surely. This should be a nice, happy, non-wartime cruiser. Think Fed CA in Y150.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 06:10 pm: Edit

Well, with NWO boxes mounted on the CA above, you could easily upgrade it to be more war-like. That's part of the appeal and "lessons learned" for the Feds, who went through constant upgrades in the GW. Make a ship that can be easily upgraded, and avoid the yard time and expense.

Carl, I understand about the new and weird stuff. Two things, though, about these SSD's. One is that alot of new or strange things wouldn't be seen on the SSD. The second is that, for just my vision of the Feds, new and unusual isn't what I'm shooting for. To me, the Feds have always had very sturdy, multi-purpose and reliable ships and tech. I'm sort of saving the really weird stuff for the Klingons and Roms. I do have some things for them, but before I trot 'em out, I want to see about the size of the ships we're working from.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 08:28 pm: Edit

With even fewer XCCs they will need something to helf with the veriaty of missions they will commit to. So, I'm way for the NWO for X2.

Mike, My XCC will be a bit different and the XFF is compleatly different because I have a whole unique plan for frigates in X2. BUT your XCL is darn near right on with my plans! Of course you know what I'm going for as far a warp goes but other than that there is only one thing I'll add..two more hull. Why? Because the NCL was based on the Cruiser saucer and I think that the XCL would be near the same size as the XCC saucer. I think it can handle the extra two hull. I'm expecting this ship to be the fleet work horse so actually it will need it. As a fleet work horse I wish there was some way to give it two more NWO as well but I don't see how without changing the whole thing. (and don't do that, it's a beut.)

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 08:32 pm: Edit

You know, it started out with 12 hull, and I ditched some when I started looking at the SIF, and the effect it would have. You should post yours. Better yet, when they're done, send 'em to me and I'll put them on my X2 discussion page, and you can post them at will. Same offer goes to anyone else, by the way.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 10:43 pm: Edit

Mike, I've almost got my Fed XCA and Klink XD7 SSDs done. But I've come up with a new disruptor proposal, and I want to get some feedback before I submit the SSDs. Once I'm finished, how can I get them to you?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 10:45 pm: Edit

E-mail attachement.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 11:09 pm: Edit

Could we make them a little more asthetically pleasing?

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 11:35 pm: Edit

Please explain, Cfant.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 11:55 pm: Edit

Well, Mike's XCL and XFF look.......not like Feds. They look like baloons. (No offense Mike)

By Mark James Hugh Norman (Mnorman) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 09:09 am: Edit

That's the problems with keeping a smaller saucer and increasing the ships size by adding extra bits around the engines, which blurs the saucer shape. Tos' designs on the other hand look great, like FCAs on steroids.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 09:11 am: Edit

I don't get all the blame, I had Mike's help on much of the design. Mike, feel free to mirror my ships. I'll let you know when I tweak them so they stay in sync.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 09:53 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Well, Mike's XCL and XFF look.......not like Feds. They look like baloons. (No offense Mike)

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 11:55 am: Edit

Mike, actually that Loknar FF is cool. A little over gunned but you phaser lay out got me thinking. A typical thing for the Feds is to mount Phasers on the side of the saucer if there is no engine then there is room for a full side arc. This is fine when you have two Phasers up front to cover the FA or FH arc but a small ship might not. So the rotated the mounts forward and towards each other to give the arcs like on you FF there. (FA-L + FA-R). Then a rear mount covering RH. That would give a FF six phasers with very good arcs. Make the Photon suite two or one (for variants). That ship would be near right on.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 02:03 pm: Edit

An alternate layout is 2x FH + 1xLS/1xRS.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 02:06 pm: Edit

Should the Klingons mount P1s in Y205 and upgrade some to p5 as part of a K-like refit?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 02:56 pm: Edit

Tos: No I don't think so. I think they should use Ph-V's as standard with some Ph-1 in the waist.

A XFF might have two Ph-V fx and three Ph-1 rx.

I've designed a real DD for the Klingons that has four Ph-V and two Ph-1.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 03:01 pm: Edit

Will the Klingons retain the wacky firing arcs with the new hull designs?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 04:05 pm: Edit

Sure, it has been proven that they can save the mission, more than once!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 01:38 am: Edit

I'ld like to see the Klingons both keep the wacky firing arc ( or perhaps have improved versions of them ) and mount Ph-1s in 205.

I think they should have an all Ph-1 ships with about 12 Ph-1s in Y205-215.
Ph-5s on the Booms for Y216-220.
And when it's time to repulse the Xorks, have all Ph-5s for Y221-225.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 09:01 am: Edit

Myself, I'd prefer all P5's on the wings and boom, and P1's on the waist. That's just me, though.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 10:02 am: Edit

Consider this.
If you have a Klingon DX cruiser's Phaser array and add one more Ph-1 to the Boom, you can go to R8 and make a perfect oblique for 21.66 points of phaser damage.
A Federation CX cruiser's phaser array with 2 FH, 1 LS and 1 RS Phasers removed and all the remaining phasers counted as Ph-5s then the 6Ph-5s that can be fired back will inflict 21 points of damage.

Latter when the trade wars are suspended for the Xork invasion the ships will need to have a lot more firepower.
The Klingon will ( probably after the second phaser refit ) have all Ph-5s.
The Fed will get back the FH, LS & RS Phasers as Ph-5s.
When the Klingon does a perfect oblique against the Fed he will fire 10Ph-1s ( and 8Ph-5s if he makes a non perfect oblique ) and the Fed will fire 9Ph-5s back for 35 (or 28) and 31.5 points of damage respectively.
All in all we can have the Klingon running around with Ph-1s at the start of the X2 history and Ph-5s at the end without giving any one race an huge advantage.

I think the Klingons will like the Ph1s to start with.
To do that 21.66 points of damage will require spending 10 points of power from the caps ( and with 12X2Ph-1s the Klingon has 36 points in her fully charged caps ) whilst the Fed must spend 9 points of power from her caps ( and full powered she only has 24 points in her caps ).
And when the Klingon starts taking A4, B3, A10 & B11 phaser hits, she'll only loose 1/12 of her phasers per result instead of 1/8.
The Klingons will prefere to have the larger array of Ph-1s than the smaller array of Ph-5s.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 10:30 am: Edit

I can agree with the idea, but I'd be a bit concerned about turning the Klingon into a phaser boat. That was one of the early concernse mentioned, and a big reason for having the PV...it was a way to improve phaser power while not making the ships phaser heavy. Might make for an interesting klingon flavor, though.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 10:43 am: Edit

Yeah that's the aim.
Like the unrefitted D7 and her 9 Ph-2s Vs the 6Ph-1s of the unrefitted CA.
It's a restoration of racial flavour.
Atleast I hope it is.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 12:55 pm: Edit

I can go for either.

Seems to em the Klingons turned out so many hulls by sacrificing quality for quantity.

As long as this mindset holds you could expect a decent number of P-1s on a Klingon. Perhaps the Dx could be considered the X-ship D6 and now we're building a D7.

I have no strong attachment to either, but I kind of like MJC's poposal because it give us refits to lok forward to. I like the idea of no neglecting evolutionary updates as time goes on. We have already integregrated the concept of evolving toward tougher hull types, but I'd like to see more room to maneuver when it comes to refitting existing ship classes.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 03:43 pm: Edit

Mike R.:

---

Quote:

Myself, I'd prefer all P5's on the wings and boom, and P1's on the waist. That's just me, though.

---