Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through September 17, 2002	25		09/17 11:06am
	Archive through October 04, 2002	25		10/04 12:14pm
	Archive through October 08, 2002	25		10/08 08:28am
	Archive through October 09, 2002	25		10/09 02:11am

The reason i was thinking of the G-torps as opposed to the S-torps: Some races carriers and tenders seem to keep their combat varient's firepower, some klinks and roms jump to mind, yet other races/ships apper to lose vast amounts of firepower with the addition of ready racks and pf bays.

just kinking around the bucket...

cen

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 - 02:57 pm: Edit

Cen: The ISC design philosophy, along with the added space built into the CL hull, enables them to build variants of the CL without sacrificing firepower of the original ship. I was intrigued enough with the Plasma G suggestion and made an SSD that makes sense, to me, as a possible ISC ship. It scrifices the raw punch of 2-Plasma S's for 2-Plasma G's and adds additional PPD support to the echelon. I also think that the configuration of the plasma G's (LP/RP) will assist the echelon in removing threats that break through the gunline better than if they were both FP arc.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 12:43 am: Edit

But it will have some power problems for trying to run 2 plasmas and a PPD.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 12:48 am: Edit

I don't think the PPD will fly here. But Pl-Gs upgraded to Pl-Ss is well within doctine. As a carrier the Pl-S shotgun will be what is needed for defence against fighters and PFs. If a ship runs the gauntlet then the Pl-S is a great deterent.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 01:06 am: Edit

No more than the CM did. If the SCSM (what I'm calling the one with the PPD) are operated on operated on each side of the echelon, then the outward plasma could be charged to assist with enemy ships that try to flank the formation, and the inward facing plasma could use a rolling delay with the intention of fast loading a plasma F to deal with something inside the echelon.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 01:09 am: Edit

Loren: I kinda like the option of having additional PPD support. I like the SCSL much better for the very reasons you stated.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 12:18 pm: Edit

There is no reason not to present the SSD. If it were available, one would have to consider it, particularly in a large echelon where the added long range fire support would come in handy. I only posted that because I don't think the ISC would put PPDs on that hull. But as I said, there nothing wrong with trying!

Edit: Better to say that I think if the idea flies then it will be the SCSL that does the flying.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 01:02 pm: Edit

<>Just a thought, but this idea of two carriers working in tandem for EW support of a combined squadron sounds exactly like what the Federation would design for the CVBG and the 3rd Way. I really do think that the Tandem Computer is just going to open a can of worms.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - 10:10 pm: Edit

I had a chance to finally put the SCSL into a test. Played a SCSL, DE, & DD vs C7S & AD5 set in Y183. The battle was a draw.

Most difficult thing about testing the SCSL is the need for PF's, fighters, & the escort make it difficult to judge how well the ship is doing, itself.

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Friday, September 28, 2007 - 06:04 pm: Edit

Why are there no ISC X ships with a single PPD?

This makes it very...difficult...to meet the PPD restrictions in an X-ship force with 7 through 9 "led" ships (which give 3 PPDs in addition to whatever the flagship is carrying.

I'd have no objection to a CAX, and would absolutely /love/ a CMX, where the G torps got upgraded to S torps. (Clearly, it's too cramped to get M torps).

Should discussion of this move to the X1R topic?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, September 28, 2007 - 09:14 pm: Edit

I've added it to my list but it wasn't there before today. No doubt before Steve goes off and prints counters they will be asking for an updated list, I hope.

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Friday, September 28, 2007 - 09:29 pm: Edit

A CMX is particularly useful in forming all X-ship Battle Groups.

I have no idea if a CMX makes any sense, though.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, September 28, 2007 - 11:22 pm: Edit

Ken,

For whatever my opinion is worth, I think an ISC CMX makes a lot of sense. I have no idea whether SPP and SVC wound concur.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, September 29, 2007 - 12:22 am: Edit

Tos,

What are the Tholian ships on the most recent version of the list? I realize the Tholians probably won't get as many new ships in X1R as the larger races. But I'm curious how many will be ships I would want and how many I wouldn't want.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, September 29, 2007 - 12:36 am: Edit

Alan, wrong topic. I'll post over in X1R.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Saturday, September 29, 2007 - 06:36 am: Edit

The CMX would be a great ship to fly but I don't expect an X version because the background of the CM says it got phased out. There's probably something wrong with it that doesn't show up on the SSD. Maintenance hassles due to mounting three big weapons so close together?

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Saturday, October 06, 2007 - 12:52 pm: Edit

This is what I envision the ISC CAX to look like:

Take the CCX

Remove one PPD FA

Remove 2 APR from each Sponson.

Shields and phasers remain the same.

Command rating drops to 9

Approximate BPV would be betwee 270 (low end) and 280 (high end).

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Saturday, October 06, 2007 - 01:22 pm: Edit

Don't forget to remove the FLAG boxes.

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Saturday, October 06, 2007 - 02:21 pm: Edit

Ah, right. Good catch.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, May 06, 2010 - 03:39 pm: Edit

I AM SORRY, but this topic is a messy mish-mosh of unrelated proposals. If you want them evaluated, put each in a separate topic.