Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through November 14, 2020	25		11/14 10:21pm
	NOTES OF THINGS SVC LIKES FOR X2	9		11/18 06:47am
	Archive through November 16, 2020	25		11/16 10:15am
	Archive through November 17, 2020	25		11/18 01:43pm
	Archive through November 21, 2020	25		11/22 09:01am
	Archive through November 24, 2020	25		11/24 09:00pm
	Archive through November 29, 2020	25		11/30 02:10pm
	Archive through December 01, 2020	17		12/01 07:27pm
	Archive through December 02, 2020	18		12/02 05:21pm
	Archive through December 03, 2020	2		12/04 02:20pm
	Police Ships and pirates in the X2 era	39		12/08 12:40pm
	Freighters in the X2 Era	22		12/08 12:21am
	Cannot consider for X2 but maybe X2R	1		12/06 05:09pm
	Archive through January 31, 2021	25		01/31 07:45pm
	Archive through December 14, 2023	25		12/14 04:58pm
	Archive through December 16, 2023	25		12/22 06:42pm
	Archive through August 10, 2026	25		08/12 01:13am

A 40 impulse chart for X1 and later ships would work. Sure, sp32 seekers would become the new "sp20" but that is technological progress. The important thing is to avoid complexity, in this case moving twice the same impulse.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, August 11, 2026 - 04:50 pm: Edit

It was with simplicity in mind that I actually thought of the 64 impulse idea.

Each impulse is half as long as an impulse on the 32 impulse chart. AEGIS can evaluate twice per impulse (instead of four times) with possible 2X ships being able to do three evaluations per impulse (to show their advantages?)

In terms of "Real" time, a turn in a 64 impulses per turn game is just as long as a turn in a 32 impulses per game. Weapons (or other systems) that have an eight impulse delay in a 32 impulse per turn game would have a sixteen impulse delay in a 64 impulses per turn game. Plasma torpedoes will reach a new threshhold after twice as many impulses (i.e.: a Plasma G remains at twenty damage point potential for twenty impulses instead of ten), cast web will take twice as many impulses to solidify, ESGs take twice as many impulses to fully engage, etcetera.

Again, this was to keep from having anyone, other than Nicozians, Qixa UWMs, and Magellanic Mass Driver Missiles from going more than one hex per impulse while still allowing speeds well over thirty.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, August 11, 2026 - 05:10 pm: Edit

64 is not practical. Can we drop the discussion?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, August 12, 2026 - 12:54 am: Edit

Steve,

We have been having this same conversation for years, literally decades.

Even if you “dead horse” it, I suspect some younger player who hasn’t yet started playing the game will at some time in the future again bring it up not knowing how many times we have been around the block on this.

Perhaps if you made it optional, like the Battleships were made “optional if all players agree”, even better, foot note it “not play tested. Use at own risk.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, August 12, 2026 - 01:13 am: Edit

How about no, not happening, not doing it. Drop it.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, August 12, 2026 - 05:54 am: Edit

Works for me!

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Wednesday, August 12, 2026 - 11:48 am: Edit

My apologies

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, August 12, 2026 - 12:53 pm: Edit

Nothing personal, Jeff, but when it's not happening you and I need to turn energies to more productive projects.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, August 12, 2026 - 10:25 pm: Edit

While not the direct topic being discussed in this thread, I suspect that, beyond the purely tactical aspects of X2-ships, much of their added impact would be on the operational and strategic scales, as seen over in Federation and Empire.

And, on a similar note, how one might place X2-ship "cruise" and "dash" movement in Prime Directive RPG terms.

-----

For comparison's sake, a "modern" ship, such as a Klingon D7, has a cruising speed of Warp 7, which in F&E terms translates into an operational speed of six hexes per six-month game turn.

It has a "dash" speed of Warp 9.25, which requires "strategic movement nodes" (such as major planets or starbases) to be placed every 3000 parsecs (or every six F&E hexes) to be completed.

There is a lot more going on in-universe to make "dash" speed transit function; this is abstracted in F&E by a limit placed on each Alpha empire on how many of their ships are permitted to use strategic movement in a given game turn.

