Here's my take:
2/3 = XCL
3/4 = XCM
1 = XCA
1 = XBC

The XCL is the high volume ship built in war cruiser ship yards.

The XCM is the low production ship built in CA ship yards. It is well rounded like the pre-war CA(X0) but slightly better in combat than the CA(X1) which it is designed to replace (on the theory that X1 ships are too expensive to operate in peace time).

The XCA is designed early in the X2 period but is not built due to treaty restrictions. It is the first post-Xork class to enter production but in that configuration is not optimized for war.

The XBC is designed after the Xork invade and is a maxed out warship.

The BCH(X1) was never built but the BCH(XP) was.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 11:31 pm: Edit

XCM...hmm, interesting.

John T.: Actually Mikes view does dovetail pretty well. He put it nicely. Thanks, Mike.

John, I think you think I put more into the multi-roll XCC concept than I do. What I want is basically four NWO on the XCC with about four to six cargo(also extending their range and mission time). This is not as fully capable as a specialized varient but when the situation is secured a specialized varient can come and take over. The XCC then moves on to the next mission.

For the most part the XCL will do a lot of this sort of multi-roll stuff but I really don't want to see the XCC having any LESS capability than a XCL. It should be able to perform all missions very well.

I wrote that poem to express what I would like to see.

The XCC...the mighty XCC.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 12:28 am: Edit

Loren,

Why waste space with NWO's and cargo when you could use it for APR, phasers or other secondary weapon systems?

What missions requires the longer cruise time? Seems like everyone has enough bases to support the fleet if it's staying in the civlized parts of Known Space.

If you expect the ship to be operating for extended periods without support, what do you expect it is doing, where is is going and why are you sending a full-fledged XCC?

The only mission that would require extended range would be deep space exploration, and you see cargo boxes on a lot of GW-era exploration ships because of it. Why do we need a XCC doing this?

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 12:47 am: Edit

Things you might find on a multi-role ship that you won't find on an upgunned Late GW ship or an SSD:

spare parts, gym, holodeck, bowling alley, lomg term food storage, movie theater, Captain's waterbed, a full sized studio apartment for each crewman, etc.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 12:56 am: Edit

"XCM...hmm, interesting."

A cruiser is only heavy, light, medium, battle or heavy battle when viewed in hind sight. Witness the D6 Battle Cruiser, an apt name when it was released in Y122 but a Medium Cruiser by GW standards.

If you build one class its simply a cruiser. The XCM in my example would be the 'cruiser' and have an XCL 'light cruiser' stablemate.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 01:10 am: Edit

Despite how expensive it may be for the Galactic powers, do we have a consensus that any X2 module that covers Y205 (The Trade Wars) will have a MC 1 XCA SSD in it?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 07:58 am: Edit

Well, at one point we did. I recall that there were several of us that felt a module X2 wouldn't be complete without MC1, XCA in it.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 09:35 am: Edit

I believe I am one of the holdouts on the MC=1 idea. This ties with the faster/lighter concept I've been working with. The theory goes you build a CA class ship but due to advances in warp field and hull design it moves more efficiently as shown through game mechanics as a reduced movement cost. In this world a cruiser is defined by which shipyard has the capacity to build it, not movement cost.

It was an interesting theory and I present it as an option, but I'm backing off a bit on it now.

My current concern is that ships will have too much power allowing them to move 31, power EW and fire every weapon every turn. I feel X2 ships should not be allowed to do this. Going faster should be expensive. Reducing the movement cost exacerbates this problem. Hence I'm waffling.

I think the question we need to answer is how much average disposable power should each X2 ship class have while moving speed 31?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 10:43 am: Edit

Well, I know I mentioned this before, but I'll try it again and see if it makes anymore sense.

The problem as I see it is the relationship between three factors; power available, movement cost, and protection. Now, any of these out of balance can cause problems.

Say we go with lighter ships, that have better weapons and a lower move cost. Figure 30 warp with a MC of 2/3. That leaves you 10 extra points of warp power...about the same as in X1. The issue, though, is that now you have a ship with sledghammer weapons that is light on internals. Thus far, this hasn't been a popular approach for the XCA.

A second option is to give the ship more power; say, 48 warp, and internals similar to a CC or CA from 0X. With a MC of 1, you get a new problem...way, way too much excess power. 18 excess warp at speed 30, plus whatever batteries and APR you have. Not good. It does make the ship more durable with those extra boxes, but it has too much power compared to 1X or 0X ships.

A third approach would be this. The ship has 48 warp or so, and internals like a CC or CA. It has less overall weapon mounts than a CX, but they're more effective. With the extra warp boxes, slightly better sheilds and some kind of ASIF, it has better protection, but isn't just an uber-ship with tons of shields. Make the MC 1.25, and you get about 10 excess warp at top speed.

