Well, I though about that and realized, if you have the power for the ASIF you have power for Life Support. You can go to E-LS when crippled but I think the two should be linked. The standard SIF that all ships have is part of the standard LS. The ASIF is an extention of that. I feel that if you want the ASIF you have to power the primary SIF systems first and thus LS.

That's the way I wish to propose it. The link beween the two could be separated and still use the same row on the EAF. Just write it like this: "1+4". Or something like that. Anyway, we don't need a new EAF line and that's a good thing.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Agreed.

The alternative would be to add the cost at the shield line. That's what I do.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 06:36 pm: Edit

It then might depend on how a particular ASIF works.

Ultimately, either may do but I figured that there is only one cost for life support (powered or not powered) so any power beyond that is clearly for something else. Shields have two settings so in some odd situations it might be ambiguous. If writen in the A+B method it's easier. I prefer to be able to write it as one number.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 07:14 pm: Edit

I and most of the people use a single number for shield cost, so it would be an A+B situation at either place.

or equally combinable at either line.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 07:54 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

The alternative would be to add the cost at the shield line. That's what I do.

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 08:19 pm: Edit

MJC,

The way I do it on a CA hull is:

min shields: 1
Full shields: 2

I do not write "1+1" for full shields. No point. Who *wouldn't* realize I'm paying for full shields? I can't remember a SSD I didn't see shields written that way.

So If I have the ASIF on the shield line as
2+[ASIF cost], that should be clear. As clear as doing 1+[ASIF cost] on the Life Support line.

I'm not saying paying on the LS is bad or unworkable, but the ASIF is, in the end, a shield, so it should go on the shield line if it isn't confusing.

And it isn't.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 08:54 pm: Edit

And that's what I meant by what the ASIF ends up being. I agree, if the ASIF is a type of shield then it should be paid for on the shield line.

My proposal is not a type of shield so I am writing that it should be paid on LS. I think John T.'s is more of a shield and on the shield line is appropriate.

It all depends on what ends up happening. There may be no ASIF so this is moot.

At least we all agree there is no need to change the EAF (which is somethng I had considered).

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 05:23 pm: Edit

Here's a question. By the end of the Wars, what is the real difference between a DD and a CL? Couldn't the X2-DD be built to replace the CL thereby reducing the number of hulls a race needs to build in the post-war period? I figure a DDH for all intents and purposes is a CL.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 05:47 pm: Edit

For one thing a DD is a different size class. This can affect any number of things.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 07:29 pm: Edit

True but what effectively is the difference? Why have the two different classes in X2?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 09:41 pm: Edit

I'm mixing the CL in with the CM class. There might be some CL's but mostly the CM is a MC1 ship with 90% the armorment and 80% the beef of the XCC. Romulans may still maintain a true CL but most will get a CM.

Hmmm, no Klingons get a CL too. It's the X2 version of the D5.

I see the XDD doing a lot of work in the X2 era, fulfilling most variant roles and as a fast attack ship. Probably often paired with a CM they will be more than a match for a XCC. An XCC with two XDD will be a truely frightening sight!

IMHO

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 11:19 pm: Edit

For X1, several races have distinct CL and DD classes.

Romulans: SPX (1 Pl-M, 2 Pl-S, 30 warp) vs. SKX (2 Pl-S, 24 warp)
Gorn: HDX (1 Pl-M, 2 Pl-S, 32 warp) vs. BDX (1 S, 2 L, 24 warp)
Lyran: CWX (4 disr, 30 warp) vs. DWX (3 disr, 24 warp)
ISC: CLX (2 Pl-M, 4 rear Pl-L, 32 warp) vs. DDX (2 Pl-L, 2 rear Pl-L, 24 warp)

Using this pattern (more weapons and 30-32 warp for CL, DD has fewer weapons and 24 warp), I'd say the:

Fed DDX is an X-CL (no real Fed X-DD)
Klingon D5X is an X-CL and FX is really an X-DD (no real Klingon X-FF like the Fed FFX or Rom SEX)
Kzinti CMX is an X-CL (no Kzinti X-DD)
Tholian DDX is an X-DD (no Tholian X-CL)
Hydran LNX is an X-DD (No Hydran X-CL)

So, for the X1 era, five races (add the Klingons) have distinct CL/DD classes, and the DDs have 3/4 to 2/3rds the warp and between 3/4 and 1/2 the heavy weapons of the CLs.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 01:14 pm: Edit

The primary difference is the move cost.
DD = 1/2
CL = 2/3

It's true that both ships will have the same role, that of general workhorse.

X2 ship	X0 ship	role
XFF	FF/DD	Light ship and source of varients
XDD	OCL	Workhorse
XCL	CA	Big workhorse
XCA	DN	Enforcer / flagship
XDN	BB	Big enforcer (conjectural?)

Some races have a more traditional DD, while others have a more traditional CL.

I would expect that Module X2's SSD book would include XFF, XDD, XCL, and XCA SSDs for each of the major races. OK, maybe 3 out of 4.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 01:47 pm: Edit

I think the heavy weapon differences also carry over.

Again the the exception of the Fed DDX (personally I'd have taken the extra 6 warp and the 2/3 move cost) most DX's have 2-3 heavy weapons (the Flingon FX comes to mind).

I think this conversation is born of the fact that the *Feds* have blurred the line between the DD and CL. If you look at the FX, D5X, DX, you'll find good differentiation among the Klingons and that Klingon-style is the norm and the Feds are the exception.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Eagle) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 02:28 pm: Edit

Question: Can the Flingons deploy Plamsa torpedoes in X2? I recall seeing a nice little FF with three heavy weapons in different disputor/plamsa combos.
Of course it had a duffle coat too.

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 03:12 pm: Edit

Looking more closely, the Tholians do have an X-CL -- the CCX/CPX. The NCX is their true X-CA.

So six races have distinct X-CL and X-DD classes in service, and everybody except the Federation has ships that are distinctly part of the X-CL (2/3 move, 30-32 warp, full CA heavies) or X-DD (1/2 move, 24 warp, reduced heavies vs. CA) patterns.

And the Federation ship is really an X-DD now that I view it through the prism of the Federation tradition of DDs with CA heavy armament.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Eagle) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 03:31 pm: Edit

Note that my previous post was not supposed to be ironic or so

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 06:24 pm: Edit

So basically it comes down to a matter of racial flavor for pro-CL/no-CL. I would recommend that the Feds stay away from the X2-CL given that the X0-CL was a "hasty" cruiser built from old stock. Which races would likely build true X2-CLs in addition to their X2-DDs? In other words, whose starship philosophy mandates a cruiser class (SC3) counterpart to the destroyer (SC4)?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 07:11 pm: Edit

There really isn't room for a CL in the Fed fleet.

This can't happen but I would have made a DDX as a classic DD to the CX, a modified CX saucer with the CX's 4x FH P-1, 2x LS/RS, 3x photons instead of 4, a single 20-point Center warp engine (plus 2 in the saucer like the CX), 4 impulse, with the rest of hull layout like the NCL. Maybe a CL9 candidate...

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 08:13 pm: Edit

John, I bet Mike Raper would whip up a SSD for that. I like it. Very retro.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 08:16 pm: Edit

I'll see if I can bet him to it.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 09:20 am: Edit

Maybe we are going about this backward. There seems to be a certain amount of ground swell for an uber-CA(X2). What if the DD and the CL existed in numbers but the CC is a BCH/DNL equivilent and quite rare?

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 10:43 am: Edit

Tos that was part of my Rom proposal. The XCC didn't even come out until not that long before the Xorks show up.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 02:12 pm: Edit

As it happens, I did such a thing last year some time, more for fun than anything else. It takes the forward hull of the DDX, and puts on the 20 point center engine. Here's the SSD:

R2.?? Federation Single-Engine DDX

There are a few differences between this and what's described above; mostly, that it has the DDX hull and not a modified CX hull. It is very "retro" looking, though.

And, just for funsies...

R2.?? Federation Single-Engine 2X-DD

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 03:16 pm: Edit

Those are pretty cool Mike.