While the "Tech Level 12" era was originally inspired by the pre-1979 on-screen (and in-print) source material, the SFU has already shown the ability to develop alternate eras in a way that distinguishes it from the post-1979 Franchise without looking the worse in the exchange.

For example, I'd consider Adam's work on the Vincennes-class CX to compare quite favourably to the Franchise's take on the "refit to the Fed CA" concept. And the fleets of the Early Years (to include its own array of Terran, Vulcan, and Andorian ships) do not suffer due to the lack of an NX-01; indeed, I like that in the SFU, the whole "saucer-and-nacelle" concept was not a holdover from Earth or from any other member planet, but was instead a break from the past as the embodiment of a United Star Fleet.

And even in the "Main Era", Adam and Sandrine have shown how new takes on old line art samples can do wonders - not least in cases like the Starline 2500 SparrowHawk.

Similarly, I don't think that Paramount/CBS cornered the market on "the design generation after the CA" when they came up with the Excelsior. I'd like to believe that when the time comes, the ships of Module X2 will impress in their own right, while still embodying the spirit of what makes the SFU distinct.

-----

Speaking of heavy weapons, could it be possible for certain weapon types to get new firing mode options, to sit alongside the current array available in the SFB toolkit?

Certain weapons already evolve quite dramatically as the timeline progresses: be it the adding of an overload (or enveloper) function in some cases to the onset of tweaks like carronades or sabot rounds in others, and from the development of new fine-tuning equipment like the UIM or DERFACS to the fast-load options seen in Module X1.

For example, might it be worth considering a "burst" mode for X2-ESGs, or perhaps adding a "single-impulse" mode for X2-PPDs, based on how those respective weapons work in FC?

Of course, if that kind of idea won't fly, well and good. (And I should note that I don't mean to suggest putting such options in place of the current ones, but rather have them provide new alternatives for X2-era commanding officers to consider using.)

By Mark Steven Hoyle (Markshoyle) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 02:29 pm: Edit

Not as big a jump as from GW to X2, but the
Battletech, Earth Designed vs Clan weapons. The Mechs themselves were as vulnerable, but carried more firepower, as weapons were lighter, less power hungry, longer range etc. Same with the powerplants.
Though don't know where you would look to adjust their defensive arrays.

Not sure if B-5 ever got into saying what the Whitestars changed, smaller deadlier than most other empire's forces (even those that were larger).

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 02:42 pm: Edit

Catalyst Game Labs have gone both backwards and forwards in the BT timeline, to include both "Primitive" 'Mechs and armour from the Age of War and the dawn of the first Star League, through to the more advanced units first seen in MechWarrior: Dark Age/Age of Destruction and now shown in "classic" BattleTech form through the Technical Readout: 3145 series.

And there have been recent moves "sideways" in some eras, to include the exotic technologies developed by the Society for use in the Clan Homeworlds during the Wars of Reaving (which took place at the same time as the Word of Blake Jihad in the Inner Sphere); and even a trip "through the looking glass", with the recent Empires Aflame PDF.

Indeed, while the upcoming "ilClan" book has been noted as marking the next chapter of BT history (or perhaps the end of the "current" one), there had, for a short while, been hints at a subsequent grand leap forward into a new "3250" era, which would herald an entirely new generation of warfare. However, it's not entirely certain just what the future of BT (and of its younger sibling, Alpha Strike) holds at the present time, at least in terms of moving the timeline past the events set to be portrayed in IlClan.

-----

As for Babylon 5, the White Stars owed much to a hybridization of Minbari and Vorlon technologies, while Earth would later "borrow" Shadow tech in the development of Crusade-era ships like the Warlock-class Advanced Destroyer, and would collaborate with the Minbari to develop the Victory-class Destroyer (which also added samples of Vorlon tech).

As it happens, I have an ISA fleet set back in Ireland, bought in the days when Mongoose still held the B5 licence...

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 03:17 pm: Edit

I developed a system for an empire I have in the works that provides faster than 31 speed. It is a system that won't be compatible as an X2 technology (it is designed for a particular enemy and setting) but one factor is that maneuver is not possible; straight lines only with maybe one side slip.

For X2 I'd suggest that trans-tactical warp speed (TTW) have a steep maneuver restriction, like a turn mode of 2 hexes per hex of speed over 31. (Note: If impulse is used to reach 31 then the method is 2xspeed>31 to find addition turn mode hexes. If warp power is used to reach 31 then the method would be 2xspeed>30.) The formula is the same for all ship regardless of turn mode class (I.e., bloody A, B, C, D, or E.)

