Archive through February 08, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
The "X" Files:
OLD X2 FOLDER:
The Generic X2 Hull:
Archive through February 08, 2003
If you want to get SVC to go along with that argument I'll help. It seems practical. BUT It might need to be shot down to avoid cookie cutterism.
Mikes statement in and of it's self wont cause cookie cutterism.
One could say that circumstances didn't allow the ISC to incremently improve their designs and so the rest of the Galixy caught up. Their designs were excellent but not examples of the lead they one had. That doesn't screw the ISC. They will still get great ships.
I would consider it part of the racial flavor that the ISC has the strongest ship in the class, but the rest of the Galaxy is catching up.
I don't think it's unreasonable if the ISC XCA is 360-375 while everyone else is in the 325-350 range.
Is it a cookie cutter to have everyone else the same BPV? No.
Is it cookie cutter if everyone has 10 ph-5, 4 heavy weapons, 15 C Hull, and 48 warp? Yes.
Quote:I disagree. I think using a percentage increase is a mistake. As the BPV gets higher the gap grows wider. +50% of 150BPV is not as much as +50% of 225BPV. X1 is about 75 BPV over GW. I say add 75 BPV to X1 for a goal of 300. Then playtest them and see if they can hold up like (near) a B-10. Frankly, I want the cool X2 cruiser to think twice if facing a Battle Ship.
Now you see, that's where we already have a problem.
The ASIF will be a percentage increase.
5 Point BTTYs will be a percentage increase.
Replacing all Ph-1s with Ph-5s will be a percentage increase.
Improoving all Hevies by equivilant amounts will be a perecentage increase.
By percentage, I mean uniform across hull sizes, FFs will be the same Percentage ( give or take ) as DDs or CCs.
Now I admit I'ld like to see an XCC being the pride of the fleet / Flag ship / testbed and an XCCH being the Xork invasion responce vessel ( probably through a refit taking the number of Ph-5s from 8 to 12 and a refiting the 3 point BTTYs into 5 Pointers ) but I'm not saying I don't won't to make the force players to use a particular vessel even though a correct YIS will make some ships out of reach.
Quote:To have a cruiser dance around and pound the snot out of a BB is rediculous. It has only been 25 or so years. If X2 is at 400+ BPV that is what will be. Cruisers pounding the snot out of BBs.
No Thanks.
Are you counting the price of the fighters that the BB has AND the three other vessels a BB must travel with under the S8 rules?
Remember, it's not a cruiser, it's a super cruisers.
Quote:Now,after the Xorks arive there may be a call for XDNs. Those would surely be around 400+ BPV.
And X1R will probably give us a BCHX ( even though it'll probably actually be a CCHX ) and it'll have a BPV in the mid to high 300s and an XCC will need to be higher than that.
Quote:I humbly disagree. If you want a paper-chase nightmare, any carrier game is much worse than three single ships. And, according to the latest sales figures posted on this board, J2 is still in the top five. To my mind, that means lots of people are buying, and playing, with rules for fighters and carriers. Ergo, I don't think that players mind multi-ship engagements, especially if it's something new and "cool."
That's the point the High BPV yeilds a slow down in play should not be reason to have a low BPV XCC, the XCC improvements should be proportionate to the XDD and XFF improvements.
Quote:One of the problems I have with a high BPV XCC is that if you do want to play against a XCC with GW it will have to be a fleet battle. With a BPV of around 300 to 350 (max) at least you could bring a BB to the field. A GW and X2 duel is possible.
You're just going to have to live with the fact that you must bring a task group.
You can't invade a Star Base with a single ships and nobody really has a problem with that, sure hardly any Play groups ever do starbase assaults but I don't think they write Mean letters to ADB saying, we want cheaper SBs.
Beside which they have Bases and Battle Stations if they want to do an easier version of the starbase assault and so to the XDD and XFF will be availible for those that want the easier version.
