I was concerned about the drone rate myself.

I was thinking that I might want to eliminate two of the Gx racks.

I had intended the Kzinti to use drones that were only slightly advanced over Type VII and VIII's. Quantitiy over quality.

By Carl Madalinski (Shipwrecker) on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 11:27 pm: Edit

I really like the Kzinti ship. However, I would get rid of the G racks and make them standard CX? racks. The array would be more then adequate for loading some dogfight drones if needed or MW types. The G rack is more fedish anyway, we don't need no stinkin G racks. Oops, got carried away there, overall, great job!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 11:34 pm: Edit

Carl, hold on...you're saying the G-rack is a fedish?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 12:30 am: Edit

Carl,

Actually the drone array was intended to replace the B-rack/C-rack combinations. The Gx racks are there for anti-drone work when fighting Klinks (or the oaccasional Fed who's too full of himself) and of course other Kzintis.

...and they convert over nicely to provide extra drones for dealing with the hated Lyrans.

The question in my mind is whether 4xGx is too much. It's the most powerful of the options I'm considering. The XBC should have either 2xGx, 4xGx, or if we want to split the difference, 2xADD, 2xGx. Or 2xADD if the drone array is better than I think. Over a 2-turn period and without resorting to scatterpacks, this boat as shown in the SSD could crank out 26 drones without too much sweat. That's a lot.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 07:54 am: Edit

Well, perhaps a refit. Start at Y205 with 2 GX racks. In Y215, add the second pair.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 02:18 pm: Edit

Sounds good.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 09:17 pm: Edit

Got a wild hair, and made this SSD...

R11.?? Lyran 2X CC

It has a few new features we've batted around but not really seen yet:

1. It has Loren's "S" Bridge.
2. It has a radius 4 ESG, with the same max power as the old one.
3. New disuptors, with UIM and DERFACS incorporated into the design. The disruptors use a capacitor system that is integrated with the ESG capacitors. The entire capacitor bank will hold 30 points...enough to fully arm both ESG's and all four disruptors to full one time.
4. It incorporates something we've touched on; a Y-215 refit, for post-Xork improvements. More shields, and an additional pair of P-5's are what I added here.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 10:12 pm: Edit

...and upgraded Jaguar?

Got something against the Tiger?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 11:04 pm: Edit

I've designed a X2 Tiger but am still detailing it. Funny, Mike reminded me of some of my own stuff that I didn't put on it.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 12:43 pm: Edit

Okay, for some really different Klingons...

R3.?? Klingon 2X Attack Cruiser
R3.?? Klingon 2X DD

Both of these, like the above-posted Lyran, have some of the things we've talked about for 2X:

1. The S-Bridge.
2. A Y-215 refit, which for the Klingons means more disruptors, more drones, and a modest rear shield increase.
3. A K-refit. Changes phaser 1's to Phaser 5's.
4. The standard Klingon disruptor integrates UIM and DERACS. No other change.
5. The new Heavy Disruptor is added to later SC3 or larger ships. A simple "double" disruptor, that has a doubled power cost and double damage. It does not benefit from UIM or DERFACS, though, and has a limited firing arc. Used in very limited numbers, rather like the PPD. Added as part of the Y215 refit to give the XAC more punch to deal with Xork ships.
6. Cargo. All Klingon ships will have it, mostly to reflect the longer range and cruising time a 2X ship would have. They have no NWO boxes.
7. No ADD's. The drones on the Klingon ships are truly multi-purpose weapons, added for both extra offense, and for defense. All 2X Klingons would use the GX2 rack as the standard drone rack, though there may be exceptions. This was the case with 1X Klingons, and I think it's good to keep it here, as well.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 12:50 pm: Edit

Mike, could you try and eliminate some of that empty space? The SSDs are nice, but it's just so empty.

I'm not up on the X2 discussions, but I do like to "show off" on occasion, so here.

These are ships that are considerably more powerful than X1, and probably X2.

Enjoy!

⁴²

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 01:10 pm: Edit

Robert Cole: I like that Star Fortress. Would make a great Homeworld base. Second, those gunboats are cool but they're Romulan looking. Of course give them Pl-F and D's in place of the drone and you would have so killer Romulan Gunboats.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 01:14 pm: Edit

Mike R.: A couple of suggestions, I agree with Robert that there is a bit much white space but primarily I would suggest adding one more Bridge box. It just seems that ship would have one more. Also, why not move the forward disruptors to the side to match the outline (switch with the boom batteries).

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 06:28 pm: Edit

The white space on the XAC is a problem, but I don't want to add many more boxes...it's got enough as it is, I think. I just like the outline, you know? The DD isn't so bad, so it ought to be okay.

Loren, you know, I had three bridge originally...for some reason I now can't remember, I changed it to two. Darned if I can remember why, though.

Does the mix of weapons look okay, though, and the big Y215 refit? Do those seem fair and "klingon-ish" enough?

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 12:59 pm: Edit

Robert, I really love the DD and FF shapes...clean, mean, fast, Klingonish for sure.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 06:47 pm: Edit

Okay, given some of the discussions going on in the phaser thread and disruptor thread, I made this Klingon XBC.

Klingon 2X BC
Note that it has:

1. Loren's proposed S-bridge, and heavy disruptors.
2. (More or less) MJC's flavor of phasers, loading on lots of P1's, but with a "K" refit that changes the wing phaser 1's to phaser 5's.
3. Four disruptors, and an upgrade to six in Y215, which is part of an overall Y215 refit that adds some shielding, an additional pair of drones, and the disruptors.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 09:05 pm: Edit

Neat XBC, Mike. I have always admired how fast you put these things together. It still takes me a looong time.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 09:45 pm: Edit

I like it.

I just have one point to say.
If you do go for wing and Boom Ph-5s, then the Klingon admiralty will probably never refit the waist phasers as Ph-5s.
They'll be too little bonus for the price, but it should play real nice.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 09:56 pm: Edit

Well, only the wing P1's would get the refit...the waist phasers would stay P1's, I'd think.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 10:50 pm: Edit

I would rather have uniformity in design philophy.

Since all Races knew they could mount 12 Capital Phasers on there hulls ( becasue that's pretty much what they did in X1 ) they knew they could develop all the way to 12Ph-5s in X2.

Having the X2 Klingons stay with four sacrifical Ph-1s on the waist is a little off that idea.

Although that does make me think about something else.

One way to make it easier to fire those Ph-1s in an obliquie is to give the waist phaser the Klingon Wing phaser arc, not in the opposite side like Wing phasers do but on the sajme side as the waist phasers.
That way your starting 10Ph-1s only need a general Oblique to plaster the enemy.
But that would get too powerful in the latter X2 period...consider 6 Heavy R2 (one diagonal & one forward ) Disruptors and 10Ph-5s all striking a Fed X2 CA that had 9Ph-5s to bear and four 16 point photons...and the Klingon had a Drone advantage reducing the Fed phaser fire...but making those waist Phasers stay as Ph-1s might make the room for the extention to the arc.

By Mark James Hugh Norman (Mnorman) on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 06:44 am: Edit

Mike:
Would the Klingon really go from 6 disruptors in X1 to 4 disruptors in early X2, with only a minor increase in damage. These low numbers of heavy weapons woult result, as far as I can see in all ships being phaser boats, as happened in original X1 before the overloaded phasers were cut.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 06:50 am: Edit

Mark,

See the disruptor thread. The new dirsuptor not only has a damage increase, it also has integrated UIM/DERFRACS, no UIM burnout, and a capacitor system. Added up, those are pretty signifigant increases.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 07:47 am: Edit

IT is basically an accurate photon

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 08:07 am: Edit

Chris, how can you say that? It bears no more resemblance to a photon now that the old one did. It still has the same decrease in damage over range, the same one-turn arming system, and still has a lighter damage base. It bears virtually NO reseblance to a photon at all.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 08:12 am: Edit

MJC,

Re the waist phasers. I kept them P-1's for a variety of reasons.

1. The Klingons traditionally keep a lighter phaser in those positions...the D7 did it, as did almost every other ship they fielded. I'll grant that the DX did have all P-1's, but the P-1 was old tech by that time.
2. As a defensive phaser, the 2X P-1 has a three-point capacitor, just like the P-5. That means those waist phasers can fire three times as P-1's without recharging the capacitor, or six times each as P-3's. Coupled with the aegis control the ship has, that's a very good defensive phaser suite.