear-firing Disruptors? Why? If they're going to exist, they could at least be RH.

I also think 6 drone racks is a bit much.

Consider P-1's for the Waist Phasers. That would mirror the waist P-2s on the D6/D7.


THE FED XCC
There is little to distinguish this ship as X2. Reset the P-5's to P-1s and P-6's to P-3's it could almost be a CBX.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 08:35 pm: Edit

Mike, I just sent it again.
Is your email address mraper@triad.rr.com

That's what it says on the bulletin board.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 08:49 pm: Edit

I don't think there is any need for those ships to be MC 1 1/4. They're X2 so MC1 is fine.

Six drones is too many, IMO.

Mike, I'll work on those and send them soon.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 09:03 pm: Edit

Here is the Link to the this page, with Jeff's ships on it, as well...

http://www.geocities.com/raperm2002/2X_talk.html

Points from the above:

---

Quote:

Both ships have NWO's. That was part of what made DWH's unpopular. Suggest it's a bad move.

---

---

Quote:

Conspicuous in its absense is any kind of ASIF.

---

---

Quote:

Six drones is too many, IMO.

---

---

Quote:

Consider P-1's for the Waist Phasers. That would mirror the waist P-2s on the D6/D7.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 10:43 pm: Edit

Something's up with posting hyperlinks, so I'll just do it this way...

Jeff's Fed XCC

Jeff's Klingon XCC

Jeff's Kzinti XCC

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 10:47 pm: Edit

I did make some changes to my two designs, as well. I'll yield to the pressure to make them MC1. The other changes are fairly minor; less drones on the Klingon (four...still need some ADD defense), and P-1's for the aft arcs on the Klingon.


Mike's Revised Klingon XBC

Mikes Revised Fed XCC

By Mark James Hugh Norman (Mnorman) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 03:20 am: Edit

Mike: Shouldn't the Kzinti have at least two drone G-type racks, unlike Mikes design. After all the Kzinti will probably still be preoccupied with themselves

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 11:32 am: Edit

I was going to have it so that the PH-V couldn't be mounted in the pylons.

That's a lot of drone racks Jeff. I would give four CXX and two GXX. Thats still a lot of drone firepower. There could be a super drone cruiser that has more.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Eagle) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 11:50 am: Edit

Mike, add a two box SFG system, please.
(for my idea on a ready to use SFG on every Klingon crusier!)*
The ships look nice in terms of size. Now we need to twist them a little
I think the waist phasers should be deleted.
They are an artifact(like the appendix) from times the ship construction skills were less advanced. The wing phaser arcs D2.33 OTOH are very sweet! (I play the TKR in tourneys...)

*Energy for two fields during one turn, only. Rechargable at a base only)

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 11:59 am: Edit

Question Mike.

On the rear phaser 5s, why are they FH rather than 360? Seems we just took about a 80 year step backwards.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 12:28 pm: Edit

Mike R.: Oh, I see you eliminated the RH Disr. from the XBC. That helps with the problem I sent you via e-mail. (Although, I sort of liked the RH Disr. since the CBX had six.) I'll reconsider on mine as well.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 01:59 pm: Edit

Chris, what rear phaser 5's? Do you mean one of my SSD's, or Jeff's? The only rear phaser 5's on one of mine is the Fed XCC, and their both RH.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 07:00 pm: Edit

How does the Kiznti control 16 drones that it can launch in a turn?

I susposes it's with the bridge as a special sensor thing plus double drone control...I'ld like to see what play testing sys before I say that 8 C-racks is too much...although I'm sure it is.

I also think the Kzinti should mount Ph-7s in a forrest of Phasers rather than the Ph-5s. I also still don't like the look of those Ph-5s, let 'em die in one hit, like regular phasers and leave the special hit things for the Heavies.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 07:30 pm: Edit

It has triple drone control, MJC. What is a Phaser 7?

The only issues I'd have with the Kzinti ship Jeff proposes would be:

• Eight C racks does seem a bit much.
• Can't say I like the double-sized phaser box...too much like the SFG, which is a huge weapon.
• I don't like the idea of 20 point disruptors; that's just too much. I can live with double-overload for 15 points (though I'm not wild about it) but not 20. That's just me.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 07:48 pm: Edit

Considering the normal Kzinti complement of drone racks is 2xB + 2x C, if you're going to do 8 racks, you should go 4xBx, 4xCx. That would also give much-needed anti-drone capability.

That would also fill out 2x drone control.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 07:50 pm: Edit

If a P-IV and a PL-R are one hit weapons I think we should keep the P-5 a one hit weapon.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 08:18 pm: Edit

X1 drones all have ATG, and one would surmise that X2 drones would as well, if not a supieor version thereof, making control channels, at least at close ranges, relatively moot.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 08:23 pm: Edit

John, how will BX and CX racks give ADD ability? I thought only GX racks could use them. If using 8 racks, I'd go with a similar layout to the Kzinti CCX; four GX racks, and four CX racks.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 09:08 pm: Edit

Mike,

You're right, My bad.

I meant Gx, not Bx. I would agree with your change.