XORKAELIANS
We could put the Xorks into X2, or we could do the Xorks in their own module covering multiple time periods. (They did do some raiding as far back as Y100 and before. It was just rare enough they were treated as very rare monsters.) So theoretically the Xorks could have MY, GW, X1, and X2 ships.
Not a lot has been revealed, and I'm not going to reveal much more at this point, but they are a xerophobic slave empire like North Korea. Their ships have an armored citadel which protects the Xorkaelian part of the crew; the slave species are outside the citadel.
They have explosive warp systems in limited quantity and slow to recharge. Fire one and you jump 2 or 3 or 4 hexes.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, November 16, 2020 - 04:14 am: Edit

I decided how to proceed and said what I was going to do. Some accepted the concept, some rejected my decision. The argument grew so acrimonious (more that ever before on any other subject by a factor of fifty) that I just walked away in disgust.

I will remark that the controversy came down to which of three paths to follow:

OPTION ONE: Take a non-X or X1-ship, add more boxes without increasing the movement cost, give it some more die roll and timing bonuses, and on you go. I rejected this concept as just plain boring and likely to produce SSDs which were too small to read. Lately, however, I have begun to reconsider this option as the SSDs need not be that much bigger than X1.

OPTION TWO: The so-called 50/200 plan. Basically, take any SSD, making some minor tweeks, write "Second generation x Tech" across the top. When non-X shot at it, you did only half as much damage. When X2 shot at X0 and maybe X1 it did twice as much damage. This is the one I plan to go with.

OPTION THREE: Something really clever that nobody has thought of yet but which instantly catches fire with 100% of players who love Option Three tea-totally to death.

I can see the gripe that X2-v-X2 won’t be revolutionarily different from GW-v-GW, but should it be? Was X1-v-X1 more than evolutionarily different? Is Indefatigable-v-Derflinger revolutionarily different from Iowa-v-Yamato or Evolutionarily diffferent? Is MY-v-MY? Is EY-v-EY revolutionarily different? I just don’t see that lack of difference as an issue. Nor do I see a way to make it revolutionarily different.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, November 16, 2020 - 04:17 am: Edit

More than a few people have suggested I farm out X2 (and sometimes other projects) to other designers in order to get them done faster. This won't work, and not just because about half of such outside design projects in the last crashed and burned. Compliance with the Paramount contract is all-important and only I can do that. Checking the work of outside designers actually takes more time than doing it myself. History back to 1979 has proven that I am quite comfortable with incorporating outside design input once I get the basic framework set.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, November 16, 2020 - 04:21 am: Edit

Various ideas which while not currently part of the design have not been rejected.

drone racks able to launch more than one drone at a time

fighters only for races without seeking weapons

plasma torpedo launchers able to launch a real one and a pseudo in very short sequence.

Paying reserve power to cancel a hex of movement or add a hex during an impulse when the ship isn't scheduled to move.

Drones and maybe plasma having some kind of terminal maneuver that gives them bonus ECM during the last couple of hexes near the target.

Remove phaser-3 and G, phaser-1s would be able to fire as two phaser-3s but only at targets in the smaller gunboat/fighter/seeker size ranges. SEE UPDATE, ALREADY IN X1.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, November 16, 2020 - 04:25 am: Edit

More ideas that have not been rejected yet.

ISC install PPDs on almost all of their ships.

Tholians install web casters on almost all of their X2 ships. REPLACED BY WEB LANCE.

Every empire to have one HDW-type multi-mission ship rather than endless variants of every imaginable hull.

phasers can have a wide angle mode were they do less damage but are more accurate, and a narrow angle mode where they do more damage and are less accurate. SVC IS REALLY NOT FEELING GOOD ABOUT THIS ONE BUT THERE IT IS FOR DISCUSSION.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, November 16, 2020 - 04:28 am: Edit

Almost certainly not going to happen:

Reverse engineered Carnivon weapons

Reverse engineered Paravian weapons.

Absolutely no replacement for Photons because Paramount will think we're trying to sneak in Quantum torpedoes which are not in our license.

Moving mines, mines laid by drones.

I would like to see X1 ships get a speed boost from Max 31 to max of 36. X2 ships with speeds up to 40, and with speed 36 (X1) and speed 40 (X2) Drones and Plasma Torpedos to match.
SVC: I REALLY HATES THIS ONE

ABSOLUTELY A HARD NO: Pausing movement at some point then making up the lost hexes of movement in one burst.

ABSOLUTELY A HARD NO: overloaded phasers.

ABSOLUTELY A HARD NO: Any Omega or Magellanic or Triangulum technology.

ABSOLUTELY A HARD NO: Any system by which X2 transporters can penetrate shields, in or out.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, November 16, 2020 - 04:32 am: Edit

These controversial proposals which were rejected but might be resurrected with massive player support.

Being able to make multiple sideslips without an intervening straight move at a penalty energy cost like acceleration/deceleration.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, November 17, 2020 - 05:14 am: Edit

Various things...

Alan Trevor: a weapon that functions as a direct-fire-only version of the web caster (no web creation function) is easier. For X2, the Tholians make these "web lances" the standard heavy weapons for their Destroyers (their frigates or patrol corvettes are still "phaser boats") while cruisers use some combination of web lances and true web casters.

Alan Trevor: Some version of this might pass: X2 ships never break down from an HET unless it is within 8 impulses of a previous HET. Nimble X2 ships never break down from a HET, period. But a secomd HET within 8 impulses of the previous one costs double the power.

GARY CARNEY: Phaser-1s on X1-ships can already use rapid-pulse (fire as two phaser-3s) against seeking weapons, fighters, and PFs under (XE2.43). This is tied to the "X-Aegis" system which X1-ships possess under (XD13.0). However, since the X-Aegis for X1-ships is "limited Aegis" (two shots), perhaps the X-Aegis on X2-ships could be brought up to "full Aegis" (four shots) levels?

Hydrans will have some kind of fighter.

Shawn Hantke: Some way to pay extra power to turn faster than normal turn mode.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, November 18, 2020 - 06:47 am: Edit

Only phaser-1. No 2, 3, 4.

Phaser-1X can fire twice as phaser-1 or four times as phaser-3 or once as phaser-1 and twice as phaser-3 using AEGIS rules (only target size 5-6-7). every shot has to be paid for, either allocated or reserve.

Two phaser-1 shots at ships would amount to overloaded phasers and won't happen.