By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Wednesday, August 23, 2017 - 11:57 pm: Edit |
If there is one thing the Shapeways project has shown me, it's that there are a lot of SFB players out there who do not read the bbs or other "house organs".
By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Thursday, August 24, 2017 - 04:08 pm: Edit |
I will buy it no matter what form it takes. I want info on the Xorks!
By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Thursday, August 24, 2017 - 10:58 pm: Edit |
Yeah, I didn't even know about the BBS until 2010 or so, even though I've been immersed in the SFU for three decades. Go figure.
Quote:...there are a lot of SFB players out there who do not read the bbs...
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, August 25, 2017 - 12:01 pm: Edit |
One thing I liked about both Module X1R and Module Y3 was how each of their rulebooks included historical monographs detailing various aspects of their respective eras.
Going forward, it would be very welcome if similar monographs could be added to the future Module X2 rulebook, to help bring the era of second-generation advanced technology in the Alpha Octant to life.
I'd personally be keen to see one such monograph detailing how this time period (among other things) marks an unprecedented era of exploration and discovery, with the frontiers of known space pushed back in several new directions - with even the Tholian Holdfast getting in on the act, courtesy of their distant cousins over in Draco.
And of course, if such missions make it more likely that second-generation X-survey cruisers could be built, so much the better...
By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, August 31, 2017 - 12:27 pm: Edit |
X-technology was developed during the General War, which was followed closely by the ISC "Pacification" and the Andromedan Invasion. So naturally the first X-ships were warships, designed to optimize combat capability. But eventually X-tech becomes the "new standard" and we should start seeing X-ships appearing in roles other than "pure combat" - police ships, tugs, repair ships, etc. I would certainly think that some such ships would have been built by the time "X2" ships begin deployment. Personally, I would like to see the eventual "X2" module include some non-combat X-ships (could be either first or second generation "X", probably depending on the needs and resources of the individual empire) along with the inevitable X2 cruisers and destroyers.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, August 31, 2017 - 03:17 pm: Edit |
X-Freighters!
By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, August 31, 2017 - 03:40 pm: Edit |
We already have x Federation Express Courier, Free Trader, and I think Armed Priority Transport X ships.
I expect X freighters exist, unpublished... but do not know if existing duck tails and skids are interchangeable with non X designs.
For what it's worth, I would not be surprised to find that duck tails and skids must be built from scratch as X technology.
By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, August 31, 2017 - 03:40 pm: Edit |
Well, yes... eventually.
Once upon a time jet engines were noisy, unreliable curiosities with no practical application. But the potential was obvious. The first practical applications for jet power occured in World War II, as propulsion for fighters, due to the importance of raw speed for that type of aircraft. But the high thrust/low drag characteristics of jet engines also made them valuable for aircraft that, while not needing as much speed as fighters, might carry very heavy parloads. Commercial jet-powered airliners started appearing in the early 1950s.
And today? Well, if you're taking some local short-hop commuter flight you might find yourself in a propeller-driven aircraft. And such aircraft are still more practical than jets for some applications. But whether civilian or military, if you have to get a lot of people or things to a distant location in a hurrly, you use a jet.
So, yes. Eventually you would see X-freighters. As production of X-components ramp up to satisfy increasing demand, and production of "General War-era" components ramps down because fewer and fewer ships use them, the X-freighters might even be cheaper to operate, at least for demanding missions.
By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, August 31, 2017 - 05:51 pm: Edit |
There must be some economic factors involved in the conversion. In the real world, very old aircraft are still being used for some roles where jets are either too expensive to operate or some other issue is involved. Take the DC3/ C47 gooneybird two engine propeller aircraft.
Still in service around the world.
Steel hulled sailing ships were still being used in the early 20th century, in spite of reliable steam powered ships. (To carry commodity cargos like grains, coal, ores etc) where the lack of fuel cost gave long distance shipping a comparative advantage.
We simply do not know enough to be able to conduct a cost benefit analysis between GW era freighters and X tech freighters ( much less for earlier warp technology freighters from the early years.)
Alan may well have nailed the relationship between tech eras, but proving it is another matter.
