Curses, foiled again.

Here's my version.

http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/fedaltddx.gif

It was a tight squeeze to get everything into the saucer. Mine has slightly less weapons than either the official DDX or Mike's. I originally gave it a 150 BPV too, but dropped it because of the lack of weapons when I saw the official DDX had 155.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 08:35 pm: Edit

Tos,

I think that's where the consensus is. In the X2 era, there is no need to make a distinction between the XCA and the XCC, just like in X1, because the CAX and XCA both have 10 command ratings.

After the Xork invasion, there will be a need for a monster cruiser, basically a BCH or DN upgraded to X2 technology. Since nobody wanted to mention X3, the term XCC was used to describe this, while XCA is the heavy and/or command cruiser in The Trade Wars era (Y205)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 08:45 pm: Edit

I'm going with the XCC that will get a upgrade to XCH if needed for the Xorks. The Feds will get a CM that is a very capable MC1 ship.

What it really turns out to be is anyones guess because it depends on the quality of the designs.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 08:55 pm: Edit

Me, too. I made the XCA/CC, and an XBC for post-Xork period. It is, indeed, a monster.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 01:20 am: Edit

Personnally I don't see any real need for worrying about names.


War Cruiser-Light Cruiser-Heavy Destroyer, who really knows which is which, surely it's a matter of what will get the "supply Bill" through the "parliment" that causes the name to be stuck on the ship.

Our FFGs ares slower than our DDGs ( if we have any left ) and yet they are called FAST frigates.
Don't worry about the names, the names are a product of government tampering and "pork-barrelling", it's the actual BPV and number of SSD boxes that makes for play.


Honestly a E3 and an F6 are both Frigates but no one in their right mind would say they can be made to battle each other.


If we say some races had war-cruisers and some had light cruisers and some had medium cruisers and some had assault destroyers but they're all in the 240-280 BPV range then that's cool and X2 can work just fine that way.
Let each race's deliniation be a product of that race's culture and be happy with that.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 11:45 am: Edit

Where the terms matter is movement cost. Most assume a CA is MC=1.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 08:28 pm: Edit

mjc said:

---

Quote:

If we say some races had war-cruisers and some had light cruisers and some had medium cruisers and some had assault destroyers but they're all in the 240-280 BPV range then that's cool and X2 can work just fine that way.
Let each race's deliniation be a product of that race's culture and be happy with that.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 12:10 am: Edit

If you want...
I would have said...
MC1:- CA
MC3/4:- CL
MC2/3:- DD
MC1/2:- FF

Just for the time being, I can see some races have FFs at 1/3 & others at 1/2 and some DDs at 1/5 & others at 2/3 and likewise some CLs at 2/3 but for the sake of discussion we'll just use a standard set of BPVs and names ( XFF etc ) and then develop the class to put on the SSD based on what each race would have done.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 12:55 am: Edit

Well I would have said:

MC 1.50: BCH(X2)
MC 1.25: CA(X2)
MC 1.00: CM(X2)
MC 0.75: CL(X2)
MC 0.66: DD(X2)
MC 0.50: FF(X2)
MC 0.33: POL(X2)
MC 0.25: PF(X2)

but there is no chance that we will reach an agreement on X2 nomenclature this early in the process.

By Mark James Hugh Norman (Mnorman) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 03:34 am: Edit

Tos and MJC: Why should every race agree on the same nomenclature themselves. After all, they havn't before (klingon frigates and Tholian heavy cruisers for example)

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 01:11 pm: Edit

They won't, I wasn't trying to argue that they would. But it would be nice if there were some way of being able to use a common set of terms to simplify our discussion. At least it seems cleaner to say 'my CL' than 'my MC=0.75 SC=3 ship'.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 02:58 pm: Edit

You CAN say that right now. It's just there are a few exceptions.

Currently, a cruiser is a SC3, MC 1 critter. There are a few exceptions that prove the rule, the tholian C being one of them.

Prion to R7 (for simplicity's sake), a DN was a MC 1.5, Sc2 critter. in fact, all DNs were SC 2 with the possible excption of the Jindo and all were MC=1.5 except the Jindo and the tholian.