The High BPV forces a task group or fleet or CVA group battle of GWs against a single XCC doesn't hold water.
Quote:I agree, and that's my point. As I read it, MJC seemed to believe that having to use multiple GW era ships to combat a 2X ship would be something players would find tedious. I don't agree with that. I think an equal value in BPV of GW ships should always be able to effectively fight the 2X ships, and that it ought to be a modest number; for example, a 2X CC shouldn't be the equal of a BB, but should be able to stand up to 2 GW era CC's.
Let's say mildly tedious.
And my original point was that this tedium should not be the basis of greatly retarded XCC capasities.
Exhausted ecconomies perhaps could be a reason but not the mild tedium of being force to find some more power than a BB...specifically a task group.
Quote:Guys I feel the need to emphasize one more time your talking about Fed/Klink (And similar) 300-350 BPV's. I mean the ISC CCX is already 315. So it would need to increase well above 350 to display much improvement.
Yup...and we need to make room for what ever ships the X1R gives us.
Quote:Well, not necessarily. IIRC, the ISC came along after intensly studying the other races, learning about them, and building a new fleet from scratch using that information. So, they had ships with higher BPV's than the other races. With 2X, everyone is on the same level; they all know about each other's capabilities, and are all starting out with something new. So, I'd say that the gap between 2X BPV's across racial lines might not be as wide as it was previously.
Yeah, but it'll still be enough of an improovement over the ISC CCX to "whup" it assuridly because otherwise it wouldn't be feilded, you'ld just go and try to refit your current vessels ( say with Ph-5s and 5 point BTTYs ) and hope for the best.
I don't object to the ISC having the strongest ship, simply from the nature of their weapons (2X PPD, anyone?) But, I think the gap would be narrowed to some degree. I agree with Jeff, too...they shouldn't all look exactly the same.
Quote:I would consider it part of the racial flavor that the ISC has the strongest ship in the class, but the rest of the Galaxy is catching up.
I don't think it's unreasonable if the ISC XCA is 360-375 while everyone else is in the 325-350 range.
Is it a cookie cutter to have everyone else the same BPV? No.
Is it cookie cutter if everyone has 10 ph-5, 4 heavy weapons, 15 C Hull, and 48 warp? Yes.
Well similar BPV will do.
Different firing arcs and different sheild box numbers and different phaser suites will all do their part to create racial flavour.
"Now you see, that's where we already have a problem.
The ASIF will be a percentage increase.
5 Point BTTYs will be a percentage increase.
Replacing all Ph-1s with Ph-5s will be a percentage increase.
Improoving all Hevies by equivilant amounts will be a perecentage increase."
Huh? No, that's no it at all. You can't just apply a percentage increase for those things. Each thing will have a specific value given the type and number. In the case of the ASIF it may be based on the number of hull the ship has. (And I still don't think there should be 5 point batteries, even though it is printed in BS. SVC has said otherwise. We haven't got a ruling on that yet.) On X2 no weapon will replace another. These are new designs. These ships will be valued on their own curve.
++++++++++++++++++
"Are you counting the price of the fighters that the BB has AND the three other vessels a BB must travel with under the S8 rules?
Remember, it's not a cruiser, it's a super cruisers."
Of course not. The comparison was with a BB. The point is that you could take a single GW ship against a XCC. The choice is there. At 400 the choice is not. 300 to 350 BPV is good for the game, IMHO.
+++++++++++++++++
"You're just going to have to live with the fact that you must bring a task group."
No I'm not unless SVC says. I may still not because I may not be interested in the product.
++++++++++++++++++
"You can't invade a Star Base with a single ships and nobody really has a problem with that, sure hardly any Play groups ever do starbase assaults but I don't think they write Mean letters to ADB saying, we want cheaper SBs."
Apples and Oranges. Cruisers are at the heart of the game. Base assaults are in their own league. (and I would never write a mean letter to ADB unless he kicked my Cat. 
