I really like Tos's Arrow-shaped saucer design. Every time I look at an x2 Fed 'circle' saucer I shudder.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 07:49 pm: Edit

Odd.

I have the opposite reaction because the arrow saucer reminds me of Voyager.

And very few reminders of Voyager are pleasant for me.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 07:54 pm: Edit

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Repeating for those needing:
http://sfbfog.iwarp.com/SSD/Federation/

The SSDs that end in 2 represent my heavier designs, the old design folder represents my now abandoned lighter/faster theory.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 06:01 pm: Edit

I'm putting together a Gorn XCC SSD. Anybody have a Gorn BCX handy? I'm converting a tournamant cruiser SSD.

Truth to tell my ISC XCC started life as a TC SSD as well. Maybe my Rom XKE, too...

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 09:22 pm: Edit

...and here's the finished Gorn

http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/gorn-xcc.gif

Special technology:

1) All plasma's use my photon-plasma rules. Plasmas in a given wing can only draw photon charges from freezer boxes mounted in the same wing.

2) The Gorn ASIF is even more powerful than the ISC XCC's. I gave most ships a little extra hull and the Gorn didn't get any so their ASIF is a bit tougher to compensate.

3) I decided that the Gorns might opt for a formation-flying tactics. The K-racks are intended to improve a gorn fleet's seeking weapon/ATU defense. Even though I may not build any other Gorn ships besides the XBC, I had intended all SC3 gorns to have LS/RS K-racks and SC4 to either have LS/RS as well or a single RH K-rack.

Photon freezers are destroyed on drone hits.

K-racks function in all ways like D-racks only they launch K-torps instead. Gorns get to reload 6 k-torps instead of 4 because gorns don't need lifitng equipment to load the torp cannisters into the rack.

The X2 K-torp will do 2x damage to objects up to SC5 in size.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 10:32 am: Edit

2 Ms AND 2 Rs.

Does that seem like a 50% shift that the Fed X2 ships will have with their 24 point warheads?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 10:36 am: Edit

20 + 20 + 40 + 40 = 120
40 + 40 + 50 + 50 = 180
STREWPH!!!

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 12:46 pm: Edit

There is no way.......the max this thing would have is an R, 2xMs ans 2xLs.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 01:33 pm: Edit

1 x R = 50
2 x M = 80
2 x L = 40
-----------
Total = 170

2 x R = 100
2 x M = 80
-----------
Total = 180


While I agree that two R torps seems pretty heafty for a cruiser hull but it's not that much more powerful. However, the lay out that CFant proposes is far more tactically flexible.
If I saw a cruiser with typical Xship-torp layout with an additional Type-R in the nose, I'd have to watch out not to drool.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 01:46 pm: Edit

The X1 Gorn is 2xM, 2x S. People always seem to think it's 2xM, 2xL and it isn't.

I didn't give it that much of an upgrade.

Now giving those increased plasmas the photon-plasma advantage also could well be over the top, but this once it'd be nice to start the Gorns off as butt-kickers.

They always seemed to be this group of poor ignorant savages that the Feds have to prop up. While I did cut my teeth as a romulan, the "charity case" subtext to the Gorns has always bothered me (a little).

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 02:42 pm: Edit

So what combination of X0 Roms/X0 ISC would you recommend to playtest vs. this Gorn?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 02:58 pm: Edit

John T.

I had not really thought about that much but I find myself in good agreement with the idea of having the Gorns start as butt kickers. Or at least tough as heck.

I have to disagree with your second statement and only IMHO, it's really a matter of interpertation. I can't see the Gorns being a charity case. Three different races come together to form a single non-prejudice body and are fairly proud of themselves for rising above it. Their view of the Galaxy is that it is generally peaceful, then the Paravians and Romulans happen. By the end of the Andro-war the Gorns have learned many major leasons and sure to have a far different attitude. I tend to think they would have gained much wisedom from the past and, though not unlawful or brutal, firm in the belief that a strong force in the ways of the Galaxy (economically, politically and Militarily) is the way to a secure peace. Hence, my agreement with them starting X2 as butt-kickers.

As far as the Gorns being a charity case, the Feds understood that the Galixy was a dagerous place earlier (thus the forming of the Federation) and were better prepared than the Gorns as a People and Militarily. The Feds had far more resources and support for the Gorns was the only option. The Gorns were in the possible position to be destroyed and that would just not be an acceptable turn of events. The Feds were facing huge losses as well. It might be said the Gorns help save the Federation.

From a purely economical Fed PoV you could say the Gorns were three full fleets for the cost of a few EPs and a handshake in the war on the Romulan front. This then freeing resources for the war on the Klingon border.

Charity? No, I just can't see that.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 03:46 pm: Edit

Tos,

Take a battleforce 375 of anything GW tech has to offer. A triad of HDDs maybe. The K-racks should give it a good showing against most ATUs and the crunchy photon center in the plasmas should be interesting to see in action.

