A MC 1 CL isn't a CL.

It's a CA.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 08:39 pm: Edit

A multi-roll, work-horse CL is a fine start. You can have a few CA's as well, which would be upgraded to CC's later on. I see no problem with the CL and CA coexisting.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 08:44 pm: Edit

Agree. MC 1 = CA or CC. MC 2/3 = CL.

In Y205, the CA should be the flagship, and the CL/DD should be the workhorses.

How about if Y205 doesn't have an XCC.
The XCA is going to have a 10 rating anyway, be the flagship of the fleet, and have a multi-role purpose.

When that Y205 XCA gets the Y225 refit, we can call that the XCC.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 08:46 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

A MC 1 CL isn't a CL.

It's a CA.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 11:33 pm: Edit

I thought we had all agreed that the X2 Heavy Cruiser was going to be few (6 to 8 for the big boys). And that they would be Fleet Flag ships. How can a Fleet Flag Ship NOT be a Command Ship?

The XCC can be multi-mission and be fully capable of leading a fleet. It's not like command facilities are a new technology. One of the primary purposes of the first XCC (under the generally agree circumstances) will be to co-ordinate efforts, what ever they may be, where ever they go. Indeed, where ever one of these babies goes they will be in command (of their side, anyway).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 11:42 pm: Edit

Loren,

The Empires are going to want a core fleet of full-on combat ships. Admirals nor politicians are immune to wanting munchkin ships, especially of national pride is attached.

Let the CLs be multi-role.

The the CA/CC's be butt-kickers.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 12:10 am: Edit

I think the XCL will be plenty powerfull enough to kick butt.

I say make them all multi-role, to a degree.

By multi-role I mean they will have some lab, special sensors (via my special Bridge rule), some cargo and a few NWO boxes. Otherwise, these will all be combat ships right down to the Destroyer. None are weak. All are capable of fulfilling a variaty of missions.

Frigates, IMO, will be the only Mission Specific designs. Capable of defending them selves but not direct combat ships. Excellent support ships though.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 01:01 am: Edit

Sure they will all be capable of combat. But they won't be built with the premise of "fit as many phasers onto the ship as we can".

Maybe my terminology is confusing.

Y205 should have one, and only one, ship class with MC 1. It's the fleet flagship.

Since it's the only MC 1 ship in the time period, XCA is an appropriate designation, even though it's a command ship.

In Y225, these XCAs get Xork-busting refits. I called that the XCC, but maybe XBCH is a better term.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 06:59 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Loren,

The Empires are going to want a core fleet of full-on combat ships. Admirals nor politicians are immune to wanting munchkin ships, especially of national pride is attached.

Let the CLs be multi-role.

The the CA/CC's be butt-kickers.

---

---

Quote:

Frigates, IMO, will be the only Mission Specific designs. Capable of defending them selves but not direct combat ships. Excellent support ships though.

---

---

Quote:

Since it's the only MC 1 ship in the time period, XCA is an appropriate designation, even though it's a command ship.

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 02:41 pm: Edit

Anyone who's heard a D6 called a "battlecruiser" knows that.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 06:28 pm: Edit

Actually if you have a Y122 battle between a Fed YCA and a D6, you'll find out exactly why it is a battle cruiser.

Get to R1 use your Type V-XA drone to soak up phaser fire or the threat of it coupled with your tractor, take the 2 Standard Photons on your shield at Range 2 and get to R1.

Blam.

40 points of damage from the disruptors 5/6 of the time plus a 5 points of damage per phaser you can get to point at the other guy.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 06:56 pm: Edit

sure, And a DX has the same proportional advantage over a D7W.

Your point is...?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 07:23 pm: Edit

The point is that at the time the name was given, it was the most correct name, even if by the time of the GW it seems like it must have had a lot of HYPE to get that label.

The same will be true of X2 ships paricularly if refits get involved.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 07:26 pm: Edit

One thing that needs to get cleared up:

How many different MC1 Y205 ship classes should each race have?

I don't see a need for more than one class of MC1 ship. It's supposed to be the fleet command ship, show the flag, a super-enforcer. But has to be capable of multi-role missions so as not to spend the whole Trade Wars era tied to a starbase like the Fed DN.

Then there's the MC 2/3 ships.
Smaller and cheaper than a CA, but nearly as effective. A light cruiser, but still a cruiser. However it will be called on to do more multi-role workhorse jobs as well.

The MC 1/2 ships:
The true workhorse of the fleet. Multi-role ship with good combat capabilities and other abilities. The same role that a Y140 CA filled. Higher BPV, cheaper cost.

The MC 1/3 ships:
Most but not all of the varients should come from the frigates. Cheap, but effective. With 16 warp boxes, the ship has enough power to fill most of the varient roles.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 08:03 pm: Edit

From the lighter/faster theory you could create a MC 3/4 cruiser. This could be as a Y205 CA replacement or as a CL(post-Xork) upgrade.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 08:27 pm: Edit

I'ld say:-

2/3 to 3/4 as CLs

1/2 to 2/3 as DDs

1/2 to 1/2 as FFs

and leave it up to the races to choose which is best for their race from their point of veiw.