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, August 31, 2017 - 07:02 pm: Edit |
In the medium to long term, it would be informative to see what the proposed Andro War module for F&E might have to say on how the production of XTPs "matures" across the Alpha Octant through to the early Y200s.
But for what it's worth, I would sooner wish to see any "new" (and/or "late") first-generation X-ships go into a would-be Module X1B, so as to leave as much space as possible in Module X2 itself for second-generation X-units.
Indeed, I would not expect to see X2 itself cover everything in one go; if the door is left more than ajar for a later "Module X2R" (or even a "Module X2B" later still), well and good.
By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, August 31, 2017 - 07:20 pm: Edit |
Gary,
I would have no objections to X-tech police ships, tugs, etc. (even freighters) appearing in Module X1B rather than X2. But I definitely think they should be published somewhere.
By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, August 31, 2017 - 08:23 pm: Edit |
I agree. Police ships and tugs are important enough to deserve being included.
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, August 31, 2017 - 09:26 pm: Edit |
In terms of support units, I personally think it would make things interesting if the "no X2 refits of existing non-X2 hulls" rule applied not just to starships, but also to bases.
Looking back, there is a clear distinction between the early base stations and early space docks of the Y-era and the "modern" base designs which succeeded them. (I'm not sure if it's ever been clarified whether or not it was even possible to upgrade a YBS to a BS, or a YDK to a BATS or SB directly - or if the older bases needed to be decommissioned as the newer ones took their place.)
So, perhaps there could be a chance to not only present a new array of X2-bases freshly designed from the keel up, but also to give them a distinct look and function relative to the "modern" bases they would be designed to replace.
But then, if the cost of building a brand new "XSB" (or whatever the designation for a second-generation X-starbase might be) from scratch was such that the actual construction of such bases took a while to be gotten around to, perhaps that might make for some interesting operational and strategic dilemmas for the Alpha Octant empires to tackle - not least once the Xorkaelian invasion starts to roll in.
By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Friday, September 01, 2017 - 10:37 am: Edit |
I see X1 as a wartime improvement that is not practical as a general technology refit of all existing ship types
X2 is the next generation that can eventually incorporate everything.
Have the Trade Wars been described at all beyond the name? I see it as an octant wide resource hunt to implement X2. General War ships still make up the bulk of the fleet and defend key sites and prepare for real wars. X2 and X1 ships are used as raiders to try to slow hostile powers economic growth. A period of acceptable trade warfare as no one wants a conventional war (though some of those could be mixed in too). X2 ships raid and attempt to counter other X-ship raids General War ships are slow at this point and are used for local defense. Could make for interesting scenarios and campaigns as admirals use their supply of old ships to try to cover critical infrastructure and convoys while using their X ships to raid the enemy and block enemy raids.
Later X2 ships become common enough that GW ships begin to be phased out as X2 ships become the new standard. Then the Xorks arrive.
Or is this history already partially established?
By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Sunday, September 03, 2017 - 12:30 am: Edit |
The trade wars came up in the old supplement 2. Whether any of the info about is valid any more is unknown. It may be obsolete like the ship designs from that supplement.
By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, September 03, 2017 - 12:40 am: Edit |
Probably better to just not refer to supplement 2.
Sort of like a hallucination.
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, September 05, 2017 - 10:15 am: Edit |
I've never been all that fond of the "trade wars" concept, personally speaking. While there is certainly potential for some localized intrigue in various corners of the Alpha Octant post-Unity (not least in terms of who exactly gets dibs on the former LDR province), I don't feel that there needs to be any sort of rush to kick off yet another round of broader regional conflicts, Xorkaelian invasion notwithstanding.
In terms of technology eras, I also think that, once the era of second-generation X-technology is moved into, there need not be any hurry to move back out of it again.
Looking back, the era of warp-refitted starships (for the Federation and Klingons, at least) ran for less than two decades, whereas the subsequent early warp era lased for approximately 40 years - and the "modern" warp era for close to 60.
From an in-universe perspective, the X2 era in the Alpha Octant could well run as far as, say, Y250 or Y260, even if "we" don't get to see what happens beyond Y225 due to the limits of the Air Force data tapes. So, from both a technological and an historical context, I feel that one could afford to take a more long-term view.