)
+++++++++++++++++++
"Yeah, but it'll still be enough of an improvement over the ISC CCX to "whup" it assuridly because otherwise it wouldn't be fielded, you'ld just go and try to refit your current vessels ( say with Ph-5s and 5 point BTTYs ) and hope for the best."
Again, I don't agree. At this point the ISC has failed. No one is fielding ships to deal with them (unless the ISC is going to make a come back, yuk!). The ISC is no longer in a "Stomp on the other races" mode. They are more likely fortifying and isolating. They are also economically exhausted. I don't see how they could field a ship designed to beat a ship they haven't seen yet. They do not get the chance to observe X2 for ten years first. I suspect their big X2 cruiser will be on Par with other X2 ships.
Another 100 posts and we still have the same 3 camps:
A) X2 ships are starships developed and deployed during a peacetime economic depression. While much better rounded as measured by BPV they should not automatically be better in battle than X1 warships, though in some cases they may be. Backward compatibility should be the primary concern. XCA~250BPV.
B) X1 ships were a major increase in BPV over X0 so X2 should be a major increase over X1. X2 ships display radical technological improvement showcasing many new technologies. An XCA should soundly defeat an X0 BB with a full attrition load out. XCA~480BPV.
C) Both A&B are wrong and the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle. X2 should neither be lateral nor revolutionary but instead show an evolutionary improvement. XCA~300-350BPV and should lose 1-on-1 with an X0 BB without attrition units.
Any guesses on where we will be 100 posts from now?
Same as it has been. No one is likely to change their minds on how they view X2 as a whole. Personally, I'm in camp C, and I'll admit I'm not likely to change my mind on that. I have no more or less compelling reasons for it than anyone else, and I think we're just gonna have to live with that.
I'm in camp C as well. Though, you all probably have guessed that. I'm trying to moderate my self to a well rounded design that provokes thinking. Something that will produce another era of Term Papers. I'm a big fan of the B-11 and would love to X one out. If fact, I have. But I don't want to see a module based on that.
LOL, me too! I did an A-12 X Battleship, and a Fed counterpart, as well. Talk about unplayable! Seriously, though, camp C is the most appealing to me as it provides new ships that are more flexible than 1X, but also somewhat more powerful...not by virtue of being bigger, but by being better. The same or less weapons, but better ones; that kind of approach.
Here, here!
Hey, MJC. You have had many ideas here. Some I agreed with. Please don't think for a minute that I don't think you have stuff to offer. You have provoked much thought in me through out this process. I do have to disagree where I do, though.
Quote:"Now you see, that's where we already have a problem.
The ASIF will be a percentage increase.
5 Point BTTYs will be a percentage increase.
Replacing all Ph-1s with Ph-5s will be a percentage increase.
Improoving all Hevies by equivilant amounts will be a perecentage increase."
Huh? No, that's no it at all. You can't just apply a percentage increase for those things. Each thing will have a specific value given the type and number. In the case of the ASIF it may be based on the number of hull the ship has. (And I still don't think there should be 5 point batteries, even though it is printed in BS. SVC has said otherwise. We haven't got a ruling on that yet.) On X2 no weapon will replace another. These are new designs. These ships will be valued on their own curve.
If people are going to quote me I wish they would quote me properly.
I said:-
Quote:Now you see, that's where we already have a problem.
The ASIF will be a percentage increase.
5 Point BTTYs will be a percentage increase.
Replacing all Ph-1s with Ph-5s will be a percentage increase.
Improoving all Hevies by equivilant amounts will be a perecentage increase.
By percentage, I mean uniform across hull sizes, FFs will be the same Percentage ( give or take ) as DDs or CCs.
There should be no confusion in this, if the Ph-1 to Ph-5 conversion cost X BPV per phaser then converting all the Ph-1 on an FF should be a a percentage of Y% and converting all the Ph-1s on a CC to Ph-5s should also be ( give or take ) an increase of Y%.