-----

Both "fast" ships (like the Klingon FD7) and X1-ships (like the Klingon DX) have a cruising speed of Warp 7.25, which equates to seven hexes of operational movement per turn in F&E.

Both have "dash" speeds at or over Warp 9.5; however, in logistical terms, X1-ships have a superior endurance to "fast" ships at "dash" warp speeds. In other words, an X1-ship's strategic movement nodes can be up to seven hexes apart, whereas "fast" ships have the same six-hex range limit as "modern" ships.

Beyond this, there are a lot of extra benefits which X1-ships get in F&E, which I won't go into here.

-----

By the way, non-X Federation Express ships are even faster than "fast" ships or X1-ships: in F&E terms, they can move eight hexes of operational or strategic movement per turn!

I'm not quite sure what warp factors these translate to in Prime Directive terms, however.

Or, for that matter, if the Federation X-Express ship in Module X1 can go even faster than that!

-----

So, while this is not the place to make any kind of final decisions on the matter, I could (for example) envision X2-ships as having comparable eight-hex operational and strategic movement speeds to non-X Federation Express ships.

So maybe a would-be Federation X2-Express ship has even faster speeds again?

In any case, I would only go so far in terms of considering how much "faster" an X2-ship can go relative to an X1-ship, in tabletop SFB terms. Not when, in the broader SFU sense, there is ample scope for other scales of game system to help address this question in a more wide-ranging manner.

By Burt Quaid (Burt) on Thursday, August 13, 2026 - 09:55 am: Edit

Maybe X2 could introduce a new phaser type? Something between a 1 and a 4 in power.Or bump up the damage of the current heavy weapons by some percentage? Improve the output where for decades the technology was doing the same work in a smaller package as simulated by adding boxes to ships. Have X2 add power to boxes but keep ships the same number of internal numbers.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, August 13, 2026 - 11:51 am: Edit

So far as X2-phasers go, perhaps one could approach it from a different angle.

As per the current X1-ship rules, an X1-ship can generate EW up to their sensor rating plus two, per (XD6.393). Further, if it has more ECCM than the target ECM, it gains a special -1 to hit modifier, under (XD6.323).

In the case of generated EW, perhaps an X2-ship can produce its current sensor rating plus three? (Plus four might be a bit much.)

Further, while I would not recommend this for heavy weapons (especially not for photons): perhaps phasers (only) could get a -2 shift, if the X2-ship has at least 2 more ECCM than the target ECM? (It would "only" get the same -1 shift as an X1-ship if its ECCM beats the target ECM by 1.)

This still gives the X2-ship more accurate phaser fire without the need to draw up new weapon charts, but only if they pay the cost of maintaining the ECCM needed to sufficiently outweigh the enemy ECM.

On a side note: one might have to check with the Borak if their megaphasers and/or phaser-cannons would count as "phasers" or as "heavy weapons" under such a proposed rule...

-----

So far as power systems aboard ship go:

Per (H5.5), X2-batteries are said to hold five points of power per box (rather than three points per X1-battery box), and to hold warp power over multiple turns.

Much as the Federation would love to keep the latter aspect in play for use with their photons, it has been suggested that the "final" X2-battery rules might delete the "carrying warp power over multiple turns" portion of that rule.

But even still, an upgrade from 3 to 5 points of held power per battery would mark a significant increase in overall reserve power for an X2-ship over an X1-ship.

-----

As for warp engine power:

Earlier in this thread, it was noted that simply upping the warp engines on a Move Cost 1 X2-cruiser from 20 to 24 boxes would be a viable option.

Between this and the X2-batteries noted above, that's plenty of added power for an X2-ship to account for.

-----

But, I do recall an old idea from earlier in the thread, about possibly adding some sort of revised (and streamlined) "warp gearshift" instead.

Say, if a Move Cost 1 X2-ship had two 16-box warp engines. Each engine box would provide power on a 1:1 ratio up to Speed 15; 1:1.25 from Speed 16 to Speed 23 (so 16 warp boxes produce 20 points of warp power); and a 1:1.5 ratio at Speed 24 and above (so 16 boxes provide 24 points of power).