Take Mode-D on a Fed CA. Speed 25+ has a turn mode of 6 hexes. So if an X2 ship were going speed 32 (using 1 impulse for movement) its turn mode would be 8 hexes. If it were going speed 34 it's turn mode would be 12 hexes, etc.

Also, I think that deceleration from trans-tactical should be a simple thing. An announcement would result in a drop to 30 (or 31 if impulse was used.) the next impulse with no penalty or gain except for the loss of any remaining energy left that was paid for TTW.

Alternatively it could just be 1:1 speed to hex increase.

By Mark Steven Hoyle (Markshoyle) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 03:29 pm: Edit

Gary,
Just brought those up, to see if how they did things but help lead to something helpful.

Can't bring their weapons etc over, though show how to do differences without making the x2 totally unbeatable.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 03:39 pm: Edit

Mark:

Sorry, I didn't mean to step over what you were saying. I meant more to note that the range of eras and options (and of comparison points) has increased in recent years for BattleTech, in case there were those here who may not have been keeping up with that CGL have been working on as of late.

(Both the BT-verse and the SFU have "lapsed" fans who might have faded away before some of the more recent developments in each universe, yet who have returned more recently to try and catch up with what they may have missed during their time away.)


Between the advent of the X2 era here in the SFU and the potential for whatever is to come post-IlClan over in BT, it's an exciting time to be a fan of both settings!

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 03:45 pm: Edit

I would rather see the turn mode charts extended in the same pattern they already follow than effectively saying "You can't turn if you're going faster than 31". I don't see what that adds to the playability of the game.

I also don't see movement at speed 32+ as being different than tactical movement at speeds 0-31. We already have units that move as fast as speed 128 (in Omega) and are still treated the same as slower units in terms of the rules. This is not the "high warp" strategic movement, this is simply extending the range of tactical speeds, from warp 3.2 to perhaps as high as warp 4.

Now, I could see these higher speeds as costing more, say two movement points for each point over speed 30 (from warp). I could also see just keeping it 1:1. This is also the sort of thing that might improve over the X2 era - the initial improvement allowed speeds over 30 but cost 2:1, then the newer engines could handle it at 1:1, then finally another improvement increased engine efficiency, effectively reducing the move cost of the ship. So, a CA2X with 40 warp could initially make speed 36 (30 + 2*5 + 1 impulse), then speed 41, and finally, speed 61 (with a 2/3 move cost). But maybe those additional improvements would have to wait for X3.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 04:01 pm: Edit

I am not sure we need speeds over 32 but I'm still listening. I think "next higher turn mode" or something like that would work, and possibly higher cost so you don't do it the whole turn.

Warp 4 is (4x4=16 and that x4=) 64 and I don't see us getting past 36 or 40 and that's not agreeing to any post-32 speed just yet.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 04:10 pm: Edit

Agree that speed 40 should be the top limit AND it should come at great cost in energy and turn mode.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 04:10 pm: Edit

For comparison's sake, Warp 4 (Speed 64) is currently used for accentuated HEAT torpedoes.

I suppose I wouldn't mind seeing Speed 32 itself become an option for X2-ships - you can go that fast already over in FC. But I'm not too sure about going as far as Speed 40, though at least that might fit more neatly into an FC context than a max speed of 36.

(Although, there is a Term Paper in the 2011 OMRB which talks about a "Speed-Forty Alunda Yo-Yo" - writted by a certain Andy Vancil, no less - which could be considered as a pseudo-precedent in terms of letting a ship travel more than 31 hexes in a single turn. Kind of.)


Perhaps one way to handle it might be to prevent impulse power counting towards tactical warp movement between speeds 32 and 40. So if you want to max out at speed 40, you're not able to either go Speed 39 and use the extra impulse movement point to make up the difference, and nor can you go Speed 41 by adding that point on top.

That could be part of the price an X2-ship pays in order to maintain a stable warp field at those tactical speeds.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 04:46 pm: Edit

Andy, I wasn't suggesting "can't turn if faster than 31". I was suggesting a considerable increase in turn mode over 31.

I believe that there should be a significant tactical cost to going faster than anyone else. Now, it seems obvious that X2 will be able to pay the cost reasonably easily but that takes those benefits from other abilities.

I also like that maybe X2 isn't the perfect ship but that it can do great things if it works at it.

SFB has always been about making choices between on benefit for another. So, my thinking is "sure, you can go faster but you'd better be sure of where you are going."

By the way, with some restriction at Trans-Tactical Warp that leaves some room for the Xorkaeliens to do one better... and for future Alpha X2 to improve. Not a reason to have them but it's a benefit to the game, IMHO.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 05:13 pm: Edit

Gary, can we do this without dragging Omega into it?