Quote:"You can't invade a Star Base with a single ships and nobody really has a problem with that, sure hardly any Play groups ever do starbase assaults but I don't think they write Mean letters to ADB saying, we want cheaper SBs."
Apples and Oranges. Cruisers are at the heart of the game. Base assaults are in their own league.
Not really.
I don't think I'm compairing Apples and Oranges, I think I'm compairing BPV to BPV.
The problem is that over a two tech level change you can't hope to have parity and still have the high tech ship be in the a lower part of the high end sizes.
Show me a single Y ship that can beat a CX or has anything like the BPV of the CX.
Even a Y dreadnought has trouble having the BPV of a GW BCH. How many YCAs do you need to beat a CX!?!...more than 1!
At a certain point the highly advanced CRUISER beats the BB hands down and I say X2 is enough of a shift to create said situation. That's not to say that a task group of GW ships shouldn't be able to run it into the ground, just that if it's more powerful than 1 singular GW ships, that that's still okay.
Quote:Again, I don't agree. At this point the ISC has failed. No one is fielding ships to deal with them (unless the ISC is going to make a come back, yuk!). The ISC is no longer in a "Stomp on the other races" mode. They are more likely fortifying and isolating. They are also economically exhausted. I don't see how they could field a ship designed to beat a ship they haven't seen yet. They do not get the chance to observe X2 for ten years first. I suspect their big X2 cruiser will be on Par with other X2 ships.
Why do you read me so wrong?
I didn't say that the ISC X2 cruiser should be able to "whup" the other race X2 cruiser but rather the other race X2 cruisers should be able to "whup" the ISC X1 CCX...and made no comment about the ISC X2 cruiser.
Quote:Any guesses on where we will be 100 posts from now?
Unless SVC makes some statement, right here.
Quote:Hey, MJC. You have had many ideas here. Some I agreed with. Please don't think for a minute that I don't think you have stuff to offer. You have provoked much thought in me through out this process. I do have to disagree where I do, though.
Thanks: I just wish you'ld stop misquoting or misreading, me.
Well, I couldn't possibly misquote you because I use "Copy and Paste" to do it. In the first case I UNDER QUOTED you. Sorry about that.
I'm doing my best to not misread you. This is a tough medium, sometimes, to get your intended point across. The ISC thing I misunderstood. Sure, a X2 ship should be able to beat a ISC CCX. That ship is 315 and an anomoly of X1 being particularly powerful. If the camp C group get it's way it will be a close fight. And a right interesting one too. Perhaps the ISC XCC (X2) will be in the upper range of X2 cruiser BPVs. But not by as much a lead as before. Anyhow, I get your point. On that one I made a mistake. I apologize.
"There should be no confusion in this, if the Ph-1 to Ph-5 conversion cost X BPV per phaser then converting all the Ph-1 on an FF should be a a percentage of Y% and converting all the Ph-1s on a CC to Ph-5s should also be ( give or take ) an increase of Y%."
I still don't understand. Where will there be any "Conversion" of Ph-1s to Ph-5s. Are you talking about from class to class? Because I don't see how that has relevance. X2 ships are so different they need to be valued on their own curve. I don't see how a phantom conversion from Ph-1s to Ph-5s can apply here. Nothing about the ship is based on the Ph-1.
Seriously, tell me what I don't get. Anybody? MJC, perhaps you could put it another way if I'm stuck on the conversion thing too much.
I'm totally not being sarcastic in any way. If I'm wrong I always want to know it and why. One doesn't improve other wise.
I for one have changed camps during this discussion. I was originally in the uber-ship B camp, but I've since changed to the moderate-increase C camp. 325-350 seems reasonable, with the ISC being 340-365 or so.
But I firmly believe the Y205 ships shouldn't have much more than a Y140 ship in terms of number of systems. Better, yes. More, no. Save it for when Mork from Xork shows up.
Okay.