But, there'd be a catch. the higher the ratio of generated power, the higher the Move Cost for the ship to move backwards. As in, flying backwards between Speeds 16 and 23 is at a Move Cost of 1.5; while flying backwards at Speed 24 and above has a Move Cost of 2!

So, instead of simply adding more warp engine boxes, an X2-ship's warp engines would be more efficient the faster forward the ship is moving. And, at the same time, make it much more difficult for an X2-ship to retrograde at high speeds.

I admit that this is still my interest in FC talking. I very much prefer how that game engine encourages players to fly their ships in the direction they are supposed to be flown in!

The last time I talked about this idea, it was in the context of the now-discarded "200%/50%" option for X2-ships. In light of the current "Option One" take on things, I wanted to revisit the concept, to see if it made any sort of sense this time around.

But, if not, well and good.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Saturday, August 15, 2026 - 11:50 pm: Edit

I am thinking that 1. the ships that comes after X1 ships do so quite soon. There are several reasons for this. The first is that the X-ships are severely over-crewed. That is a bottleneck to employment and increases cost in the whole logistics chain. More people need to be recruited and schools need to be expanded etc. etc. 20% more crew is as lot.
(a real world example is the F-16 and Ukraine. I have read that one reason they don't just send all the donated planes to Ukraine is not that donor countries got second thoughts but that the intended pilots are clogging up the flight schools abroad. Schools that are not built to handle that influx of pupils but are optimized for peacetime).
I recall they have 20 pilots or so in training at any given time. Probably someones estimation since it would be a secret).
2. Between the first X ships and the second generation era it is about forty years. Of nothing. A wasted opportunity imo.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, August 17, 2026 - 01:47 pm: Edit

To use the Federation as a case study:

-----

Per Prime Directive Federation, Star Fleet has a "peacetime" policy of training more officers and enlisted personnel than it needs when not at war. The "surplus" sometimes go directly into civilian lives as reservists; some join those already recruited into the various National Guards; while others might sign up with "private security companies".

It's possible that some join the Federation Police, though any who do so might need to be re-trained in order to better serve the needs of that organization.

In case of emergencies, the Eighth Fleet largely acts to maintain the "mothball reserve": dozens of ships kept in storage, with skeleton crews assigned to make sure they still have the capacity to function as or when they are called upon to do so.

In "peacetime", the fleet yards have set production schedules. based on the budget a given administration assigns to them. (One of the perennial topics argued about in the Federation Council and Assembly is exactly how much should, or should not, be spent on the military during peacetime.) There is a certain degree of "spare" capacity present, as well as the potential to install new slipways of various kinds: more details on these are outlined over in Federation and Empire.

Speaking of F&E, some of these logistical details are outlined in this Y168 Order of Battle file.

-----

In response to the Klingon invasion of Y171, the UFP took time to adjust to a full "wartime" status.

In the short(er) term, ships were taken out of mothball reserve and assigned where they were needed; reservists were activated and transferred to operate these ships. However, Even at "full" wartime status, this does not happen overnight: it took a little over three years for the mothball ships to be fully activated historically.

In the long(er) term, the fleet yards were set to full wartime production levels, while new yards - some of which were established in the "off-map" Survey Zone - were created to augment them. Meanwhile, new and expanded training facilities were established to train new recruits, to replenish - or, in all too many cases, to replace - those active personnel from the "peacetime" Star Fleet, National Guards, and reserves who bore the brunt of the initial Klingon attack - and who, later, faced the Day of the Eagle on the Romulan front in Y173.

As for the Federation Police: they certainly expanded their own operations, and no doubt increased their own recruitment levels, during the course of the General War. Yet, at an institutional level, their mandate is such that Star Fleet cannot easily "poach" their best officers and crewbeings for service, in the same manner as can be done from, say, the various National Guards.

-----

To fast forward to the era of first-generation X-ships:

As seen in the Y186 Order of Battle in ISC War, Star Fleet had begun to "wind down" significantly from the levels deployed in the heat of the General War.

Still, when compared to the situation back in Y168, the "latent" capacity to train officers and enlisted personnel is at a much higher level.

So, while there are very prominent logistical challenges posed in the construction of X1-ships in the earliest years of adoption - no doubt exacerbated by the damage done in the course of the Andromedan War - I'd suspect that there is more than enough "slack" built-in to the system by then for Star Fleet not to worry overly much about the crewing of these vessels.

