Mike, it's cool and all but the 11 point center warp pinches my side. I say make two of the center APR into Cargo and make the two center warp full twelve pointers. Shifting the RX Ph-Vs down one space will give you the room.

Oooh, better yet, make the split Aux. Con. into the APR and unify the Aux in the center. That puts the APR separate but in unison with the impulse power decks.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 03:01 am: Edit

Changes I would make to that SSD:

Left & Right M torps to the front of the side warp engines
Phasers 3 & 4 arc LS/RS. Possibly extend to LS+RF/RS+LF.
Phasers 5,6,7,8 to the front of the modules, arc FA+L/R.
12 Point center engines with the Plas-X between them.
Rearrange the rear hull a bit (more like the NH).

My estimated BPV is around 430, but I could easily see playtesting pushing it higher. In the right game conditions, could reliably beat much larger forces.

This assumes that the ship has no non-SSD benefits over X1 ships (eg. EW and OOP same as X1, X torp arms 2-2-something, Ph-5 rapid pulses as two Ph-VI).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 03:36 am: Edit

Submitted for your viewing pleasure: The ISC

http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/ISC_XCC.gif

As I look at it now, I wish I handn't gone to 3-box P-5s for the FH and 360 groups. It looks like a bit much. But it's too late for me to want to mess with dropping them to 2 and renumbering my phasers tonight.

The propisals section will contain a writeup on tech. It isn't as under-plasma-ed as it looks.

Mike, feel free to grab it and drop it in with the others if you are so inclined. Thanks by the way. I would still have this thing up on the blocks without your help.

This XCC was designed under the assumption that CLs and other smaller ships would be multi-role and CA/CCs would be reserved for fighting. It also uses my ASIF proposal. (I wanted to see what it looked like)

By Aaron Gimblet (Marcus) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 03:57 am: Edit

It what point do we want to start playtesting these beasties? Who has a local partner and the time to volunteer?

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 04:28 am: Edit

Introducing the new CCX - it slices! it dices!

Sixteen advanced Phasers!

Less than 1000 BPV!

But wait! There's more!

Two hyper-PPDs!
Eight uber-plasma!

Less than 900 BPV!

Call now for the free super shields and resistant hull attachments!

Not 800 BPV!

Sixty-two generated power in your choice of colour!

Not 700 BPV!

For this limited special offer, the CCX can be yours for a low,low 380 BPV! Stocks are limited, call now so you don't miss out!

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 04:33 am: Edit

or to put another way, I can't imagine an existing force of 380 BPV which I would expect to do internals before geting obliterated by that CCX.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 04:52 am: Edit

The LS/RS phasers are P-6's, guys. Get a grip.

It only has 10 P-5's and really should have 8.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 05:06 am: Edit

Got SFBOL, John? Put together a 380 BPV force - your choice of currently published units from a single race - and let's give it a whirl.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 08:03 am: Edit

John, how does your SIF work? Nice SSD, by the way.

Andrew, we have to playtest all of these before we can figure a BPV. 380 is pretty arbitrary right now; it may be too low, it may not...we won't know for sure until it's tested, and all the systems for X2 are integrated with it. In any case, that first post was uncalled for. John has been involved in this 2X discussion from the very first, and has put some good stuff forward. I'm not saying the XCC he's posted has too low a BPV, but HOW you say it makes a big difference.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 08:37 am: Edit

OK, I overdid it a little. (Format was from an annoying series of TV ads shown here - intent was humour, not disparagement. My apologies for the tone.)

As a basis for comparison, start with the already expensive X1 CCX then install the SIF; add warp, impulse, shields, batteries, shuttles and hull; dramatically improve the phasers, PPDs and plasma; allow some further non-SSD benefits for X2 tech.

Given that ship, a skilled player and no manoeuvre constraints, none of the non-X BB's would stand a chance, even with their fighters and PF's. X1 ships would probably do relatively better (especially if they can match the EW), but are still badly outmatched. Five to six hundred points, perhaps?