Each system is in and of itself a representation of other systems that already exist ( or even if they don't exist of systems that could exist ) such that everything is a faximally of everything else.
That is that everything either boils down to either stopping damage or generating damage.
Labs ID drones and so stop damage.
Turn modes allow you to point your weapons at the enemy and thus generate damage.
The ASIF allows you to stop damage.
The 5 point BTTYs allow you to stop damage and in some cases generate damage.
Now some things are simple percentages to determine even though we'll calculate via point system.
I have 10 sheep and 5 feilds, so I have 200% of the sheep as I do the feilds.
Now when my accountant goes to make my assest statment to the "Social Security Office" ( because I'ld like to get the old age pension or disability pension or some such ) he won't say, 5 fields and double that in sheep, he'll count each sheep by hand ( and counting 10 will know that I've got 2 sheep for every field ).
Even though the counting is done by points, the result will be the same percentage.
Now, if we take as our base line in design an X1 frigate and say 5 Ph-1s on the Fed FFX and replace them all with Ph-5 for 5Ph-5s, then we take a Fed CX cruiser and note that she has 12Ph-1s, then under the enginnering principal that you can theoretically stuff twice as much stuff into a shell ( read hull ) that is twice the internal volume of a smaller shell, THEN we should by rights also be able to mount 12Ph-5s in that XC.
If the XFF design prototype ( for initial playtestring purposses ) is an FFX with three point BTTYs that have been all replaced by 5 Point BTTYs then the XC should also have the same number of BTTYs as the CX but replace them all with 5 point BTTYs.
If the ASIF effectively increases your sheild #7 on the XFF by 80% then you need to increase the sheild #7 on the XC by also 80%.
The net result is that these changes maintain a uniform increase as a percentage of the original hull.
If we build our XC with only 8 Phaser-5s instead of 12, then we could say that it was a lowered result because of financial constraints but we couldn't say that the XC couldn't mount 12 Ph-5s because it was physically impossible...atleast not when using the X2 refitted CX as out protoype for playtesting.
This is the reason why I'ld like to see the CA be a refit of the CL, moving from the cheap 8Ph-5s to the more powerful 12 Ph-5s and the cheap 3 point BTTYs to the more powerful 5 Point BTTYs as a responce to the Xork invasion. On the D7 version the 4 disruptors may well be replaced with 6 to suit the Klingon DX and D7X.
If we go that way, we'll have both 400 point XCLs and 480 Point XCAs and that'll atleast make fully refitted BBs able to fight the XCLs...well the B11 and the KCN and the K10R and the MNR and the DEV will all be able to fight the XCL.
Now maybe I'm missing something. I think MJC just said X2(Y205) can start with a moderate BPV and a moderate tech increase and X2(post Xork) would be significantly upgraded.
“This is the reason why I'ld like to see the CA be a refit of the CL, moving from the cheap 8Ph-5s to the more powerful 12 Ph-5s and the cheap 3 point BTTYs to the more powerful 5 Point BTTYs as a response to the Xork invasion.”
Now this is even more confusing. I read that to say there is no CA(Y205). The CA(X2) is an upgrade of the CL(Y205). Its almost like saying there is a Y205 cruiser and a post-Xork cruiser. Heavy and light only gaining meaning in hindsight, not unlike what I've been trying to say.
Both of these statements I can support, odd since MJC and I are normally diametrically opposed.
We still differ of course on what the BPV for the before and after unit are. Ignoring the economics we know that X2(Y205) has to fight nicely with X0/X1/XP and I will infer that the Xorks should kick the snot out of X2(Y205). Meeting both of these objectives would be much easier if we start with a lower X2(Y205) and grow bigger to meet the threat.
Quote:Now this is even more confusing. I read that to say there is no CA(Y205). The CA(X2) is an upgrade of the CL(Y205). Its almost like saying there is a Y205 cruiser and a post-Xork cruiser. Heavy and light only gaining meaning in hindsight, not unlike what I've been trying to say.
