Exactly Jeff. You answered your own question.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 08:31 pm: Edit

Partially, Geoff. Does a XCA have 12? 15? 18? 20?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 09:13 pm: Edit

I think 12 to 15 is plenty, myself.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 04:12 pm: Edit

As do I.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 08:50 pm: Edit

If we're talking about BTTY total power and not phasers, I'ld like to see a cruiser go from 12 in the earlier X2 year to 20 in the latter, but I'm not sure if other people want a Refit during the X2 period or if I'm the only one.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 09:12 pm: Edit

Well, a CX has 15, so a XCA with 18 would not be too much. I think keeping it at 15 though would be good.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 11:17 pm: Edit

I don't have a problem with refitting an X2 ship once the Xorks arrive. I've just been concentrating on the Y205 period and ignoring the Xorks for now.

I see the XCC name used for a XCA getting the Y225 refit. How extensive that refit is (D6 to D6B, or Fed DN to Fed DNH), remains to be seen.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 02:25 pm: Edit

The poll show the majority wants about 45 warp on X2. But how will that lay out? Well, for three engines thats fine but for two it's problematical. Some power, from race to race, is going to have to be provided by APR/AWR to make up a point or two difference.
X2 cruisers total out to 56 power (average 6 impulse).
Feds: 2 x 22 + 4 saucer warp= 48 total. This is mitigated down by the Photon. (2 APR + 6 IMP)

Klingons: 2 x 22 + 2 boom warp= 46 total. (4 APR + 6 IMP)

Kzinti: 3 x 15 = 45 (5 APR + 4 IMP). This leaves them short two power but their main weapon requires no power.

Lyran: (Catamarans) 2 x 22= 44 (6 APR + 6 IMP)
(Trimarans) 2 x 18 + 1 x 10 = 46 (6 APR + 6 IMP) This gives the Lyran Tri's 58 total power but the Lyrans typically need it.

Hydrans: 3 x 15 = 45 (8 APR + 6 Impulse). Total 57 power. A bit for the Hellbore and the 15 point engine is not very new tech. which is reasonable for a recovering race.

Tholian: 3 X 16 = 48 (2 APR + 6 Impulse) Thols some times have Photons Side note: In addition to Hydrans having fighters I think the Tholians would too given web usage.

Romulans: 2 x 22 = 44 (4 APR + 8 Impulse). Romulans typically had good impulse decks. If they turn out to need more power we could add APR

Gorns: 2 x 24 = 48 (4 APR + 4 Impulse). Having pioneered the 24 point engine I figured they were able to make it more efficiant. Their wings not being able to handle larger impuilse decks. The total power is 56.

ISC: Same as Gorns.

Orions: 3 X 15 = 45 (1 APR + 6 Impulse) This gives them the least power 52...until they do what Orions do. Orion X2 CAs should be VERY RARE.

Andros: No improvements, they're dead.

Seltorians: No improvements, they're impotant.

Jindarians: Same as before. Weaponry might improve. Current Jindo (given as long as they've been around) is probably their X2 already.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 04:14 pm: Edit

Loren the trouble with the Romulans having 2 Warp engines. Is that CA (Hawk series) and up have 4 warp engines. 2CWarp 1L/RWarp. They could be 11pt engines. With a possible Xork upgrade to 12-13.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 04:26 pm: Edit

Well, ya there would likely be at least three engines huh. I don't know why I was thinking two. So I would say 3 x 15= 45 (3 APR + 8 Impulse).

For the Xork upgrade the four engine Hawk would have 4 x 12 (4 APR + 8 Impulse).

By Aaron Gimblet (Marcus) on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 05:32 pm: Edit

Loren.. for my own stuff, id aim for about the power ratios present in Y165-170... some races just have scads of powerplant, and need it. Some races dont, and dont.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 07:10 pm: Edit

My ISC will use 48, at least initially.

48's a good number. It's divisible bu 2,3, and 4 and gives a resonable but not incredible upgrade over X1 warp.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 07:19 pm: Edit

Just remember that GW DNs range frome 45 to 48 warp (making up for the difference by reducing the number of APR or IMP). I'd go with the number in this range that makes the most since for the engine layout and go from there.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 07:23 pm: Edit

I've been going with 48, myself. No real reason why anyone else should, but it's what I've been doing.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 08:59 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

The poll show the majority wants about 45 warp on X2. But how will that lay out? Well, for three engines thats fine but for two it's problematical. Some power, from race to race, is going to have to be provided by APR/AWR to make up a point or two difference.