My big concern is that the ship may not have enough things to do with its power. The overriding theme of most X2 proposals seems to be "more capability for more cost" and the Gorn's perforance (the performace of all my ships) should reflect that.


Loren,

Maybe its just me. It's just looking at the amount of fighters the Gorns get from the Feds and I thought I read "the feds helped the Gorns do this" about a couple items of tech. I could be wrong.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 04:32 pm: Edit

John, they did. But take it just a little further and you could get "The Feds helped the Gorns help the Feds (and coincidently themselves). Not charity...team work.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 04:59 pm: Edit

It seems like the feds-help-gorns was far more common than the reverse so it looked to me like the big wonderful Feds uplifting the poor Gorns sometimes.

Tos,

Any triad of CWs should be an excellent first test fight. Or twin BCHs. That does stack the BPVs against the X2 Gorn a little, but hey, he's tough. I'd rather over-estimate.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 06:23 pm: Edit

A couple of nits:
The Shuttles should be 8 hp each. The R is missing from the aft APR. The APR/Tran looks unbalanced visually. This ship will romp on a whole fleet of X0 on a 2x2 map. 3 SPA probably won't even do shield damage to it. Nice SSD.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 06:24 pm: Edit

4 M torps perhaps?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 06:51 pm: Edit

Tos,

Yeah, the shuttles should be 8. My error. I'll adjust the APR/Tran balance.

Why do you think 3 Sparrowhawks wouldn't do shield damage? They can herd it up against a map edge with the best of them. By all means give the things all the refits. This thing would never face a SPA with a G-torp outside a time-warp.


Geoff,
4xM would be boring, IMHO. I'd prefer 2x R, 2x S if we were to lighten the plasma load a little. Or ratchet all the way back to X1's 2x M, 2x S if we wanted to compensate for the photon charges.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 07:28 pm: Edit

I'd have to see the photon changes in action before I could vote intelligently on the weapons it carries. My gut reaction is that two R's is probably too much. Perhaps one centerline R, with 2 M's and 2 L's in the wings would be a bit more balanced, but that's me. Good looking SSD, though, and a good start for the Gorn.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 08:19 pm: Edit

"Why do you think 3 Sparrowhawks wouldn't do shield damage?"

I'm assuming a 2x2 fixed map. YMMV.

When this thing fires a speed-40 R torp from 10 range you have two basic choices:
1) Hide
2) Charge

If you hide you can't catch me and I recharge the R in 2 turns. If you WW it had better be worth it since you only have 3 shuttles.

If you charge through it one of your ships takes between 15-21 internals (based on shield and using bats). Since I have 4R-PPT and 4M-PPT you can't fire phasers reliably at the torps. You can't even get a lab report on the target until too late.

Now the Gorn turns away and launches torps one at a time until all your ships are damaged. Once damaged, even only a little, you can't catch me. My P5 are very effective out to range 15 so don't turn that down shield toward me or you are mizia bait.

And I do this without using any fancy X2 tech yet.

I just can't see any way for 3 SPA to get within range 5 without first eating a plasma, and that plasma is big enough to hurt your little ships.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 08:22 pm: Edit

2R 2S would work better as a SPA can run through an S.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 09:18 pm: Edit

Tos,

The answer is the answer we always have vs. plasma. Speed. And the SPA is as well-fitted for the role as any GW-tech ship, having warp capable of driving it to speed-36.

Clearly, you chase the Gorn down at speed 30-31, lab and dodge the plasma he throws. A slower approach puts the closing ships in the bind you just described.

Failing that, there's the bolt at range 8- plus phasers.

The more I think about it, the more I think the Gorn should be pushed back its X1 plasma complement of 2x M, 2x S. I am rapidly being convinced that this version is overgunned.

BTW, the SSD errors have been corrected. The R is back and bilateral symmetry is restored.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 10:04 pm: Edit

Of course then it will have too much power

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 10:18 pm: Edit

58 power. HK=5. Move@31=31. This leaves 22 power available + 15 bats. Roll the torps for 2+2+2+2 = 8. EW = 8. That still leaves 6 power available with max EW and torps ready for use.

Generic question: How much power does X2 really need? Should an X2 ship ever be forced to slow below 31?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 10:46 pm: Edit

Yes it should. X1 had way too much idle power running around and I do NOT want X2 to be the same way or worse.

Remember, eventually it will have to recharge those phaser caps and torps. Hopefully it will prove more reasonable under general play rather thn in WS-III-perfect condition.

Note that the torps are holding as S-torps and will require an additional +4 points of battery power to upgrade to M's or R's.


Options to bring idle power down would include:

Going to a more costly ASIF

Giving the photon charges a holding cost.

Dropping back to 45 warp.

Dropping the two APR I added.


I think I'll drop the two added APR and give the photon freezers a 1 point hold cost for starters. That will at least soak up the 6 completely spare power.