Both of these statements I can support, odd since MJC and I are normally diametrically opposed.
There are several forces combining for this particular idea.
1) Two of the three ( which both happen to be the two I like most, becuase the other, the shield #7 shield, just isn't anything other than another shield ) A.S.I.F. designs ( the double box and thwe shield between the A and B collums ) both generate an inate perversion of the ganme towar and increase in the effectiveness of the 12 point mizia...thus 12 phasers would aid in avoiding the X2s from repeatedly and frequently beoming toothless tighers.
2) Since under X1 you can alreadly fit 12 Capital Phasers on an MC1 SC 3 ship, that therefor an MC1 SC3 or worse still MC2 ship should also be able to easily fit 12 captial phasers aboard the vessel.
3) The ecconomically exhausted and treaty controlled situations of the post GW galactica powers. As a side note I actually think the treaties would limit the production of highly advanced cruiser to no more than one per boarder, which is fewer than one per fleet but more than one per Empire.
Tos:
Actually you and I agree with most things, it's me and just about everybody else who disagree and you just read those posts.
Im still not convinced that a B11 should be able to DUKE IT OUT AND HAVE A PRETTY GOOD SHOT OF BEATING THE X2 CRUISER qualiffies as PLAYING NICE.
I would have assumed than any task group of GW ships that were of equal BPV as the X2 Cruiser and could beat the X2 cruiser 50% of the time, would be the measure of playing nice.
SVC:
Where do you stand in this idea.
Some poeple feel that playing nice doesn't just mean that a 147 point D7D should "whup" a 130 point XFF but that a Battleship should be able to "whup" an XCC.
I tend to think that it's okay to have an X2 cruiser be a little like a starbase in that it'll take more than one ship to defeat.
Does the idea that the X2 cruiser is so powerful ( say 480 BPV instead of 360 ) that you need a task group of GW ships to deafeat, it cause it; to fall from the idea of PLAYING NICE?
MJC,
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll voice my own thoughts. I don't feel a battleship should be able to "whup" an XCC just because it's a battleship...I think it should because I don't think an XCC should be worth 400 points. In most cases, it almost certainly will take more than one ship to bean an XCC...but battlships are a bit different, being conjectural aside. They are made for one purpose, and one purpose only...combat. Long, sustained, intense and deadly combat. XCC's are not. It's all just a question of BPV, and I for one think a BPV of about 350 or so is high enough for an XCC. I know you don't, and that's okay...as I've said, I'll even help you post a ship design if you like. It is NOT, though, a question of "playing nice."
By playing nice, that means there isn't some gizmo that gives X2 an RPS type advantage over X1 or X0.
If the BPV is 300, then it should be able to fight even against a pair of 150 BPV X0 cruisers (If the result is: X2 CA - crippled, X0 CA #1 - dead, X0 CA #2 shield damage, then it's a draw)
Battleships are a different case. An X2 CA shouldn't be able to slug it out. However, with a strategic speed advantage, it can run away and thus has a better chance of surviving. This doesn't translate into BPV.
There is also something of a consensus that the Y205 ships and the Y225 ships would have dramatic differences in firepower. For lack of a better term, an X2 CA and an X2R CC.
To avoid confusion and to avoid mixing eras, I propose that we restrict these X2 threads to the Y205 Trade Wars period, and that the Y225 monster ships be moved to the Xork Invasion thread.
Quote:I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll voice my own thoughts. I don't feel a battleship should be able to "whup" an XCC just because it's a battleship...I think it should because I don't think an XCC should be worth 400 points. In most cases, it almost certainly will take more than one ship to bean an XCC...but battlships are a bit different, being conjectural aside. They are made for one purpose, and one purpose only...combat. Long, sustained, intense and deadly combat. XCC's are not. It's all just a question of BPV, and I for one think a BPV of about 350 or so is high enough for an XCC.