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Eagle) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 08:56 am: Edit

Mike, AP plasma is perhaps unneccessary. At least on a design with LP/RP and decent C turnmode.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 09:20 am: Edit

Mike R. I'm gonna email you my Rom XCC amd XCA as a first run on the Roms. I need to polish the SSD's some more then they'll be good to send. I may revise them with tables etc later on. I meant tyo have them done but this week has been hectic.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 09:21 am: Edit

I've always felt a pair of L-Torps were best for AP work. Usually someone is running up hill into them and they cost nothing to hold. Swapping the, wait, did you change your SSD? In any case I agree with CMC, the AP PL-M is redundant with the 4PL-D. One or the other should go. I'd also swap the LP/RP M for S (XSS) or keep the M and swap the X for M FP (MMM). The power curve is what causes the BPV to skyrocket so much though. Make this ship a 1+1/4 MC and it would work much better.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 09:45 am: Edit

Yes, I did. The original had 1 X torp, and two L torps where the M's are. That was why I had the rear M...just a little different flavor, and some better flank protection. Funny, the initial reaction was that it was underpowered! Maybe should have gone with my first choice, huh? Here it is, as first posted and with some reductions in power, etc. A bit less APR (four now) and 42 warp.

Romulan XCC version 2

I do want to make up some alternate modules. Any suggestions or wants for mods on this ship?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 10:16 am: Edit

Why did you kill so much power?

I realise you wanted to keep the C-warps kind of stubby but you know it wouldn't hurt the ship to put 10 pointer there (2x5 each). Ten points are a common size engine too. Romulans usually have good impulse decks so I was surprised you reduced those too.

Don't care for cargo on these ships? I think they should all have cargo (at least two). The XCC down to the Frigate. Its the Trade Wars and every ship should be able to carry at least some samples of what they found. And the heavy cruisers are long mission ships out to preform several at once before hooking up with a base. And besides, it's different from all designs before.

Anyway, that's what I think.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 10:50 am: Edit

D'oh! Sorry about that...it was supposed to be two less warp, and I messed it up. Ditto the Impulse...moved them to work on the Aux/APR switch and didn't move 'em back. This'll teach me to make SSD's when I have medicine head!

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 11:23 am: Edit

There seems to be too many P5 and not enough defensive phasers. I'd make #3,4 P1. I'd make #9 a double P1. I'd move 6&8 onto the wings.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 11:26 am: Edit

I don't like the mis-matched size of the warp engines. Would you consider 4x10 box engines for Y205 or 4x12 box engines and a MC=1.25?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 01:54 pm: Edit

Andrew,

Is the ISC that far out of line as compared to the Fed XCC we've seen here? Or the Hydran? Or the Rom XCC that Mike's batting around right now?

We may all be horribly overgunned for our BPV target range, but it's a starting point.

Mike,

The ISC SIF gives protection to columns on the DAC. The A-B-C along the top correspond to the row of the DAC it protects. It's not as power-intensive the Loren/Jeff SIF but it doesn't regenerate as easily either. You have to repair it as a shield.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 02:22 pm: Edit

Yeah, I read the description in your proposal. Looks interesting. There are several pretty good proposals out for it now; only playtesting is going to determine which one is best.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 03:10 pm: Edit

My current standing proposal (which is the one I came up with first...I think) does not regenerate. It absorbs the first or four or three hull/cargo hits for a power cost. When hull and cargo run out it absorbs the first hit that could be hull/cargo and the rest feed through. Power cost is not determined yet but I think it will be 2+2.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 03:24 pm: Edit

I just sent Mike the copies of my Rom's. XCA XCC. They use no Gee Whiz tech other than speed 48 Sabots. They were done before the Poll results are in and should be considered preliminary. I used a mix of PH-V and PH-1's.

I'll work up a more detailed version proposal when I can modify the ships to fit the Poll.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 03:28 pm: Edit

I'll post them for you sometime tonight and send you the links, Kenneth.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 03:36 pm: Edit

Thanks Mike.

Like I said this was my first take on them. I will make changes in a more detailed proposal later. With a full spread of consistent ships. All the way from FF-CC.

PS. Thanks for hosting all this stuff for the 2X discussion.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 03:39 pm: Edit

John,

Mike's Rom is also underpointed IMO - I think it's easily worth over 400 points. I haven't checked out the Fed yet.

==========================

General thought on X BPVs: If your ship can (thanks to EW and other defences) take a range 8 alpha from a Fed BB without taking internals, the BPV should probably at least match that of the Fed BB.

With 8 X1 EW forcing a +1 shift on the Fed, the BB averages about 60 points on the centerline at range 8.