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 05:14 pm: Edit

Last of the X1s or X1 with X2 refits max speed of 32, Full X2 that can do speed 36 and Xorkaeliens or X-Andros and X-Souldra at speed 40 would make the Galaxy a very dangerous place for X1 and GW era ships. Very nice indeed! I think the turn modes are already at some bell curve or sliding scale, just add more speeds at the top end and it should work great for the higher speeds. Also add some speed improvements for x2 shuttles/(fighters?) and for seeking weapons. X2 will be awesome.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 05:23 pm: Edit

I don't think we need to allow X2 refits of non X2 ships (part of the point of X2 (I believe) is that it's all new hulls built from the ground up to take advantage of advanced technology).

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 05:25 pm: Edit

I'm probably jumping way ahead, but once you get to putting the SSDs together, my preference is that the CA-X2 be based on the CCH and not the BCH. As I recall from some 15+ years back, there was someone on the old GEnie board pushing to make them up-rated BCH, but personally I think that's a bit too much. (Maybe the DN-X2 could be based on the BCH.)


Garth L. Getgen

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 05:26 pm: Edit

...and without X-Andros, too, please? They had their time to shine, and they blew it.

A new terrifying enemy, who eats GW era ships for breakfast, beats up X1 ships at noon, and can pound an X2 ship with a bit of effort at the evening dance would be really cool.

EDIT: Agree with Richard to make X2 tech not a snap-on to existing ships. In fact, I believe the X2 ships should be a totally new design paradigm that only resembles the old ships of yesteryear.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 05:36 pm: Edit

There were conjectural simulator X1-Andros done for Module C3A. In principle, I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to imagine the instructors at Star Fleet Academy drawing up some X2 Andromedan SSDs in order to scare the next batch of command graduates, but I'm not sure where (if anywhere) might be a good place to publish them.

I also agree that X2 should solely consist of brand new hulls, built from the keel up to incorporate the new technology. (Perhaps the damage reduction could be explained by the use of a new "X2-nium" fibre being woven into the mesh of the new hulls as they are being constructed - a procedure which would be impossible to retrofit into pre-existing starships.)

I wonder - would that open the door for the Romulans to have a fourth series of hull designs, to succeed the Eagles, Kestrels, and Hawks?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 05:37 pm: Edit

I think the Feds and Klingons need to have CA class units that resemble the ships of old, for marketing reasons.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 05:39 pm: Edit

X2 ships will be new hulls. There will be no X2 refits of existing non-X2 hulls.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 06:10 pm: Edit

I'm on board with no X2 partials. Very on board with that. It made perfect sense with X1 but not X2.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 07:02 pm: Edit

I didn't mean refit, but I presumed you'd take an existing SSD has the baseline starting point.


Garth L. Getgen

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 07:19 pm: Edit

Would Module X2, or a potential X2R supplement, have the option of adding a handful of "design runoff" ships for certain empires?

I think of how the Feds built a couple of OCAs back in the Y120s as a potential design alternate in case the Constitution-class didn't work out, or how the Klingons turned down the D17 in favour of the "classic" D6 and D7.

Perhaps one could envision a fresh round of "runoff" templates submitted in the mid-Y200s by competing design bureaux as a means of legitimizing some of the more esoteric design proposals out there (such as Sandrine's Wessex CA and her take on the D17 layout) while still leaving room for the "main" XCAs and XBCs to follow... whatever design template they end up using.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 07:20 pm: Edit

I have a request, which I anticipate will be shot down, but if you don't ask, the answer is always no.

PLEASE no X2 Tholians.

Here's why...
1. They simply lack the technological savvy, even with the 312th engineers.
2. They lack the infrastructure.
3. The Federation will always be there to protect them from rapacious Klingons.
4. Just because most of the alpha empires get it, doesn't mean everyone should.

Back in Y79, you didn't hear Klingons wailing, "Maaaaaaaan! Why can't *we* get ships like the Tholians?"
No, the Klingons rightfully got their asses kicked, so turnabout is fair play.

And since the Seltorians are extinct, we won't be seeing X2 ships for them, right? Right???

By Mark Steven Hoyle (Markshoyle) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 07:36 pm: Edit

Didn't you hear, the Tholians in X2 have a Dyson Sphere that takes up the entire HEX, surrounded by Web linked directly to a couple 100 stars to power it.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, January 16, 2015 - 07:37 pm: Edit

Actually, the Tholian in X2 just install phaser-9s on stars and fly around.