We we'll need to make room for an X1 BCH even it's really just a CCHX and that added to the 240 to 315 range that already exitis brings us to ( say 25% more BPV ) a 300 to 390 range. Even if we consider the X1 BCH to fall into the 300 to 360 range, that'll mean that the X2 Cruiser ( or more probably the X2R CC ) will need to fall in the 400 to 480 category to be significatly more power than the X1 ships it replaces to be both a tech level ahead and worth the effort of changing around the shipyard.
Even if the X2R CC were to be 400 BPB ( and I'ld expect it to be 480 ) then we'll have increadible trouble making the X2 CL be less than 320, and expecting it to be less than 350 will still be tough.
It's amazing how much of the ship's BPV we can't take away.
If we say that the X2CL doesn't have an ASIF, we'ld greatly increase the complexity of play.
If we say it doesn't have the third HET bonus until after the refit we'ld greatly reduce the ease of play.
Pretty much, only Engine Boxes, Sheild Boxes and Weapon systems can be added in a refit to avoid confussion.
And if have refits of everything to deal with both the Xork threat and the Play Nice means BBs win sayers then we'ld be much better of printing different character sheets.
Quote:There is also something of a consensus that the Y205 ships and the Y225 ships would have dramatic differences in firepower. For lack of a better term, an X2 CA and an X2R CC.
Dramatically isn't the word I would use.
•No change in heavies ( other than upping diruptors from 4 to 6 ).
•Changing the Captial Phaser array from 8 to 12.
•Changing the BTTYs from 3 point to 5.
I think that'll be a change in the offensive power of the X2 cruiser of only about 20%, maybe less, so I wouldn't say dramatic differences.
The Labs, Engine boxes, hull boxes, existance of an ASIF, probe launchers and probe capabilites and most of the sheild boxes will stay the same, causeing the shift in BPV to be mild ( although more mild than the shift in offensive power which while marked will not be dramatic ).
I am confortable with a over built X1 being the same BPV as a streight up X2. Would make for a most interesting senario.
"Actually you and I agree with most things"
If you say so, but I can’t get over the belief that 480 BPV cruisers will break the game into tiny little pieces. If the game breaks your reasons for higher BPVs are irrelevant.
“We we'll need to make room for an X1 BCH even it's really just a CCHX”
The existing X1 ships are already built on the CCH. The BCH(X1) probably won’t historically exist but the BCH(XP) could. If we go the BCH(XP) route we don’t push the BPV beyond what currently exists. Your argument that the BCH(X1) would force the BPV of X2 ships up is equally effective at deciding the BCH(X1) is non-historical.
“Since under X1 you can already fit 12 Capital Phasers on an MC1 SC 3 ship, that therefore an MC1 SC3 … should also be able to easily fit 12 capital phasers aboard the vessel.”
No, it says an X1 warship can fit 12 PH-1. There are two problems with your logic:
1) X2(Y205) isn’t a warship and should revert back to 6-8 phasers.
2) No one has declared that the P5 is a single space weapon. Presumably it would be larger than the P1 which should push the X2(Y205) back toward 6 P5.
Quote:I am confortable with a over built X1 being the same BPV as a streight up X2. Would make for a most interesting senario.
Ain't that the truth.
But the fully armed X2 cruiser shouldn't be cheaper than the BCHX.
Quote:1) X2(Y205) isn’t a warship and should revert back to 6-8 phasers.
Until the Refit for the Xork repulsing...when the Admiralty will want REAL warships.
Quote:2) No one has declared that the P5 is a single space weapon. Presumably it would be larger than the P1 which should push the X2(Y205) back toward 6 P5.
Since the Ph-4 is a single space weapon, it would be hard to justfy 6Ph-5s having the ability to take 12 A collum PHASER hits...unless you'ld like to go with some thing along the lines of the Sterio Phaser, last put forward in the Ph-1 topic.