-----
I have been thinking a bit more on Alpha Octant technological progression, and where the proposed 50%/200% rule might fit into this.
To use the Klingons as an example, their earliest ships are not actually "Klingon" hulls, but rather leftover Old King derelicts the Klingons were able to "warm up". The first "true" Klingon ships (the D1 and/or F1?) first appeared in Y17, with the traditional "manta-ray" look inspired by a predatory marine reptile found in the oceans of Klinshai. While we don't have much "Module Q" data on what these Klingon "armor-clads" looked like, we do know that the last of them, such as the D3, served as the test-beds for tactical warp technology in Y63.
In Y78, the Klingons have learned enough about tactical warp drive to produce the first D4, built from the keel up to be an early warp cruiser. Notably, the D4 is not necessarily more heavily armed than the D3; it has the same number of phasers, disruptors, and drone racks. Yet it can certainly make use of this weapons suite more effectively. Still, despite soon running across the more technologically advanced Tholians, it would take the Empire several decades to follow suit with the likes of the D6.
Of course, the D6, which first appears in Y122, is faster and more heavily armed than the D4, and its weapons can do more - it can overload its disruptors, for one. Although, unlike over in the Federation, the Klingons are not quite able to dispense with the old phaser-2 just yet, even if ship-mounted phaser-1s become steadily more available over time. And the D4's career is not yet over, either; several of them get "L" refits and soldier on as local defence ships (which, unlike other Alpha empires' G/L-series cruisers, also get four disruptors).
Fast forward to Y181, and the onset of the first DX. The number of disruptors goes up from four to six; its phaser-1Xs can be rapid-fired as pairs of phaser-3Xs; its X-drones are more powerful; and it's got even thicker shielding. But, as noted beforehand, it's reaching the upper limit of what comfortably fits onto a single SSD (or Ship Card), at least in terms of what could be reasonably defined as a "cruiser".
This is where the 50%/200% rule would come in. If a proposed XBC (or XD?) appears in Y205 with "only" four disruptors, it would still be able to produce a heavier volley from those four than the DX can from its six. Plus, if the shields were dialed back down in terms of box counts, the overall effect would still be greater than that offered by the DX's shielding. And this would also make duels against rival X2-cruisers more amenable.
Of course, this is something which ADB has already thought of, hence the reason why the 50%/200% rule exists in the first place. But I found it instructive to take a look back and see how it all fits together, nonetheless.
By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, September 05, 2017 - 11:03 am: Edit |
I have looked at the Trade Wars era as similar to the "Pax Britannia" period following the England vs France Wars of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, real world history.
Just my opinion, but the Napoleonic wars could well have been termed a World war with battles and campaigns fought all over the world. ( not just Europe, England captured Manila in the Philippines, Argentina in South America, fought a naval campaign in the Indian Ocean, captured South Africa from the Dutch, as well as battles and wars in North America.)
The hundred years following the battle of Waterloo were small wars fought over colonies against various enemies... but relatively few large land or sea battles of the size and scope of Trafalgar or Waterloo.
Yes, there are exceptions, (the American Civil War, for example), but those tended not to include either England or France.
Most colonial wars were relatively modest affairs with few ships and brigade sized unit actions... some only involved one warship and a marine landing force.
The Trade Wars could easily be more concerned with Trade issues and commercial interests than security of the various Empires. Certainly full fleets or invasions of 100+ starships intent to occupy all or most of a neighboring Empire became only a distant memory...
By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Tuesday, September 05, 2017 - 11:21 am: Edit |
My two cents on the Trade Wars. The current SFU historical narrative doesn't include the Trade Wars. Generally speaking they are not liked by many, but liked or not they were published, they exist and were a part of the history of the game. My opinion is that at least as an alternate history they should exist and remain official, just as the two different Darwin timelines exist and are official. Adding to this, as far as I know the "Trade Wars" are the official timeline of Star Fleet Warlord and Early Beginnings. One element of the Trade Wars, Star Fleet Warlord and the Campaign Designer's Handbook that can be used by players is the Warp Gate.
While I agree that the old X2 ships are dreadful and the whole concept of X2 ships and rules need redesigned in a future module. I strongly believe that the "Trade Wars" should not be discarded even if only as an alternate history.