I don't see any point to an absolute regementation of ship size. The exceptions add spice. Legislating exactly what each ship type is lends to cookie-cutterism. That happens enough as it is. No need to give additional encouragement.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 03:17 pm: Edit

For X0 it gets fuzzy sometimes but I generally accept:
MC 1.50: DN(X0)
MC 1.25: DNL(X0)
MC 1.00: CA/BCH(X0)
MC 0.66: NCL/CW(X0)
MC 0.50: DD(X0)
MC 0.33: FF(X0)
MC 0.20: PF(X0)

The thing is X2 may break the mold on some of these 'assumptions'.

In particular I have drawn a working theory that X2 ships are larger than X0 ships. The play balance objective I am trying to achieve is to create an X2 ship that does not have enough power at speed 31 to overload all weapons and max EW. Giving ships too much available power at max speed makes the game boring IMO. I am hoping that a higher movement cost will drain just enough excess power to retain the concept of choice in the EAF.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 04:07 pm: Edit

Man, we're going full circle here. Waaaaaay back when this first started last winter, the very first proposal for a ship I put out was almost exactly that; that MC 1.25 for a SC1 ship was a way to balance toughness and excess power. I like it, myself.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 10:27 pm: Edit

I'm not a fan, sorry.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 11:07 pm: Edit

I agree, the basic cruiser design should be SC3/MC1. The whole game is based on that original paradigm and I think X2 should follow suit. One way to balance the added power of X2 is to give X2-ships things to use up that power (EW/defenses/tractors/heavies/X2-widget/etc.). These "things" aren't necessarily more powerful things, just more flexible things. Gives a skipper more choices to work with.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 12:33 am: Edit

That's the thing, its just nomenclature again.

In my world the medium cruiser is the standard cruiser and is SC3/MC1. The CC is really a BCH but at MC=1.25.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 08:41 am: Edit

I'ld like to see a change such that the cruiser is MC1 ( all cruisers except light unless the light cruiser simply becomes a prerefit XCA ) but have the SC as 2 not three...that'll be like the Enterprise B which is a heck of lot larger than the Enterprise A.


But that's just me.


At anyrate the nomencalture doesn't need to be dealt with unless we are talking in gross generalities. I get along just fine by saying, take an X1 such and such and make the following changes.

If we must be precise and talk about "My XFF ( BPV 135, MC 0.33, SC4 )" then we can say that, sure it's not cool or slick but hell, everyone'll know what you're talking about.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 08:55 am: Edit

I have no objections to exploring that path; and I have to admit, it has a certain appeal. There's only so much you can do to a MC1 hull. Adding lots of goodies and systems while maintaining that move cost starts to feel a bit unfair after a bit. A SC3, MC 1.25 cruiser doesn't offend me...it just feels different. I like it because it provides easy solutions to otherwise sticky problems, such as excess power, "eggshell cannon" syndrome, and the need to invent complicated new rules or systems to soak up that power. Keeping an X1 power curve on a larger ship is worth playing with, I think. But, that's me. We scrapped this idea long ago out a general desire to keep the cruiser at MC1, but there's no reason we can't revisit it.

By Mark James Hugh Norman (Mnorman) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 11:13 am: Edit

How about the standard X2 cruiser being MC1, but the XCC being MC1.25.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 01:19 pm: Edit

Sounds good to me

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 09:17 pm: Edit

Personnally I think the 1.25 MC will cause a big I DON'T LIKE MULTIPLICATION DURING PLAY scream from certain people.

Upping the SC to 2 but keeping MC1 will give us the reason for having so many boxes, ( we are thinking of having extra boxes for the longer term missions of the X2 ships right !?! ) without making it feel as though we have no interest in limiting the ships by just continuing to cram more SSD Boxes onto an SC 3 MC 1 ship.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 10:10 pm: Edit

You know people that won't play a non-MC1 ship and don't use fractional accounting? I don't think those are X2 buyers. They should probably stick with their cadet ships.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 10:17 pm: Edit

DNLs were pretty well accepted at 1.25. I really can't see people throwing a fit when the movement chart is right there on the ship.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 01:04 am: Edit

If we go to a MC1.25 that would imply that the typical X2-Cruiser is larger than its predecessors, either topping out the SC3 range or bottoming out the SC2 range. Otherwise where's the advance in having an X2-Cruiser that's the same size as a pre-X2-Cruiser but that has to pay more power for movement?