This last approach is attractive to me on several levels. For one, it implies that the 2X cruiser is somewhat larger and heavier than the 1X or earlier ship of the same class. The franchise certainly takes this same approach, and even though we can't very well have an Excelsior or Enterprise-B running around, the same pattern of newer/bigger makes a certain amount of sense to me. Secondly, it resolves two problems in design of these ships. It fixes the issue of massive amounts of reserve power, and gives the ship more internals, making it more durable. Tos is right in that MC doesn't necessarly dictate size class. Further, box counts on an SSD don't necessarily mean a ship is larger or smaller; it just means they take more or less to destroy. For example, the EY Fed CA has 74 internals, and a MC of 1. The Fed CX has 111 internals, and still has a MC of 1. I can see, then, a 2X ship being physically large enough to warrant a MC of 1.25.

That's just my line of thinking, and based on no small amount of personal taste. I just don't see many other ways to balance reserve power against the size of the ship.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 11:02 am: Edit

You are following my (new) line of thought exactly.

If we do away with the powered SIF idea and instead just increase the number of hull boxes I think we can get player buy-in. A CA(X2) would look like something like a DNL(X0) with fewer (but more powerful) weapons and a 1.25 MC.

0.66 = DD(X2) Warp = 24
0.75 = CL(X2) Warp = 27
1.00 = CM(X2) Warp = 36
1.25 = CA(X2) Warp = 45
1.50 = BC(X2) Warp = 54

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 12:13 pm: Edit

On of the things I liked about the ASIF is that it made you make a choice. To power it or not power it. When and how much. In a way I was hoping that X2 would be a bit more complex to play WELL, without being more cumbersome. Old X2 from supplement 2 was pretty hard to play bad. With any experience it was a dice game. I'm hoping for a new challenge in the new X2. There should be new ways to fail miserably and new ways to win gloriously. And a ton of new Term Papers. A light ASIF and Shield Mitigation would do just that. Then you have the Ph-V with several valid firing options.

I don't care for the 1.25 main line cruiser thing. A 0.75 medium cruiser sounds great to me. Could be a Xork thing. A 1.25 XBC sounds great too. But the 1.00 main line cruiser is sort of a tradition I would like to stay with.

I had a new idea about X2 cruiser engines that is mostly technobabble. The 16 box X 1.5 power thing was not a hit. I'll acept that. I also had a problem with bigger giant engines and their various problems that are already implied and stated in the game. So lets have the problems solved by a multi-staged design. Basically each engine is two combined and balanced engines in a single nacelle. Outwardly they appear the same. Inwardly they have two intermix chambers etc. So a cruiser is really two 12 point engines. This is easier to maintain because half the engine can be shut down for maintenance. This would allow for a repair rule that allows you to repair warp for a reduced cost. i.e. if you shut down 12 or your warp (10 of which may be destroyed) you can repair warp boxes for 8 repair points. Perhaps this rule could extend into past eras as well but you would have to shut down the entire engine. X2 could shut down only half and engine to gain the repair bonus on those boxes. The SSD could have the sets separated by just a single bold line.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 03:15 pm: Edit

Loren,

How does this address Tos' concerna about size class vs. power generated? I'm unclear.

Tos, Mike,

I also find myself preferring a MC 1 XCC. The MC=1 Fed CA is the foundation of the game up to this point. Since X2 is the final revision of SFB tech, I'd prefer to leave this as a constant thread that runs through the game.

I have no rational reason that builds on the backstory to buttress this opinion. I'm just being a traditionalist.

Another way to balance X2 is make sure there are more things to do with a XCC's power than it can do at once. There's no such thing as too much power but there is such a thing as too much idle power. I think X1 has a lot of idle power. Upping the power of combat weaponry at the cost of increased power cost is a start.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 03:58 pm: Edit

John T.: I didn't address that. If it is a problem we could scale back power to 20 each + saucer/boom warp. Other races could get extra other stuff. But I didn't address his concern. To do that I would need a design (which I'm working on) and a full list of capabilities on which power is used. I would then need to balance the need to use said capabilities against not using them and using the power for something else. In other words, I need to look into it further to address that. It's something I was going to do after I get my proposal together.

I still have had little time but some progress has been made.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 07:19 pm: Edit

Which is one reason to add some sort of powered SIF to X2. Sure you can use it, but if it costs 6 power, and you only get 8 more warp over a CX, then you've used most of the excess power.

Upping the max EW from 8 to 10 burns up the other two points.

The phasers will have about the same size caps. 1 per ph-1, 1 1/2 per ph-5, but a CX will have more phasers than an XCA, so it's a wash.

Most of the heavy weapons proposals have one thing in common. They use more power.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 07:32 pm: Edit

Jeff,

About half of the heavy weapon proposals are mine and the more power thing was highly intentional.

But we haven't at all come to a consensus of what kind of SIF we like or the phaser complement of a XCC. Let's not assume.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 08:14 pm: Edit

I was just using a starting point for comparison.

This whole X2 debate is starting to look like the story of the blind men and the elephant.

---

Quote:

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind


The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”


The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”


The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”


The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“ ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”


The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!׆


The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”


And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Moral:

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 02:08 am: Edit

From everything I've read, SVC hasn't begun to consider the question of X2.

We all know what we THINK, even what we want X2 to be and that's all we need.