-----

In timeline terms, the first Star Fleet X1-ship, a conversion of the heavy command cruiser NCC-1749 USS Vincennes, re-entered service as a CX in Y181.

We don't yet know what the first Federation X2-ship is going to be, though it appears that it's set to make its debut in Y205.

So, that's about 24 years, give or take, between one GURPS Prime Directive Technology Level to the next.

-----

Historically-speaking, that's already on the relatively short side of things.

The closest comparison would be the jump from W-era to Y-era technology: the first Star Fleet WCL entered service in Y62, while the Republic-class YCA first appeared in Y79.

Other eras took longer to digest, by comparison.

Earth developed non-tactical warp in Y1, and took until Y62 to get to its first Tactical Warp refit. (Of course, the Vulcans had NTW tech for far longer, though they had not seen a need for combat at warp speeds.)

The Y-era itself lasted for another four decades or so, before the first "modern" ships were operated by Star Fleet in the Y120s.

While said "modern" ships had a good run of about sixty years or so of unchallenged supremacy - though one could break this into sub-eras of pre- and post-refits, or perhaps of "peacetime construction" and "wartime construction".

-----

So, if anything, I's say that the turnaround from X1 to X2 is more than reasonable. Perhaps a bit generous, even.

Personally, I would not be surprised is, in-universe, the X2-era persists in the Alpha Octant for quite some time after our "cut-off" point of Y225 - akin to how the Y-era was the standard of its day for much longer in the UFP than the prior W-era had been.

But, we'd need to find a new batch of Air Force data tapes to ever know for sure...

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Tuesday, August 18, 2026 - 07:28 am: Edit

A made a mistake there with the timeline; I didn't know were to find a timeline. NVM, no harm being wrong

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, August 19, 2026 - 11:31 pm: Edit

In fairness, one of the aspects of Module X2 I'm personally looking forward to is a more in-depth post-Unity timeline for the Alpha Octant, beyond the fragments of data which exist for this time period at present in other sources.

-----

In game terms, I recall that one of the earlier suggestions in this thread - or perhaps it was in the prior thread? - was to borrow from the more flexible "run-and-gun" acceleration and deceleration setup seen over in Federation Commander.

As in, to allow reserve warp power to be used to either skip an Impulse's worth of warp movement, or to add one instead.

-----

Of these, I was thinking that the latter option, if it were to be allowed at all, might only work on Impulses in which the X2-ship was not already scheduled to move, based on the speed that had been set during Energy Allocation.

In other words: if an X2-ship sets a Speed of 27 at the start of the turn, it would be allowed to use reserve warp power to add a hex of forward movement on, say, Impulse #7 - but not on, say, Impulse #8.

So, at no time would the ship move more than one hex in a single Impulse.

And, even with this ability, the X2-ship would still have a maximum speed of 30+1, from its warp and impulse engines respectively.

Does that sound like it might be a more viable option to consider?

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Monday, August 24, 2026 - 03:07 pm: Edit

Sounds much like un-plotted speed changes using reserve power.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, August 24, 2026 - 03:47 pm: Edit

In terms of X2-ship weaponry, one of the few items which is currently in print can be found in (FD2.12), which states that three types of X2-drone historically exist: the type-X, type-XI, and type-XII.

Of course, whether or not these drone types end up in the "final" product here is another matter.

Still, given how powerful X1-drones already are right now, I wonder where, if anywhere, one can actually go with X2-drones without risking them being too powerful for what they are supposed to be.

-----

One could presume that each listed type-of X2-drone is intended to succeed a respective X1-drone type.

As in, the type-X would be a single-space advancement over the type-VII; the type-XI would be a 1.5-space follow-on from the type-VIII; and the type-XII would be a half-space "warp-seeking" heir to the type-IX.

Engineering-wise, a type-VII is able to cram one-and-a-half modular spaces into a one-space frame; a type-VIII fits two payload spaces into a 1.5-space frame. Whereas the type-IX has a "fixed" warhead.

-----

So far as type-X and type-XI drones go, would it be a case of further degrees if improvement for the frames (say, by making a type-X drone able to fit two payload spaces into a one-sapce frame)?