As a side issue should the Feds build their GSVs on a DD hull and break with tradition or a CA hull and possibly break the treaty?
I wonder if the Feds will build both a GSC and Heavy Scout on a DD hull or if they'll just build one and have it function in the role of the other.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 08:37 pm: Edit

A agree with Jeff. There really should only be one kind of MC1 cruiser hull.

Where I disagree, with a lot of people here, is that I think the CA should be combat optimized.

Drawing on GW-tech, The FF,DD and CL/CW classes were tapped for a number of missions like CVE, MS, Escort, etc.

Full-cruisers were extremely limited in their variant list and all were oriented toward combat.

There's every reason to assume X2 will follow this pattern, this MC1 CA's should be combat, not multi-role

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 12:51 am: Edit

Jeff T.: As this is what I've been saying all along you make me happy. We agree, and I must say, you put it very well. I personally don't want to see a "Combat" frigate but I suppose most people will want one so how you put it is better. Cool.

MJC: Hey, I'll be...
Quote:
2/3 to 3/4 as CLs

1/2 to 2/3 as DDs

1/2 to 1/2 as FFs"

Not bad at all. Makes pretty good sense for X2 given the slightly larger hulls and all. Though I had thought of that before in passing, you put it nicely.

John T.: Combat optimised, I believe, will be part of the nature of X2. The XCC, XCL, and XDD will all be "Combat optimised" save for the XCLG (Survey Light Cruiser). In adition they would be capable of performing multiple mission types.


I like the Frigate as varients only with, perhaps a couple of Frigate Classes, because of what is the situation with Frigates in todays navy. For the most part they are all specialized ships performing their designed mission very well. They aren't catch all combat ships but serve as a piece of a stratigic puzzle. I think that would fit really well in X2 and be a unique change of style for SFB without breaking anything. If you want to play a small "Duel" X2 game play XDDs.

Lets make frigates interesting and avoid the old stereo type. Make frigates do ONE main thing REALLY well. Leave main line combat missions to the XDD and bigger.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 12:55 am: Edit

Does anyone have a compiled list of the various varients?

As to some of the races' CL being MC 3/4 instead of MC 2/3, I would expect some variations, if for no other reason than to avoid accusations of cookie-cutterism.

The Klingons have a MC 1/2 ship, but it's a frigate (F5).
The Feds have a MC 3/4, which has been around since EY (Legendary photon torpedo officer, anyone?)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 01:05 am: Edit

I mentioned a few several posted above. Perhaps each race might have unique Frigates that serve their unique needs.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 01:27 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Lets make frigates interesting and avoid the old stereo type. Make frigates do ONE main thing REALLY well. Leave main line combat missions to the XDD and bigger.

---

By Aaron Gimblet (Marcus) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 04:06 am: Edit

Agreed with specialist frigates.

As for combat-optimized or not for the XCA.. I think what alot of people are getting at is at least BEFORE the Xorks arrive, they see the XCA doing the same things that the CA did before the General War... that is to say, doing everything, and doing it reasonably well.

I know im going against consensus, here... but id prefer to avoid going down the 'War Cruiser' route, again. Id like to see CAs start out Generalist, and become the Line of Battle... CLs and FF's be combat capable, espc those meant for low-intensity missions, but to have armament and design purposes other than being pure firepower space combatants... perhaps follow the WW1 paradigm, with the CAs as WW1s 'battleline', CLs filling the WW1 scouting/screening role, and DDs/FFs falling into WW1s 'mad dogs'... vessels armed with close range weaponry, potentially devestating if allowed to close the range...

Hey, its a thought. Currently if you look at the SSDs, smaller ships are just like their larger cousins, only individually less capable. What if we made them functionally different?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 02:38 pm: Edit

Loren,

A question I've been meaning to as is: what are these multiple non-combt missions that you want to perform such that space that could be devoted to combat should be instead put to something else?

Next question is: Which of these missions will routinely commands the presence of a full-fledged, MC=1 cruiser? I'm sure all starships get occasional missions that they'd sure love to be able to reconfigure themselves for. You don't design a ship to do the exceptions well if it conflicts with the ship's main purpose.

Which is why I ask what non-combat missions regulrly command the presence of a full-cruiser.

The answer I come up with...and the answer that comes from the General War...is "not many."

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 05:02 pm: Edit

Well, I sort of look at like this. The 2X cruiser is likely to be pretty darn rare, and expensive to field. So, if you can make a frigate that can do the mission as well as the old 0X CL or CA could, but much more cheaply than the 2X CA, wouldn't you do that? I mean, take a 2X Fed frigate. Have variants, just like the CL and DD's did; scout, escort, survey, etc. With the new weapons and such we're seeing, a 2X frigate will be a good multi-purpose vessel; it already has the P-V, which with rapid pulse makes a heck of an escort. Have a few NWO boxes, and you could add cargo, lab, ready-racks for fighters, mines...you name it. You'd get a cheap, easy to use vessel, and wouldn't require expensive refits to get the variation. For big missions, the CA is like the DN; it leads the fleet, kicks ass and takes names, and waves the flag. The CL's would act like the old CA, doing workhorse duty by being a well-rounded design. That's just my interpretation, and I think it sort of dove-tails with Loren's.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 05:39 pm: Edit

No, I don't think it does.

Loren is interested in multi-role XCC's.