What the poem shows us is how people can lock themselves in their own minds and refuse to accept how other people perceive the universe.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 07:12 am: Edit

Happens all the time. But, it's through structured and moderated debated that you get new ideas, so even if none of what we have done here turns out to be X2, I'm sure that what's been posted and read will help steer things in some way. A big part of the problem we have is that we have no real direction; there isn't any guide as to what 2X should look like...we're all just guessing. It may be more productive to decide on some basic 2X paradigms before deciding about specific systems and rules. For example, the camp that feels 2X should be bigger and stronger might be able to get a workable system one way, while the smaller, faster 2X camp gets it a totally different way.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 08:25 am: Edit

I for one have found my opinions on X2 have been shaped and changed, sometimes dramatically, throughout our conversations. I think we do need a mission statement topic.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 02:20 pm: Edit

Please, gods, no.

Not a "mission statement."

"Guiding philosophy"

"Giverning Paradigm"

"horse-trading ideas to build a consensus"

Sorry. Bad Dilbert flashbacks.

I'm OK now.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 02:52 pm: Edit

Who here hasn't allowed their idea of X2 to evolve?

I know mine has.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 02:26 pm: Edit

Mine, too. I'm getting a better picture of what X2 may turn out as, and how it might go. I'm starting to develop a certain view of it that guides all my choices we've been debating so far (weapons, power, etc.) Here's my take on it, and I'm curious if anyone agrees/disagrees.

OX years were marked by almost continual war. Very little research into anything but how to pack more weapons on more hulls.

1X comes along. Still following the "constant war" design philosophy, you get bigger weapons, faster weapons, more power, but still no real change...at least not radical change. Feds still look and act like Feds, Klingons still look and act like Klingons.

For 2X, you get a little breathing room, and more time to really focus on past lessons, and integrate what you've learned into your basic doctrine. Your 2X ships will still need to be able to integrate with the rest of your fleet, so they can't be totally wild-ass different. However, they can get some new goodies, and start to depart from standard designs.

The trick here is that each race will likely approach 2X in a different way. They may all get five-point batteries, phaser 5's, and bigger warp engines. But, they also might go totally different directions with their designs. In my view, the Feds (surely the most vanilla race in the game) will probably continue to focus on sturdy, general purpose ships with heavy phasers and photons. Not a big departure from their standard doctrine, but major changes in the systems on the ship; 12 point standard photons, phaser 5's, etc. Probably an SIF, maybe shield shunting; but nothing really weird.

Now, the Klingons on the other hand might go from some gee-whiz stuff. They have before, after all...witness the UIM, DERFRACS, the SFG, maulers, ECM drones; the list goes on, because the Klingons are a creative lot that like new toys. So, I can see them possibly finding yet another disruptor improvement (I favor the capacitor and rapid-fire, myself, but this isn't the thread for it), and something new. Don't know what yet, but something new seems very Klingon to me.

The Romulans, who got pasted in the GW, would almost certainly go for a better cloak. As for what kind of weapons, I don't really know, but I could definately see them going a totally different direction than previously. Smaller faster torpedoes, and more of them, instead of "the big gun" torpedo. Perhaps a new direct fire plasma weapon, or something like that.

I guess my point in this rather rambiling post is that our individual vision for 2X is what's driving our various proposals, and since only we know our visions, it's rather hard to get someone to see WHY we think a 24 point photon is better than a 20, or why five point batteries are better than threes. So, I propose this. Why not post our individual 2X visions, and then discuss what we like/dislike about them, and try to come to some consensus there before we continue on with circular arguments about the various peices and parts of 2X? Might that not get us somewhere a bit faster than what we're seeing now?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 03:13 pm: Edit

OK, Mike, I'll bite.

I'm a traditionalist.

Example: I want an X2 Fed to still look and fight the way Feds have always looked and fought, with big clumsy sledgehammers that opposing captains are leery of getting too close to. Since our shield-shunting and SIFs assume a greater amount of inbound damage, what weapon better to define what "a greater amount of inbound damage" means than the photon?

Another weapon that will lose its "Oh $#17" edge is the R plasma torp. Hence a newer, nastier plasma, the Z-torp, which can be found in the X2 plasma archives.

I'm open to variations on the traditional themes, but it's the traditional themes that define what core (Alpha Sector) SFB is all about.

If you want to do something radically different, design a sargasso race.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 04:17 pm: Edit

I agree on the Feds. In fact, it sounds like we're mostly on the same page, that we want to retain the basic flavor of previous generations for each race. I don't advocate radical change to each race, for reasons stated above; I do think some very different technology can be employed by some of the races without suffering such a change, though.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Eagle) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 04:54 pm: Edit

Well, the problem is that ANYONE can make the new X2 if it's (basically) is nothing else than a progressive development of the old design patterns. Feds that look like Feds, Klingon that look like Klingons, but only bigger, tougher. Were is the fun in that???

Myself I think it's the new Gizmos that will make X2 worth paying for. And why not be radical?
If you DO want to be conservative you still have the 120-180+ era to pick fights from.

In X2 we have the opportunity to see were the well-known races would go in the future, so to speak (I see the end of GW as the "Present")
EY, the past is now defined, but we have a brand new future to shape!
Why then should it be shaped as the past???