Or, might it be better to keep the frame spaces the same as on the type-VII and type-VIII respectively, and instead improve the quality of the modules being placed therein? As in: perhaps a half-space explosive module on an X2-drone has an explosion strength of eight points of damage, instead of six?

In the latter instance, it might be best if only certain module types are improved over those seen on X1-drones, so as to keep a lid on how far things would be permitted to go balance-wise.

-----

Another thought I had was to perhaps make it a matter of finesse, rather than merely of increased warhead strength and damage levels.

For example: type-VII and type-VIII drones each have ATG installed as standard, which operates in broadly the same manner as ATG installed on non-X drones.

One possible avenue of improvement might be to increase this on type-X and type-XI drones to "Tame Boar" type-IIi guidance, under (FD5.252).

Alternatively, one could stick with ATG "only", but rather increase the range at which a type-X or type-XI drone can activate its ATG to within, say, 12 hexes of the target, rather than within 8 hexes?

Of the two, I might lean more towards the latter option, if either was in any way viable at least.

On a side note: if one were to say that the type-XII is a "warp-seeking" missile, it would be unaffected by either of these proposed adjustments.

-----

So, would it be best for X2-drones to take a more iterative approach over X1-drones, relative to how X1-drones themselves advance over non-X drones?

Or is there another approach entirely which you might prefer to see for this type of seeking weapon in the X2 era?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, August 24, 2026 - 04:01 pm: Edit

I must have cross-posted there...

---

Quote:

Sounds much like un-plotted speed changes using reserve power.

---

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Monday, August 24, 2026 - 04:19 pm: Edit

Perhaps X2-drones could take some inspiration from Maesron tacyhon missiles. Not in terms of being modular, but adopting some of the features, such as having a built-in point of anti-tractor, etc.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, August 24, 2026 - 10:17 pm: Edit

In-universe, First Contact between Alpha and Omega doesn't take place until after the onset of Alpha X2-tech.

And even then, there are certain features which, I'd argue, should stay unique to TMs - not least in terms of allowing for Omega X-tech to develop things further in that design direction someday.

-----

Still, in terms of "parallel evolution", there might be one, or perhaps two, questions worth asking for X2-drones:

Firstly, would they still suffer mutual annihilation when impacting another drone?

And secondly, would they still be treated as drones, rather than as shuttles, by ADDs?

-----

In the case of tachyon missiles, mutual annihilation doesn't automatically apply - though it might end up still happening in de facto terms.

Also, due to the much larger size of TMs relative to drones, they are treated as shuttles by ADDs. (Which is one key reason why the FRA modified the ADD into the SRC, which does treat a TM as a drone.)

-----

So far as X2-drones are concerned:

Perhaps one could have ADDs treat X2-drones as drones - but that each ADD hit scores 50% of the drone's starting armour value. So, barring impacts from other kinds of weapons fire, it would take two ADD hits to kill an X2-drone.

In terms of mutual annihilation: perhaps this only applies if a type-X or type-XI drone is hit by another "full-sized" (one-space or larger) drone. But, that type-VI, type-IX, or type-XII drones "only" score their listed points of damage against Size Class 6 or 7 units (i.e. 8 points for type-VI or type-IX drones) instead.

Which might raise the question as to whether or not a type-XII drone should have the same range of damage outputs as a type-VI or type-IX drone, or perhaps have its outputs per Size Class adjusted somewhat.

Would either of these options be worth thinking about here?

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Tuesday, August 25, 2026 - 12:01 am: Edit

IMO the reduction in (XC12.312) was the wrong way to go. Same with fat batteries. What makes the game fun is not the free lunch, but the limitations that you need to use your brain power to overcome.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Tuesday, August 25, 2026 - 05:37 pm: Edit

I was thinking a parallel development, nothing more. X2 drones would be drones, not tachyon missiles.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, September 01, 2026 - 01:30 pm: Edit

Speaking of "free lunches", or the lack thereof:

I was thinking once more about what kind of defensive options an X2-ship could have, beyond increasing certain shield facing strengths and reserve power allocations past those seen on the equivalent X1-ship.

-----

In my last post on this topic, I was thinking that, warp engine box numbers aside, things would not change much in terms of a ship's internals, relative to an X1-ship. Perhaps with certain systems, such as lab boxes, being more "efficient" in terms of box space than on older hulls.

Of course, a potential increase in certain X2-ship shield facings, as well as in the amount of battery-stored reserve power on hand to reinforce said shields, it might be more difficult to get to said internals. So, if this is sufficient here, well and good.

That said, is there something else that could be factored in here also, which would be in keeping with Alpha Octant engineering principles?

-----

By way of comparison, Module E2 includes rules for micro-thin Neutronium armour (DN102.0): a "passive" defensive system deployed by three of the four current playtest Triangulum Galaxy empires. (The Helgardians are the notable exception, as they have a unique rotary shield system instead.)

On a given SSD, there are banks of Neutronium armour: these have 60-degree arcs on Size Class 1 units; hemispheric arcs on Size Class 2, 3, and 4 units; and 360-degree arcs on Size Class 5 units. (Here are two examples from the Mallaran Empire fleet with such banks in place.)

These banks are abstractions of layers of extremely thin armour placed around certain internal systems. As such, they do not overlap with "standard" armour.

Instead, what happens is that, in a given volley against the target ship, the first roll of 2 to 5, or of 9 to 12, on the DAC is scored against the facing Neutronium armour bank instead. But, from the second same die roll onwards, the damage is allocated as normal.

In other words: the first time you roll, say, a 4, this hit goes to the facing Neutronium armour bank. But, if you roll a second 4 in the same volley, the "normal" phaser hit is scored instead.

Note that DAC rolls of 6, 7, or 8 are unaffected here.

It should also be noted that Neutronium armour does not protect against internal explosions.

Once damaged, each box of Neutronium armour costs eight repair points to restore.

-----

To be clear, I by no means am suggesting this system be implemented here. I post the above only as a point of comparison to what I had in mind.

My thought here was, perhaps as a part of how a given X2-ship is constructed, its hull has an "active" reinforcement system woven into its surface, which requires energy expenditure to operate (and thus has no effect if left unpowered).

Such a system might follow the same "facing" rules as for neutronium armour: as in, a Size Class 3 X2-ship would have hemispheric arcs for its reinforcement banks. This, in my view, would still put a premium on manoeuvre, rather than applying a single, 360-degree reinforcement bank.

Or, perhaps the banks would be sub-divided based on hull section? As in, a Federation X2-cruiser would have separate saucer and secondary hull banks; while a Klingon X2-cruiser would have separate banks for its boom and for its secondary hull? (And/or with separate banks for each warp nacelle?)

-----

In terms of its effect:

Perhaps the X2-ship can use a point of reserve power to mark the first point of a certain DAC result per volley on the facing reinforcement bank, rather than on the internal in question. But, as with Neutronium armour, a second result for the same type of system DAC would impact the marked internal as normal.

As to exactly which results: I was thinking it should go by system on the DAC, rather than by die roll. And that the systems affected would be based on whether the damage is scored on an "external" (as in, on the surface of the ship) item or not.

So, a phaser or torpedo mount would count as an "external" in this instance - and, thus, be protected by this system - whereas a lab or transporter box would not.

Since this is an "active" system rather than a "passive" one, the defending player would have the option not to use this hull reinforcement to protect such-and-such a system in a given volley. But, if this is done, that same system cannot be protected from subsequent hits in the rest of that volley. So it's a use-it-or-lose-it situation.

As is the case with Neutronium armour, this system would offer no defence against internal explosions.

And given how the system is proposed to operate, I would suggest it not work with "standard" armour boxes. Not that I would expect an X2-ship to have armour boxes installed - but if they did, such boxes would gain no benefit from this proposed system.

-----

Overall, the intent here is to provide an added defensive option which is both limited in scope (in that it only works once per protected system per volley) and which requires reserve power to operate (so that every point of reserve power spent here is one point which can't be spent elsewhere).

Might something like this make sense for X2-ships? Or would it be the kind of thing that might only be made to exist at some future, "post-X2" technology step, which might ot might not exist in-universe well after the Air Force data tapes run out in Y225?