Over the years as the games have evolved, there have been many other times that further analysis of the Air Force Data tapes has proven other previous data and interpretations to be just wrong. Maybe the "Trade Wars" were an elaborate simulation of some kind, maybe the data was misinterpreted, but I don't think erasing the "Trade Wars" data is the correct thing to do.
By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Tuesday, September 05, 2017 - 12:11 pm: Edit |
I think ADB can toss the Trade Wars if they wish. They are mentioned only vaguely and Star Fleet Warlord is hardly canonical. Selling surplus warships to corporations so they can fight each other over territory? Not something most governments would allow or support.
By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Tuesday, September 05, 2017 - 12:14 pm: Edit |
Sigh.
WTH.
My take on it?
If sublight is "Age of Sail', EY is WW1, Middle Years/Early GW is WW2, and Late GW/X1 is The 1950's, then X2 is pretty much The Missile Era and basically deserves its own game.
IE, the base system has pretty much been stretched as far as it can go and a totally new game system for the era needs to be considered.
Maybe a simplified version of Fed Com, for instance, or a new version of Starfire (not that said game would have ANYTHING to do systemwise with Starfire, its just used as an example.)
Because using SFB as the base engine for X2 seems to me like using Advanced Squad Leader as a base system for 21st Century armored combat......
That, or just use Fed Com and have GW/X1 use Squadron SSD's, and X2 use regular (full-size) SSD's. Plus all the rules (while the GW/X1 ships use the Very Basic Rules).
Just my insane thoughts on the subject.
By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Tuesday, September 05, 2017 - 01:27 pm: Edit |
Will the background used to replace Trade Wars result in interesting SFB play? I liked the Trade Wars concept for making duels important. My problem with Sup #2 was that playing those duels was no fun.
By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, September 05, 2017 - 02:21 pm: Edit |
Regarding Mike Strain's point; I think the current SFB system can accomodate X2 - IF - it is a relatively minor improvement over X1. But if X2 superiority over X1 is comparable to X1 superiority over "standard tech", or "standard tech" over Early Years, then I fear he may be right. You could have a situation in which the only "interesting" opponents for X2 ships are either other X2 ships, or Xorks (or weird monsters).
As a matter of personal preference, I would like to see X2 be (more or less) compatible with X1 and some "late war, but non-X" technology (since the background material states that such ships were still fielded in significant numbers even in the X2 era). But I'm dubious whether that can work if x2 ships are dramatically better.
By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, September 05, 2017 - 09:30 pm: Edit |
Personally, I hope for an incremental difference between X1 and X2. Say for example a 5% or 10% or even 15% improvement in total bpvs and some systems improvement (better trans tractors or improved weapons) that would make it superior to a similar class X1 hull.
I would rather not have a qualitative difference of say a 100% improvement (I.e. A X2 heavy cruiser being equal in bpvs to TWO X1 heavy cruisers.
The first paragraph could easily be balanced verses GW, middle years or early years forces, but the second paragraph would make such battles huge slugfests with little fun after the initial battles. Very little replay ability.
By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Tuesday, September 05, 2017 - 10:00 pm: Edit |
But we know the tech differences are NOT incremental.
An EY frigate can slaughter almost any number of sublight battleships, or at least until its weapons burn out, which is outside the scope of the game. A 75 point Middle Years frigate can murder a 75 point EY cruiser which relative ease...and a 75 point late war (Y180) ship vs a 75 point ship from Y165 will almost certainly kill its opponent. And I'm ignoring all the weird crap from J2, such as drogues, megapacks and drone fighters....
And we all know a X1 ship vs a late GW ship of the same BPV will wipe the floor with the GW ship.
And this is assuming ECM rules aren't being used!
And attrition units present their own problems.
I just don't think that a truly "next generation" cruiser can be depicted using SFB...its like using a set of WW2 naval rules to try and depict a cruiser from 1946 vs a ship from 1986....the tech advances are simply too great.
Unless the X2 ships are set as the new standard, and you use cadet ship-style SSDs for the GW units, and even then you are basically looking at an almost entirely new game.
Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |