Archive through June 14, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
The "X" Files:
OLD X2 FOLDER:
The Generic X2 Hull:
Archive through June 14, 2003
I can see the need for a bigger, better crusier. But a DN sized cruiser? No matter what time period you are in, lets call a DN a DN shall we?
Building a XCC as large as a DN sounds like getting around the X1 rule of no DNXs or BCHXs.
I don't see it as building a XCC the size of a DN but I do see it being on the low end of the size class. I see the XCC as being very unique and upping the class ratings is one way it becomes that.
Anyway, here is a quick run down of the XCC I designed. It has ten Ph-5, two Ph-6 and four Photons. It is very similar to the BCH but has a few added things. Six shuttle being one. There are also a few of my own ideas that will come out in due time. I really want to present the whole picture but I have to finnish up on my RL stuff before I can dig into creating my web site.
Cfant: In X1 it states that the limitations of X1 tech did not alow for a X-Tech BCH but that eventually those problems were solved at that is what X2 is. So I'm not trying to get around anything, just using what's published.
John, I see the need for a cruiser like this in Y205. All the nations are rebuilding. Much is in disarray and the devestated zones are dangerous places and far from home. Sure the ship can return to a base in one F&E turn no problem but the ship will have to do more than maintain its own supplies. It is a National Represenative performing vital diplomatic tasks. It is Flying the Nations flag and holding and sometimes creating the line. This Fed. XCC I have is fully capable with what it has. There is room to grow since it is built on a SC2 hull. This room to grow comes from lessons learned in the past. "Its a great ship now but if something bad happens, Galactic Gods forbid, she can be better. She can be mighty!"
This could be a translation from all 12 primary languages. Everybody would get that. With all the refitting and redesigning that went on, why would they think nothing would change? Because the Organians declear a era of Tranquility? Last time they did that 30 years of all out war started. It would be foolish for them to think everybody would remain buddy buddy after the external threat is gone (or so they think. Now one knows about the Xorks except us!) Peace is just a breather.
Loren,
If the ship can be made better now, it should be.
Turned around, you're consciously choosing to undergun your ship.
Suppose someone else doesn't?
Me, if I'm building a warship, I'm going to nake it a WARship and as nasty as I can build it. The General War taught that lesson.
Otherwise you're incurring yard time for refits at the exact time when you need your ships out there the most. Or getting them toasted by people who chose as I did: to make them as nasty as they could.
Just because there is room to grow doesn't mean the space isn't being utilized, it is. But the mission at hand isn't for a Brissiling with guns warship. Its for a powerful Flag ship designed for a miriad of missions. Also, the expense of maintaining a overgunned warship is not worth it during relative peace. What this ship does well is enforce the peace and rebuild an empire.
The XCC will go in a handle and situation then let others come in a clean up, stabilize, and set up control. One easy mission is to show up as the Fleet Flagship and negotiate (each empire in its own way) and settle a treaty while offering protection from danger (even if that danger might be the XCC its self as might be the case with several races). After negotiations are settled the XCC calls in a XCM or XCL with a couple specialized XFFs and they set up the details of security and trade. They establish secure routes and such while the XCC patrols not too far away. Then the Freighters move in and set up bases or what have you and now you have a new addition to the Nation.
Another would be a competative trade negotiation where the Klingons and the Feds (or whom ever) send there best to win the loyalty of that neutral zone planet. The Feds bring offerings as well as the Klingons do too. Oh man, Pirates show up. No worries, we're flying the XCC. We've got EVERYTHING we need right here, for whatever. "Captain, when you finnish negotiations a Sittulgis Six go investigate the anomolus reading we are getting from M19."
WAR, INVASION! Quick, ripp out that cargo, convert that space between the hull, turn the pool (or firing range) into barracks. Put more phasers on it. Cost? Cheaper than loosing to the enemy.
Please don't think I'm being sarcastice or patronizing. I really hope I don't come across that way. I'm just trying to speak to my point while being creative and share my vision and all. 
I think there's a fundamental misundestanding here about starship hulls. People don't design starship hulls with the intention of upgrading them if needed. That's designing the ship to be second-best. You make the best ship you can with what you got at the time. You redesign and refeit when change reaches a point where it's worth the money to refet the hulls in service and change how the stardock crews assemble new ones.
In my mind, when the Feds sat down and designed the CA, they didn't choose to leave room for improvement. They designed the best they knew how, a cruiser as capable in war as peace.
Time marches on and they discover weakenesses in the design: being taken from behind, inadequate seeking weapon defense as drone speed increases. Also technology improves that make P-1's and photons get more compact. I can take some of that saved weapons space, plus eliminating a rec room and maybe the bowling alley and wedge in some rear-facing P-1's to answer the back-attack vulnerability and add a G-rack for drone defense and some 0-power offense.
A little bit later, I really need a completely lean, mean killing machine. I sit down and take all I've learned about how a starship takes damage, how much I can squeeze the crew with small rooms and narrow corridors, take all the space I get from that and invest all the available tech advances. I make what could only be called a monster compared to that first CA: the BCH.
At this point I've pushed the hulll design as far as it will go. The combined kick from the weapons is on the edge of buckling the hull. In some cases (New Jersey, Killerhawk), they DO buckle the hull. Anything more and the hull with tear itself apart trying to fight. The hull is at its limit.
My point with all this is that what I can do with a ship does evolve over time, just like what I could do with an airplane evolved over WWII.
X-technology starts this process over, but that doesn't mean I intentionally leave the design at less than cutting-edge efficiency.
Look at the RW. The next Big Thing in the world of american fighters was going to be the F-22, right? Instead, we're holding out for the F-33. Why? Because we don't invest in second-best. That doesn't mean that we won't tinker with them tomorrow and make them even better, we will. But we aren't going to accept a fighter that isn't the best that can be made.
Can you imagine the conversation?
"We can mount 8 missiles on the fighter right now and if you ever need them, you can take them back to the factory and we'll upgrade them to 10. for a fee, of course."
"Of course. You can do that right now?"
"yes."
"10 Missiles."
"Yes."
"But you're trying to sell me the version that has 8."
"Well, see we thought you'd like the expandability..."
"I'll buy the version with 10 and you get working on 12."
Quote:I think there's a fundamental misundestanding here about starship hulls. People don't design starship hulls with the intention of upgrading them if needed. That's designing the ship to be second-best. You make the best ship you can with what you got at the time. You redesign and refeit when change reaches a point where it's worth the money to refet the hulls in service and change how the stardock crews assemble new ones.
In my mind, when the Feds sat down and designed the CA, they didn't choose to leave room for improvement. They designed the best they knew how, a cruiser as capable in war as peace.
I wonder how much you know about R.W. Nav' Arch'...Ships are still required to carry a sandbox in the engine room despite having heavier than air, inert gas extinguishing systems.
...But it makes a cool place to stow your beer.
I once was on a ship. It had a conventional straight six, two stroke desiel engine ( the Engine was like three station-waggons stacked on top of each other and the ship was over 270 m long ).
The Engine originally had mounted on it a system of turbo asperiation and turbo exhaust.
That system had been removed and a larger Engine installed.
Why!?!...because a simple larger engine would provide all the power needed with less wastage of fuel.
This is a commercial vessel not a custom built car that has had it's engine replaced by some petrolhead.
Ships are not like cars and not much like planes, they are so big and so expensive that refits rather than replacements are ecconomically viable.
Now imagine the conversation.
"We can sell you this Jet fighter with 10 missiles, but it'll cost you 25% more and it'll have heating problems ( part of starships energy to fire phasers is also spent running the cooling system ) and it'll have drag problems and it'll have a reduced range due to the fact that fuel tanks in the wings need to be reduced so that reinforcing ribs can be run through the wings to support the extra weight...or you purchase the 6 missile model, with a contract for refit at a specific price in the future if war breaks out."
Then think of any country other than the U.S of firggin' A and you realise that there's an ecconomic factor.
Ask yourself why Israel flys F-16s ( that they manufacture themselves under contract ) rather than F-18s ( which they could also manufacture under contract )?
Israel only plans on fighting a defensive war so the number one reason one would fly a twin engine fighter ( the "BEST" KIND OF FIGHTER ) is no longer a valid part of the equation ( that is the ability to get back to friendly territory on the one remaining engine, Israel knows it's pilot are very likely to be bailing out over friendly territory anyway ) but the extra 8 million US dollars for that second engine is still a valid concern.
That very same ship I was on had in the design an area in the quarterdeck that was specifically designed in the plans to be ready such that if at any stage ( even though the engine replacement was not known to be needed but rather it was known that the life span of many Engines in larger ships is shorter than the life span of the ship it'self ( even though the design lifespan of a ship is only 20 years, they tend to get opperated for a longer time, that ship was 28 when I was on it ) so the ink was put to paper in the knowledge that there MIGHT be a future need )...the engine needed to be replaced, the ship would go to a dry dock, some welders would hit the lines on the plans with a "fire-axe" and that section of the quarterdeck would be removed so that the engine could be unbolted from it's bed, lifted via crane out and a new engine lowered in, in it's place.
If designed room for refits is placed into COMMERCIAL VESSELS of the 20th Century, how much more so will MILITARY vessels of the 23rd Century have such designs!?!
Four 24 point Photons & 8Ph-5s & 2X2G-racks hurling 24/6/32 drones is going to beat the snort out of most dreadnoughts and even a few battle ships...and certainly all the X1 cammand cruisers running around.
Why spend the money...and violate the treaty creating new arms race, just to PROTECT against the possibility that someone else will STAB YOU IN THE BACK, when you can take that same money, build an XFF ( which'll both have the strategic speed to help "gang-up" with you if the enemy does build an XCH & have the firepower to assits you if the enemy pushes into your territory AND have the seperate scanners to make the enemy attempt to slip through the gaps less likely ).
Knowing that you can later go up to four 24 point Photons 12Ph-5 and Two 24/8/40 drone chuckers in a matter of months after hostilites begin is a good thing and spending the ink and bytes to retain that ability is worth the effort but kicking off a war because an easily-lost-arms-race is ON THE CARDS is very bad things and so simply retaining the abilty to refit IF everything goes pair shaped is well worth the effort especially if it saves you the expense of rebuilding two Empires ecconomies.
Some people don't put themselves in otherpeople's shoes ( and it's a very common American trait ). Consider if you will why the Soviets moved their nuclear missiles to Cuba.
The American Nuclear missiles in Turkey were closer to Moscow than the missiles in Cuba were to Miami but the Americans refussed to consider that the Rusians had been placed at a legitamtate tactical disadvantage.
It wasn't until the US secretly agreed to remove missiles from Turkey that the Russians turned their ships around...but it took about a week longer than it should have because for some strange reason ( can you say human nature ) one side was unwilling to consider the possibility that it had a knief to its throat because the guy holding the knief didn't like having the first guy's knief against his own throat.
Hopefully in the varrious powers will review whether or not they have created a lousey situation for the other guy before they go looking to spit out FIGHTING WORDS.
It gets a little easier when you've got a treaty...but then there's an old American saying...TRUST BUT VARIFY.
So too, if there is a capital Phaser limit on your cruisers in your treaty but no restriction on how many MOUNTS the ship can run around with, then hell, the chances that anyone goes to a fully armed ship will be pretty slim!
As to larger ships, not everything has to be built around R&R.
The ships could be larger because the crew got larger.
When you have a longer duration mission then you can afford more crew for varrious task and that grows more crew.
You ship's doctor is aided by a ships surgeon, who is likely to have children, suddenly the one teacher in the ship's creche has enough children to require the ship to have two teachers.
The extra surgeon and teacher and several technichians and cooks needed to make those extra people feel right at home suddenly increase your population so you can afford to have other more specialised forms of personnel, say a cardiologist or a brain surgeon.
Because you've go these extra specialist you no longer need to stop at bases as frequently and so you'll start to get other specialists being needed, say an obstetrician.
Suddenly you need a really big ship.
You may also need to go to a larger ship because the changed mission and changed assumptions about the mission are revised.
Say you have a Hydroponic garden to gor your food for the crew because the admiralty assume you'll be on such long missions that you'll need to skip reprocessed food now and then and thus the effort was put into the garden.
You can even technobable around the Size class thing.
If the 1.5 points of power from your warp engines are bigger then regular boxes ( a lot bigger ) then you'll have huge engines so you might aswell biuld a big ship.
You might even say there was a design limitation, say the 50 Point shield generators that were used for the ships, couldn't be built onto a SC3 hull, they were just too big and so the Admiralty needed to choose between building these cruisers with X1 sheilding or going to DN sheild generators to get their 50 boxes on the #1...and that's exactly what they did.
We could say that a certian number of the ship's crew were robots ( some GW ships already have this ), they were handy and could do more than humans, especially in the vacuum of space in a heavy radiation zone but they needed massive computers controllinbg them to deal with un expected conditions and massive repair facilities and it was thus the robots that needed the ships to be larger.
We don't need to just say, it was extra bowling alleys brought on by longer missions that required the ship to be larger.
Speaking solely from a playability persective:
I would vastly prefer to NOT deal with a 1.25 movement cost 2XCA. It's one more lookup table I have to reference when playing, and thus, one more iota of "ugh, this is work, not fun", on top of learning all the changes in the rules from straight SFB.
There's no reason why the "rule of 100" (100 boxes on a CA for MC 1) need apply to X2. It's already broken on X1, where it becomes roughly the "rule of 110" with the extra phasers and warp engine boxes.
Making it the "Rule of 120" for X2 seems quite viable to me.
MJC,
Of course there's an economic factor and each empire's situation will drive their choices.
But no major power on the F&E map is in Israel's position so the comparison is wasted. As is the ability to rip out the decks of a ship to replace the engine. We're talking about committing space on a ship to "waste" in order to have the privelege of ripping the ship open just to use it some time later.
Since you've served on naval ships and I haven't, tell me: How much space is wasted? If you're a naval architect, are you ever going to design a ship with less than maximum weapons capability?
To go back to my own example, the only reason to take the 8 missile version than the 10 is if there is price vs. performance tradeoff. Often in american military we don't even care about that tradeoff, since we have the $'s to spread around. We want the best, we're willing to pay for it.
That will ceratinly be the attitude of most of the former Coalition powers, especially since the military landscape will be dominated by GW-tech ships with an elite corps of X-ships (this from SVC--his thought, my words).
X-ships would be wasted on mundane survey and most non-combat missions. If GW tech was going to be phased out and fleets going to all-X, there would be a polint. Otherwise, the boring assignments go to the regular navy. The X-ships are the hotshots. You send an X-ship, or more correctly an X-ship squadron, to show somebody you're serious about something.
X-ships therefore have one primary purpose: to kick butt and take names. they may be good at other things but those are nice side-benefits.
The Federation CA was built with room to grow. How do I know? Because it was eventually built into the CB.
All I'm saying is that the races would look to the past and design their ships to the required specifications on a hull that isn't maxed out with the first design. This is a ship not like the BCH which didn't have room to grow. It had a few places to accomodate variants but basically no room to grow. The Romulans took the phylosophy to the extreme with the Hawk series but I doubt the others would go so far as purely modular. But I don't think they would max out the hulls for war. They would build a ship that can adapt to change. Doesn't cost a maximum amount at first. Why would you want a ship designed for war during peace? But wouldn't you want that ship to accomodate changes for war if the need arises?
The older CA did have room for change but the designers didn't realize the kind of changes that would be needed. Indeed, had they had the foresight, the Fed. CB might have been able to be even more powerful a war ship. Maybe the Y175 refit would have had two G-Racks. All I'm saying is that this design is not a maxed out hull, which would be inefficient to opperate for the intended missions. This isn't a warcruiser design metality, its a longevity mentality.
IMO
Regarding XCC at MC1.25/SC2. Interesting how things have gone. It was looking like this is the way most wanted it but now some new people are speaking out. I'm not hard fast stuck on the idea, I'm flexable. I was pretty set on MC1 for the XCC but I opened up to the idea of a larger SC and MC because of the reasons above. By breaking the mold and stepping beyond the SC barrier the grand XCC has room to expand. Also, I am including a CM wich is roughly the size of a GW era CB which is MC1/SC3. Only the grand XCC would be the next step up. The CM would be the common cruiser.
It's been stated that the BCHs were the max that could be built. You couldn't pack anything more into that hull without building a bigger hull. Does that mean the hull itself was the biggest that can be built for SC3 or is there still wiggle room before you have to go to SC2?
One possibility about a SC2/MC1.25 ship (or even if it's still SC3) is that it could be termed a genuine battlecruiser (in the classic Age of Dreadnought fashion) in that it's a cruiser-sized (slightly larger) warship that is fast, not as armored as a battleship (dreadnought type), but carries the armament of a battleship. The DNL/DNF was close to this concept however I think a "true" battlecruiser (BC) would be based on a cruiser-sized hull (SC3) and has two warp engines (Fed version), but has DNL weaponry (X2-style). I think that could be the wartime-X2 SC3/MC1.25 ship.
Obviously it won't have a lot of extra room for other systems with all that weaponry (and aux power). It would definitely be something built for wartime (the design for which might be kept in reserve), and possibly even some long-lead-time components built and kept in storage.
Quote:We're talking about committing space on a ship to "waste" in order to have the privelege of ripping the ship open just to use it some time later.
I suppose this is where we missunderstand each other. I never meant committing space to non-use for future expantion. Thats the sort of thing you do on a prototype. But there is a difference between not maxing out a hulls limits straight out of the shipyard and that. The space is used but can be reused for other purposes. The disign has refittability in mind when it was drawn up. I see that as a sensable design consideration especially given the galactic history. Adding phasers and other stuff wont be a problem in my design but for now those extra weapons are not needed. This makes the ship less expensive, easier and cheaper to maintain, and more flexable for the mariad of mission it is expected to carry out. But if war does break out we haven't wasted our credits on a hull that cannot be made more fitting of a war situation.
All I'm saying is that X2 hulls are not maxed out hulls. But will likely get maxed out during the Xork invasion.
When looking at my SSD for the XCC it is easier to believe that it is not a maxed out hull when you notice it is SC2. I might go back to MC1 but 1.25 doesn't turn out to be so bad. The only problem is lay out of the SSD. Fitting all the stuff on the SSD was tight already. Adding the MC1.25 chart is...well, I don't know how I'm going to do it but I'll find a way.
Loren,
We are at two different viewpoints on this and I have had my say. I will stil chime in with thoughts when I have them (whouldn't be the first time I've put creative energy into a concept I wasn't in favor of) but I've made all the points I can think of on this phase of the process. We can agree to disagree, I think.
Guys, the BCH is not a Heavy Crusier.
It is not convertable from a CA, it is not like a CA, it is its own new class of ship.
It is the biggest, baddest possible design while still being a crusier.
The CX is the biggest baddest heavy cruiser. It is the progression from CA to CB to CX that we should be looking at, not the BCH.
X2. Will a CX be convertable to a XCA? If so, then we need to look at it as the next progression in a series. If not, then we need to go back to the original CA, and start over.
Loren, I am sorry but deliberatly undergunning a ship is just not going to happen after 30 years of war. If you can build a ship that can have all the LAB and hull you need and put 10xP5s on it, you are going to. You are not going to deliberatly leave off 2 of those P5s just so you can add them in later.
The CX has 12xP1. Assuming the P5 is an advancement, it is probably not going to be a huge weapon, but a more powerful weapon in a smaller box. So, putting 12xP5 on the XCA should be viable.
Cfant: It is not a deliberate undergunning of the ship. It is the ship that was called for. The specification of weapons, crew accomodations, cargo capacity, science facilities, shuttles deck size etc. Everything requested is on the ship but they didn't jam pack it all in the smallest package. The built a hull that could accomodate everything comfortably. But the future is uncertain and plans were put into place to upgun the ship if needed. Currently it is NOT needed. The added cost is NOT needed. THe added maintainance is NOT needed. THe response from other governments regarding a "Brissiling with weapon starship" is not needed.
John: Sure we can do that. I hope you are not offended in any way. I'm just debating. Both sides have valid points from their respective points of view.
I guess the core of my point is that I believe the races are starting fresh with a new fleets and design phylosophies. You restated what SVC said but eventually GW tech. will go to the way side (but that may be beyond the scope of the game). I see X1 as building on what was learned. But X2 as taking what was learned and starting from scratch.
Wait, who said that a well armed ship was not needed after just getting past about 30 years of war?
Loren,
Thanks for the concern, but I'm cool. I'm just at a point where I don't want to argue something to death. I have the choice of rehashing the same points with different words or letting go and letting talk progress.
If I think of a new angle, I'll toss it in.
It's not a question of undergunning a ship. It's just that "crusing range" doesn't show up well on an SSD.
The original CA was designed for a multi-role mission.
- Spend up to 3-4 years away from a base.
- Scientific research (OK, maybe just the Fed)
- Duel an enemy cruiser (but rarely would a ship be crippled)
- Fight/explore a monster
- Show the flag
- Lead a squadron (i.e., show a lot of flags.)
During the General War, some of these roles changed.
- Heavy combat.
- Scientific research was out the window (convert those extra labs for power)
- Heavy combat.
- Lead a squadron (but this time, neither side is backing down.)
- Heavy combat.
So when converting the CA to the CB, a lot of changes were made, some of which don't show up on the SSD.
- Change out each crewman's quarters for hot-bunks. (allows more stuff on the ship)
- Replace excess labs with power.
- Replace 4 years worth of supplies with 2 years of rations. (and use the space for another ph-1)
Fast forward to X2.
The stuff that was taken out of the CB needs to be put back in, if the ship is to have a multi-role mission.
Cfant: Thats the thing. It is well armed. It is so well armed and protected that it could take on a B-10. If need be it can be refitted like the original CA but this time they were prepared. Refitting is easier. The hull isn't maxed out so refitting is possible.
There is also the question of future technologies and varying needs. The ship can do its intended mission with grand style. But what will the needs be for the furture. Say you do max out the hull with Phasers and torpedoes. What if the unknown future enemy is not very vulnerable to energy weapons but drones with anti-matter really disrupt their special shields and... should your refit be heavy phasers or drones or something not yet developed. We as SFB players can see a bit of the possible realm that thing might turn out like but the Fictional Builders do not. They don't know how to out fit the ship for future possiblities. Hence, leave room to grow. Build the ship to fit the mission for sure. Don't leave room to grow but build it with room to grow.
I'll say this much. The idea of deliberately making the first generation of X2 ships "undergunned" came up because there was a general consensus that we wanted room to make them bigger/better when the Xorks arrive. My position on this, however, is that the first set of X2 ships are pretty much maxed out as is; they might get a new phaser or two, but the real heavy 2X hitters will be completely new, Y215 creations designed specifically to fight the Xorks. XBC's, for example.
The first few X2 ships are more multi-purpose, and are designed as such out of necessity. They can't just be uber-warships, because they'd be too expensive to operate. They won't be undergunned, because even though they may have less weapons, the ones they do have are markedly better. They will also have better shields, better labs, better engines, better batteries...darn near better everything. They don't HAVE to be a maxed out super hull, because everyone else is fielding the same thing. Then, along come the Xorks, and out trot the 1.25 MC XBC's and XCB's.
That's just how I see it...obviously, I don't speak for everyone. I do see having a 1.25 move cost for a SC3 cruiser as a reasonable approach, and frankly a more palatable one then having a 130 to 150 point 2X battle-cruiser running around with a move cost of 1 just because "it's a cruiser". That smacks of munchkinism.
All this aside, it may be more productive to focus solely on the first set of 2X ships, and forget the rest. We don't know anything about Xorks, and SVC has already said that planning X2 stuff based on what we predict the Xorks to be is a non-starter. For all we know, the ships we've seen posted up 'till now are already better than what the Xorks will bring to the game.
This is not, of course, an attack on anyone or their opinions; we're all in this together. Just my thoughts.
I agree with Mike. Just look at the first group of X2 ships the other stuff will come along when it needs to.
You can't desigen a ship and leave a bunch of stuff that you could put in there, but you just aren't.
You design a ship that meets your needs now, when those needs are no longer being met, you develop new ideas on how to improve what you have.
So are you saying the XCC should be MC 1.25 SC3 or SC2?
I would think so. Figure the first series of X2 would be medium cruisers, DD's, FF's, etc. There might be a few XCC's to act as sector command ships, but they'd still have to be pretty utilitarian...one reason I personally favor NWO options on most X2 ships.
I thought economic exhaustion was a factor in the X2 era. If that's true, then you have justification for keeping the ship as self sufficient as possible. Which means it's not likely to be as super-gunned as possible...other considerations took priority.
I figure the first ship out of the X2 docks might actually be a XDD. I'm thinking this would be because they used a DD hull as the prototype. Simultaniously the XCC would roll out (like 1 month after). The following year would be the XCM and the first XFFs. XCMs and XDD would be equal in production and XFFs produced at the highest rate. XCCs would be the least in numbers.
Like we all talked about before the plan would be for one XCC per front plus one home front plus one swing ship. THen the effort would be to double that. Mean while the other ships are building up in numbers.
Anyway, at this point I don't know what the size should be. I suppose there is not much bennifit (game wise) to having the XCC be SC2 (but I've taken a liking to the idea). What is the consensus on the matter?
How about a poll:
What size and Move Cost should the XCC have?
A) SC3/MC1
B) SC3/MC1.25
C) SC2/MC1
D) SC2/MC1.25
E) Other (please explain)