Honestly, I am cool with both of those ramifications. I am fine with it having tactical implications. I am very on-board with having actual restrictions because of the configuration.

Here's the thing. The Neo-Tholians already let the cat out of the bag. It's entirely possible to have a rear hull work as an independent warp-capable ship. This doesn't even require X2 or even X technology. It just requires ships to be built to allow it. Given the example of the Neo-Tholians, why couldn't the ships be properly designed?

As far as tactical implications, there would be a whole host of problems with doing this. Just looking at ships now, if, for example, the rear hull of a Fed CB could move at warp speed, it is still a crap ship compared to the CB as a single hull. An unrefitted CA is literally unarmed. There is no incentive to separate unless there is absolutely no other choice, even with this ability.

So, while the separated rear hull could be used tactically, it provides no advantage to do so. So, I fail to see how that is any kind of major concern.

As for restrictions because there is no impulse engines? Great! That's perfect! If it can't go into orbit or it can't get the +1 speed or it can't do something else, that is a *feature*, not a bug. It means there are real, actual restrictions for doing an emergency procedure. That's great. That's a good thing.

So, if the goal is to let a rear hull get home, then just letting it use its warp engines like a Neo-Tholian ship will solve the problem, add no new rules to the game, and require zero changes to the game design of the hull. Sure, there's some hand-wave technobabble about how the X2 design allows the use of warp engines for movement on a separated hull, but that already has precedent, so it hurts nothing.

Also, regarding the "economic cost of 2X ships", this makes tremendous sense. Having a ship that suffered something that forces it to make the emergency decision to separate, the survivability of the rear hull increases exponentially if it can actually *move* and get home. After some field repairs, it can even drag what's left of the saucer home, too.

And, as an extra benefit, it makes X2 *different*. It means that X2 ship separation for the Federation* has gained advances and now works better than it did before. It's not just the "same ole stuff". It is an actual improvement. And, unlike lots and lots of other X2 stuff, it doesn't even require new rules, as they already exist.

I mean, come on, this is supposed to be X2. Let at least some things work better than they did before.

*I would expect this to apply to the Klingons as well as the Federation. There is no reason for it not to.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, December 14, 2023 - 12:13 pm: Edit

When EY heavy weapons were "Upgraded" to standard configurations, many received additional capabilities, notably overloads, plasma bolts got seeking capabilities, seeking plasma got enveloping and shotgun features, drones got faster and bigger warheads, etcetera, etcetera.

We saw some of that with X1 technology with Medium and Light plasmas, photon fast overloads, phaser improvements, and type VII, VIII, and IX Drones.

I would expect to see more with X2? Might Disruptors get "Double Overload" capabilities? Might 2X Stingers replace their Ph-2 with a single shot Hellbore? Might overloads be able to reach out to ten hexes? Might Drones move at speed 48?

Might someone call off this Slirdarian Corporal, who's trying to put me in a straightjacket?

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Thursday, December 14, 2023 - 03:27 pm: Edit

Klingon rear hulls can move under impulse power after 64 impulses. As for the Neo-Tholians, I thought their reason for separation was to allow each section to chase down fleeing rebels heading off in different directions in the old galaxy, instead of as life boats like Fed/Klingon.

And I was mistaken; the Eneen can separate their booms, which only have warp. So there is a precedent for no-impulse sections. Still, seems weird.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, December 14, 2023 - 04:33 pm: Edit

The Tholians used the separable sections off their ships to relieve the command Staff of their ships when they were on long patrols. They just sent a Command module with the replacement command personnel (and any incidental replacement personnel) and the relieved personnel (and a few promoted or otherwise moving personnel) came back with the command module replaced It enabled them to keep ships on station longer.

Federation ships are poorly designed for this operation. A typical Federation CA has only two phaser-3 360s and a drone rack with the refit. Without t he refit it has nothing. And Starfleet deems the rear hull a worthwhile sacrifice if the saucer escapes since the explosion masks this event. In short, you are calling for the Federation to lose all of the ship with no chance of escape since you are discarding the explosion to cover the retreat. Given the number of crew units on the saucer and in the rear hull one can see the sacrifice. Note that the Klingons are sacrificing a large portion of their crew in order so save their command personnel and a few females of "impeccable genetic qualities.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, December 14, 2023 - 04:58 pm: Edit

Neo-Tholian rear hulls are designed to fight. Federation rear hulls are not designed to fight. I am not, in any way, suggesting that changes.

The only, literally only, thing I am suggesting that changes is to make the Federation rear hull able to move under warp power. That's it.

It is not so that Federation rear hulls will be operated like Neo-Tholian hulls. It's not so they can go into combat. It's not to add "ships" to a force. It is simply so that it can move after separate in case it survives.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Thursday, December 14, 2023 - 06:01 pm: Edit

It is strange that a Fed CA puts 90% of its weapons, including ones that require warp power, into a section of the ship that only has 10% of the total power (and no warp). Leaving a secondary hull with all the power but almost no weapons.

But, things changed near the end. The BCH put heavy weapons in the rear hull, and saucers started gaining AWRs and center warp (BCH, CB). With the advent of 3-point batteries, this become less awkward.

Look at Fed CA engine pylons, for example. For 100 years the Feds had them going at 45 degree angles, creating blind spots for the left and right side phasers. Then they moved to the lowered pylons seen in the BCH, CS, and DNG classes. I imagine going forward, this style will become the norm.

Maybe for X2 the Feds need to consider placing their photons in the rear hull, or at least dividing them up (2 in saucer, 2 in rear hull). I rather like the latter idea. It makes things different, without new or different rules.

Just some thoughts.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, December 15, 2023 - 10:35 am: Edit

*That* I can get on board with!

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Friday, December 15, 2023 - 12:55 pm: Edit

On a different note, giving lessons learned during the General War and proceeding decades, would the Lyrans return to catamaran hulls or adopt only trimarans going forward? I.e, they would not have both an XCW and an XCL, or an XDW and an XDD, but rather a single XCL/XCW and XDD/XDW which be either 2- or 3- hull.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, December 15, 2023 - 02:20 pm: Edit

I like that idea.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, December 15, 2023 - 03:05 pm: Edit

I still think you need to take into account (D21.43). You are leaving behind the rear hull so the saucer with more lives and more equipment can escape. You are basically calling for the rear hull to be capable of combat if the saucer leaves it. I will concede that I am apparently outvoted in this topic. But I cannot help but feel you are wrong.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, December 15, 2023 - 04:07 pm: Edit

Frankly, as I read the rules, if Federation commanders are separating sections under conditions other than absolute calamity, they are asking for a court-martial if not being lynched by their crew. But, in my experience, I have declared CDIM only on a Klingon ship (that I can recall right now, it was the first time I was the chart reader and lost track of my ship and incoming drones, which is a lousy way to lose a C8 Dreadnought), at least where separation was allowed (I have had a few Federation NCLs, and DDs, and FFs, and Pols shot out from under me over the years, but strangely, never a CA or a DN or a BC, again as I recall). I can recall ALMOST losing a D7, but DID NOT use the Circuit breaker, gambling that an impulse box would survive, and sunlight Evaded the next turn with my ship if not exactly intact, at least with most of the crew still alive.

By Jeff Guthridge (Jeff_Guthridge) on Friday, December 15, 2023 - 04:14 pm: Edit

FWIW I agree with SPP.

The joke is that the B10 can convert itself from a crippled BB to a functional war cruiser, and the C8/9's can convert from a crippled DN to a functional heavy destroyer/light cruiser at the expense of chucking away all of the dead boxes on the secondary hulls. Its why one tries to score as much non-lethal damage to the secondary hull when possible.

But for the bog standard cruisers, no...

Allowing the sacrificed secondary hull (if it doesn't explode in the escape -- and that is a big if) to operate what ever movement systems remain is probably the best your going to get.

You might want to review D21. The CD rules allow for separation of the saucer or booms BEFORE the swarm of seeking weapons hit (D21.22) or after the massive lethal volley is tallied but before the damage applied via the DAC (D21.23) but the result is the same, the secondary hull escaped from is destroyed.

Frankly, I think that it would be well enough to leave things as they are with allowances for an additional bonus for X2 era ships with both warp and impulse on the escaping portion above the D21.543 bonus given to X1 ships.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Friday, December 15, 2023 - 04:19 pm: Edit

SPP, not necessarily. Klingon and neo-Tholian rear hulls can already move and continue combat (albeit Klingons can't use disruptors).

It's only the Federation that discards the rear hull and leaves it to its fate, which, from all the fiction and scenarios I can recall, is its complete destruction (CAs Lexington and Hood, DN Unification, CX Barrikady).

In the time of the 2X era, I can't see Federation abandoning such an expensive, advanced unit to easy destruction or even salvage by the Orions after the battle. True, if using (D21.0) then destruction of the rear hull is automatic, but what in other cases?

As a minor bonus, separating the heavy weapons helps with (D16.0) if the enemy captures area B1.

And again, just putting out ideas to spark interest and dialogue in this topic.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Friday, December 15, 2023 - 04:26 pm: Edit

That's the thing though, Jeff. Currently, Federation rear hulls cannot move, at all. They cannot use warp, and they have no impulse. If 2X is going to use FX/RX or "ring" phasers because players expect them in this era, those same players would probably expect Federation rear hulls to be more than just disposable units by this time.

Mike’s suggestion of allowing them to use their warp would solve the problem. It could be a rule change for 2X units only. Limiting them to tactical speed of 1 to avoid being too useful.

Also, what if the saucer is more heavily damaged and I rather escape with the rear hull under (D21)? Choice is good.

Whichever way ADB goes, I will be happy to support it.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Friday, December 15, 2023 - 06:11 pm: Edit

I'll add my voice to Jeff Guthridge and SPP on this. I see no reason for the change.

You don't separate a Fed unless you are facing imminent and otherwise unavoidable destruction. The system is intended to use the rear hull as chaff to cover for the saucer's escape via sublight evasion.

Under what circumstance do you see separating and the rear hull surviving? Because the rear hull gains nothing that would make it more survivable from separating, the only circumstance where it survives is if the enemy ignores it to target the vastly more valuable saucer instead, in which case the thing that needs reengineering is the systems that are supposed to let the explosion of the rear hull cover for the saucer's evasion, not the nonexistent systems to allow the chaff to return home separately to be repackaged and reused.

Edited to add: This feels like asking why we don't give fighter planes a system to let them fly back home on their own after the pilot ejects. We could certainly build an automated system capable of doing this, it probably wouldn't even be all that expensive, but the fact that the pilot ejected tells us that the plane won't survive, and that it won't be coming home whether or not it has such a system.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Friday, December 15, 2023 - 06:56 pm: Edit

I am not thinking of purely tactical reasons. Saucer separation (prior to SFB) was not created for tactical reasons. Franz designed both sections to be able to operate and house the entire crew for whatever reason was needed.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Friday, December 15, 2023 - 07:10 pm: Edit

Just thinking, if rear hull actually has a control box(es), what would be the likelyhood of one surviving if damage got to the point of needing to separate....
Lot more to the idea, than just adding weapons and impulse....
Also, where is life support equipment for the ship located (forward or rear)....
Far as weapons, you going to add sensors to the rearhull so you can use them.....

Personally, don't see the idea put forth as simple as it's made out....

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Friday, December 15, 2023 - 09:17 pm: Edit

As long as we are chiming in.

I think Fed rear hulls being able to move after separation, if it is not destroyed, is a good idea. I can see weapons limits, such as Disrupted Fire Control, to represent how much of the Sensor/Scanner suite went with the saucer section. I can also see an increased turn mode, due to being unbalanced.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Friday, December 15, 2023 - 10:06 pm: Edit

Sensor-scanner tracks, disrupted fire control, and weapons limits for rear sections are already covered by G12.5. Movement under impulse is allowed after 2 turns of "stabilization".

Perhaps if we wanted to grant rear sections the ability to move under warp, this might be something that takes a much longer "stabilization" period (30 turns?). This would make it very unlikely to occur in a scenario during which separation occurs, but an already separated and stabilized rear section might appear in the starting forces of a historical scenario.

1st generation X-Ships might be given a shorter, but still impractical, "stabilization" period but 2nd generation X-Ships might be able to achieve tactical warp stabilization in the same timeframe as impulse stabilization.

By Jeff Guthridge (Jeff_Guthridge) on Friday, December 15, 2023 - 11:09 pm: Edit

Nick, your approach does you credit, but so long as the saucer or boom has 1 control space, one impulse space and one excess damage space left, its the better lifeboat. Remember the vast amount of 'stuff' stored in that last excess damage box. All of the galley supplies, the emergency life support supplies, the captain's Romulan Ale collection... The game -- for reasons of simplifying the grossly complex -- abstracts out a lot of these details, and one of the best places to put something that doesn't have a better defined home is in 'the last excess damage box'.

My take on the 'why' almost no pre-GW Federation hulls smaller than a DN had any warp on the saucer was because of the step after CD separation, that is escape by sublight evasion. A successful sublight evasion REMOVES the unit from play anyway, so again... We are not talking tactical scale here so what your proposing doesn't really offer anything more than post-combat flair. Don't forget that the Lollipop DD's eject their warp engines for sublight evasion as do a number of other ships. You need to jettison that potental BOMB away from the survivors when your trying to save your crew.

That brings me to another point. The Federation expends MATERIAL to preserve PEOPLE. The Klingons expends PEOPLE to preserve HIGH VALUE PEOPLE. Neither of these things needs the decoy left behind to take the damage needing to move on a time scale that needs tactical scale rules. Its an edge case less likely than breaking out a stored shuttlecraft during a scenario to use as a WW. Further down this line, specifically with the Federation, most of the really expensive to replace hardward short of the engines and their immediate control equipment is in the saucer anyway. A secondary hull would likely require almost 90% of the cost of a new construction ship of the same type to put back into regular service, where the saucer is probably closer to the 25% to 40% range.

Perhaps there is an edge case where a commando team or similar scalpel type solution renders the saucer or boom impossible to use.... It sounds like something that would have scenario specific rules (or similar hand-wavium) and/or be a squad-level (i.e. Prime Directive) in the first place.

So, the TL,DR: is that it is a lot of work your suggesting to be done for a situation that is unlikely to come up unless the situation is implicitly invoked. A brief mention of the possibility of a detached secondary hull given time and or external repairs moving under its own power again is reasonable. My suggestion is something on the magnitude of 500 repair points (external) to unlock the ability and/or fifty turns at base tech level, halving that for X1 and halving again for X2 ships.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, December 16, 2023 - 11:22 am: Edit

Koogie:

I'd think that there would be the same basic 2 hull base designs with already standardized 3 hull designs ready to go.

You need to be able to pump out those tugs too.

If you start with 3 hull designs you don't have that easy upgrade path.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Saturday, December 16, 2023 - 02:29 pm: Edit

Mike:

But 3-hull designs can grow up to 4-hull designs (CW -> NCA, DW -> HDW)

The 3-hulls have better firing arcs (FX disruptors on center warp).

You make a good point about the tugs.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Saturday, December 16, 2023 - 02:32 pm: Edit

Tholian 2X:

Should these be based on Neo-Tholian hulls, or do they continue the multiple PC-hull route for tradition? I prefer the former (restrict production of the WC as needed).

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Saturday, December 16, 2023 - 02:32 pm: Edit

Romulan 2X:

I assume any 2X-KR ships would be conjectural given the break up of their alliance, but should they get a 2X-King Eagle for tradition?

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Saturday, December 16, 2023 - 02:35 pm: Edit

Hydran 2X:

It was mentioned in X1 that fusion beams were found to be ineffective against X-ships, and that production switched to hellbore versions.

If we can assume that non-X ships in the 2X era would be rare, do we see only hellbore 2X ships with small numbers of fighters, or improve the fusion beam to make it viable against 1X/2X ships (for tradition).