---

---

Quote:

I've been going with 48, myself. No real reason why anyone else should, but it's what I've been doing.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 01:01 am: Edit

I was the original proponant of the 1.5 power thing but it wasn't well recieved. I liked it because it gave a benefit and a weakness at the same time making X2 very different. Also, I like the way 16 point engines (2 x 8) look on the Fed. More like their long engines types.

I have switched over to the more boxes side. It is, ultimately, simpler.

MJC: It's hard to read your stuff sometimes. I don't know if you are in a hurry or what but could you re-read your stuff before you hit the final post button. In all fairness, I would like to understand what you intend to say better.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 08:06 am: Edit

While part of me has no objection to 2X warp boxes producing more energy, I do recoil from making them even more eggshells with sledgehammers than they already are. Having more warp boxes doesn't just mean more power; it also means more ability to take damage. Unless we install uber-sheilds (something that, apparently, very few people want) I'm afraid having only 30 warp boxes will be a problem when the ship starts taking damage. Not 100% on that, but that's my initial reaction.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 10:34 am: Edit

Mike: That was what I originally hoped for. The ASIF would mitigate that problem but the fragility of the engines would help keep the BPV down. Also typicaly generating 48 warp would mean you are probably floating reinforcement (further protection). Addditionally I had proposed that the new warp engine be easier to repair if during the repair it was running at 1:1. Even at full power it is still easier to repair because each repaired box gets you 1.5 power.

Some thing I was tinkering with was being able to purchace further repair units in the form of more systems that can be repaired under CDR (up to you Dam. Con. Rating.). So, an XCC with DamCon of 8 could repair eight systems(Repaire Units or RU) and could purchace further RUs up to eight giving it the ability to repair a total of 16 systems. I'm not sure what the BPV would be per RU but it shouldn't be less than 2 each (with a ecco cost of half that.)

This would be another use for cargo.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 10:52 am: Edit

I have swung rather dramatically from the smaller/lighter camp I started in. Go ahead and give your cruisers 45-48 warp but make them 1.25 MC. In this way they have more power than X1, more damage resistance than X1 but less disposable power at max speed. Technobabble, X1 relied on after-burner tech, it gets you there but its prohibitively expensive. Finally, something to give X2 a reason to move a speed other than 31.

FF =0.50
DD =0.66
CL =0.75
CM =1.00
CA =1.25
CC =1.25
BCH=1.50
DNL=1.75
DN =2.00
DNH=2.00

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 01:40 pm: Edit

Tos,

I think we're going to give X2 enough things to do that they won't need an increased move cost for balance.

I could be wrong.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 01:52 pm: Edit

In my very first proposals, I did indeed advocate what Tos describes, and for those very reasons. I think playtesting will be required to find out just how much power a 2X ship will need, but I can go either way. A MC 1.25 CA will need 38 points of warp to go speed 30; with 48 to 50 power, you'll have 10 to 12 extra, which is just about what X1 has. Depending on the extra power needed for the SIF, new heavy weapons, and EW, that may not be enough, but we'll have to test it and see.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 05:10 pm: Edit

One of the failures of X1 IMO is that every ship can fight at speed 31 for 2-3 turns (then it runs out of gas/bats). I would like X2 to be less one dimensional.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 05:13 pm: Edit

The fact that we're following a policy of better capability at a higher cost should work against one-dimensionality.

Another reason to stay with 3-point batts.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 05:22 pm: Edit

Yup.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 05:40 pm: Edit

I'm not sure about 3 point batts but I'll agree if playtesting shows the ships have too much power then the four point batts should be the first to go.

X2 ships are really going to have a high priority of mitigating damage. Even X2 vs. X1 or GW. X2 has more damage out put so it will die faster against another X2 (unless it puts a priority on mitigating damage with Shield Reinforcement and such). Against X1 or GW it will face either a larger opponant or multiple opponants. Multiple opponants always have more internals, more shields and more maneuverability. Ultimatly X2 needs the power. Make the BPV to high without the power and you get the opposite. A ship facing equal BPV and dying all the time. And I believe the difference between not enough and enough could be just a few points. The same goes for too much power. If they have too much power their BPV will be higher than their real offencive potential and they will get creamed.

Wack me if I don't make sense. I'm not sure I do (in type anyway.)