Archive through June 23, 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 23, 2003
By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, June 14, 2003 - 09:00 pm: Edit

B

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, June 14, 2003 - 09:46 pm: Edit

A

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 02:39 am: Edit

A

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 08:59 am: Edit

A

With about 120-130 boxes inside the shields. I'm somewhat in favor of having 2X hull boxes take two hits to destroy (make one diagonal mark for the first hit, make a second diagonal to destroy.) if more durability is needed to avoid the sledghammers in fine china problem from rearing again.

Also, without the General War/ISC War/Andro War to force early deployments, the pattern might be an X2FF or DD, followed by a span of a year or more before the XDD, followed by a span of 3 to 5 years before the XCA/CC.

Most peacetime (or near peacetime) naval budgets try hard to NOT have overlapping deployments of new classes of ships. (They try to avoid this in wartime, too...)

One excuse to make XCCs with "room to grow" and refits (which I like for flavor) is that during the long development process, things ran over budget, or budgetary cycles were trimmed, and thus, the designs had to be changed as the product's scope changed a bit.

Look at the YIS dates for the FF, DD and CA on the Feds for an example, or the fluff on why the Gorns have the smallest CW with the HDD

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 09:45 am: Edit

Quote:

Since you've served on naval ships and I haven't, tell me: How much space is wasted?


I have never been a member of any military body and hopefully never will.

Space is wasted everywhere, consider freeboard ( the height from the waterline to the deck edge), why does it exist?

Two reasons, to counter act the effects of waves ( as they would sink the ship otherwise ) and to counter act the effects sinkage ( via lost displacement or added weight as the water floods in (which ever method of calculation you prefer) such that even those a handful of compartments on the vessel have been flooded, waves still do not rush over your deck and send water into every compartment of the hull ( the deck is not required by law to be attached in a water tight manner to the hull and at anyrate the water will quick flow down the ventilation cowls).

If one were to say that the ship armed with the most weapons is the best ship then ship would have practically no freeboad at all and move around on the principle, that by hitting first and destroying the enemy vessel(s) that the ship doesn't need much freeboad.
Pity help any such ship that run across a submerged rock.

Indeed most of a ship is waste, consider the freeing-ports and the scuppers.
When you need to use the scuppers the ship is in harbour and since harbours are very calm you won't need to use the freeing-ports at the same time as the freeing-ports.
Since they are both holes cut in the bulwark and opperating in their function at different times, why not use the one set of holes as both!?!...because by maritime law you can not.
There's a lot of waste just naturally built into ships.


Quote:

If you're a naval architect, are you ever going to design a ship with less than maximum weapons capability?


Yes....Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes.

A Cruiser hull can hold a lot of 16' guns becuase it's easy for a ship with that kind of TPC to get few tonnes of displacement, infact an extra 16' guin would probably increase the draft of a cruiser by 1 inch if that, yet it's hard to find more than about 6 on the weather deck.
Why!?!
Because there's no point in having lots of guns if the barrels bump into the backs of the other turrets, creating a blind spot ( straight on ) that the enemy can easily capitalise on.
And at a certain point the AMMO for those huge numbers of guns will weigh so much ( or are we goinbg to ration the Ammo so that more guns opperate off the sanme number of shells ) that the extra "wetted surface" will create a huge "drag problem" such that the ship can't make battle speed ( which becomes another fatal flaw ).

Then there is the fact that mounting the guns low will create a more stable ship so we could have more guns mounted low in fixed mounts or we could have fewer guns but in turrets that can travers a wide feild of fire. Don't laugh this actually was an issue in naval architecture in the late 19th century.


The designed number of guns for a huge number of reasons shall be far lower than the number of gun the ship could conceivable carry.


To the Poll:-
C & E

E being that their should be an X2 CCH or BCH to just top off the the ships ( particularly for the Xork invasion ) and those ships should go with the 1.25 MC!

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 11:00 am: Edit

I think the poll needs to be modified.

What do you want for the Y205 X2 heavy cruiser?
A - SC3, MC 1
B - SC3, MC 1 1/4
C - SC2, MC 1
D - SC2, MC 1 1/4

Second question, after the Xorks arrive, What do you want for the Y225 X2 heavy cruiser?
A - SC3, MC 1
B - SC3, MC 1 1/4
C - SC2, MC 1
D - SC2, MC 1 1/4

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 11:08 am: Edit

The poll was archived so I'm reposting it for crearity. Thanks to those who participated. I'd like to leave it open for the rest of the week to get the most answers. Of course, feel free to post other topics. This is not a Poll thread so don't let me get in the way. :)

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)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 11:13 am: Edit

MJC: I wanted to see a similar thing but I was thinking the current XCC would be refitted into a XCB.

On the other hand I could see having the situation you speak of (A XBCH at SC2/MC1.25).

Maybe for the first X2 Cruiser they would keep it at MC1 but its going to be right on the line between size classes.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 11:27 am: Edit

Sorry Jeff, I was posting while you were. A little while back some agreed that we should focus on Y205 X2 and let the Xork era work its self out after that is establshed. Could we stick with the original poll for now? Comments with results are welcome so its pretty open.

We can post another later. Or if needed start a new poll in the Poll Thread.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 09:31 pm: Edit

Quote:

Maybe for the first X2 Cruiser they would keep it at MC1 but its going to be right on the line between size classes.


Or maybe the first race to launch an X2 vessel launched a XFF but they though the correct lable was an XDD on acount of the size but it turned out to be an XFF ( still as good an a DDX ) after it'ld seen space trials and more was known about movement cost and warp signature and things that the enemy can detect ( see S levels of Tac Intel ).


C
D
But I think I've already made that clear.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 09:35 pm: Edit

I'm straight on A-A

But I think I've made that clear too.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 10:03 am: Edit

A For the XCA/XCM
D For the XCC

My reasoning is that while the XCA/XCM are relativley common. (Comapred to the XCC.) The XCC should fall into the DN role for deployment. IE 1 Per fleet/border.

Xork invasion XCC's could have a number of improvements. Much like the upgrade of the Fed DN+-DNH.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 01:24 am: Edit

A for CM(X2)
D for CC(X2)

The CC(X2) is the fleet flag and should be limited by S8 to one per battle, at least until the Xorks come. I think it is important to make it SC2 for several reasons but recognize that by doing so we may be forced to change the name to something other than CC.

The X2 Timeline thread introduced the concept of the naval treaty that limited each empire to a certain number of hulls and tonnage after the Andros are gone http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/23/2624.html?1055181036 , At one point the January 30, 2003 - 11:57 pm timeline post had shown some wide acceptance, but its due for a review based on our progress to date. The treaty widens the neutral zones by creating free trade zones. The theory is that by having wider neutral zones and verifiably limiting hulls and tonnage you effectively make it so that no race has the offensive power to start a war of conquest. Arming the free planets and trade cartels with general war surplus ships sets the stage for the trade wars. X2 ships would be designed to operate for extended periods alone in an environment of light to moderate hostility not unlike a Y167 border patrol but with three or more sides and shifting alliances.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 02:29 am: Edit

I agree with you Tos, but would like to point out a couple things. Well already have a situation of widened neutral zones imposed by the ISC. The Andros came and no one had time to retake their old territory. In the mean time the planets not devistated by all the wars took advantage of that and solidified their independance. (Supplement two even had pirates going lagit because of the incredable oppertunities) So rather than a treaty widening the zones I see the races struggeling to rebuild their Empires. I do see a treat drawn to limit hull sizes. In supplement two the Organians imposed it but I think that all the races would agree among themselves so as not to have to build XDN's (big, big money) and also to be able to rebuild and restructure their Empires without worrying that the other guy is gearing up for war. Every body must be tired of war. Even the Klingons need time to train new wariors having lost most of their good ones. Winning the war against the Andromadins is a great victory that all the races would celebrate and in that good spirit such a treat would easily be drafted and retified. (Hmmm, I think I feel some fiction writing comming on...or is that just the chili. :O)

Anyway, just when the tretchery starts up again the Xorks show up to get us all together again. At first there is chaos. Empires blaming each other for attacks that were Xorkalien and then some subterfuge where on race tries to take advantage of another weakness due to the attacks. Then desparate attempts by some to ally with the Xorks ending is assinations and scandal. Finally, the races see no choice and band together again to fight the Xorkaliens back to the far side of hell. We United Galactic Empires, we band of brothers. (Aaaaak, sorry about that! Got carried away)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 02:18 pm: Edit

Under that environment I can sorta rationalize an upward-spiral of X-hull size. A larger hull would have a better chance at survivability. That means you probably won't see expensive X2 tech expended on a FF-size hull anymore than expensive X1 tech is expended on PF's (or Pols for that matter. The only police ship I'd ever expect to see X-tech on is the lyran MP)

I can rationalize a SC2, MC 1.25 ship called a XBCH as the absolute biggest X2 hull that could be built.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 02:41 pm: Edit

Well, I was thinking that the first would be called a XCC. Command Cruiser since where ever it is ITS in Command. Then there would be refits that would make it a XCB (Xork Era) refered to as Battle Cruiser. The term BCH would be a thing of the past.

This slight change in terms goes with the era and the environment, I think. And at SC2, MC1.25 the XCC would be at the low end of the Size Class. When I look at the SSD for my XCC I think, this is pushing SC3. At SC2 it is not an issue. Further, at MC1.25 it does get a bit more power. Fitting of the X2 grandure. The XCM is a very capable ship about the size of the old CC's but with X2 tech. This would be the one played most often. It is SC3/MC1.
The XCC has taken the DN roll. I don't want to see XDN's.
The (XS8.331) rule for the XCC (SC2/MC1.25) should be that only one appears in a scenario but can appear alone (unlike before when SC2 ships had to appear with two or three other ships).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 05:44 pm: Edit

You could simply state at the XBCH functions as a dreadnought for all S8.0 purposes.

I would prefer to reserve BCH for the SC2 monster (DN replacement, right?) and keep XCA, XCC and XBC (posibly XCB also) for the SC3 guys.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 10:04 pm: Edit

I don't want to see XDNs in the Trade Wars era.

XDNs are an option worth considering for the Xork period.

But once the Xorks arrive, no telling what the Galactics will need to build in order to survive (and win).
After all, if the XBC or XCB is going to be a monster, then make it monstrous.
Personally, I'd rather just call it an XDN, rather than trying to shoehorn a SC2, MC 1 1/4 ship into the category "cruiser".

Remember that there's a 10-20 year gap between The Trade Wars and The Xork Invasion. That's enough time for priorities can change, and certainly enough for two separate modules, one for each time period. They don't have to be similar.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 10:24 pm: Edit

Seems like the SC2 monster is reserved for the Xorks.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 12:12 am: Edit

Xorks: Ya, they may forego heavy ship altogether. Carriers and atrition ships may be the only way to fight them. If an XDN is needed for the Xorks then they can be designed then.

Originally a Drednaught was a class of Battle Cruiser. SFB sort of made the DN its own class. The Cruiser of today would cream a DN of the past. This is sort of the reason I see going back to the heaviest ship being a cruiser. If fighters make a come back for the Xorks then I would like to see the really heavy hulls be carriers only. So you would have something like todays wet Navy. XFF, XDDs, XCM, XCC/XCB, XCV. No XDN because that is really the XCB (i.e. Battle Cruiser).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 02:13 pm: Edit

Things are too quiet. Time to stir the pot.

Since X2 comes so swiftly on the heels of X1, and considering how one-dimensional X1 engine power made X1 ships, increasing that power for X2 threatenes to make the same mistake.

We have to consider NO increase in warp power for X2 off the bat.

Maybe an upgrade when we get to the Xork war. When the normal XCA goes from 10x P-5 to like 14x for a XCCH (XCH?) We may want to go to 45 or 48 on a MC=1 hull then.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 02:58 pm: Edit

You know, you could even dial the power down to pre-X1 levels, and simply have some systems be more efficient in their use of said power. Heavy cruisers with a 2/3 move cost, type-I-equivalent phasers at a half-point each, shield reinforcement at a 2-for-1 ratio, more and better capacitors for heavy weapons, perhaps a capacitor setup for various non-weapon systems, etc. Perhaps the X1 route of increasing power production wound up as a dead-end street (much like some of the ludicrously over-powered engines that came out of Detroit in the 1960s turned out to be), in that the increased logistical demands of the X1 ships on a per-ship basis started to strain the logistical network too far (with greater demand for dilithium and anti-matter fuel).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 03:01 pm: Edit

Jessica, have you been reading this stuff all this time?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 03:10 pm: Edit

Jessica,

We could be it would just feel wrong. I'm irritated enough that the super-massive Jindo rock ships have better movement costs than normal. I'd hate to inflict that on everyone else.

2:1 shield reinforcement is one of the primary reasons Commander's X2 sucked IMHO.

Also we've put a lot of work in a differen evolutionary direction. I'd hate to retool

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 03:29 pm: Edit

I very much like the idea of the X2 crusier being a brand new, non-upgradeable, 42-44 warp cruiser.

That would actually make me very happy.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation