Archive through August 07, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 General Systems: Archive through August 07, 2003
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 11:27 pm: Edit

But it is not official in any form or fassion and basing a set of ideas off something that does not really exist in the game is building a foundation on sand.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 11:30 pm: Edit

Quote:

XCA: 285-315
XCC: 300-335

Nothing higher than 350 at all.


With an ISC CCX at 315 that doesn't leave any room for technological improvement in either offsensive or defensive departments.

Why not just Build CHX designs for X1R is you want to top off at that point.


With a 285-315 XCA how do you put in the firepower to deal with an ISC XCA and do one X2 thing like; Bridge as special thingy or Full Aegis or X2 accelleration/manouver schtick?
Indent You need to leave room to have a bunch of these availible because not every player of X2 will having leanings towards the one particular X2 measure that you feel doesn't stuff up the BPV too much...and that'll harm sales.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 11:37 pm: Edit

Quote:

But it is not official in any form or fassion and basing a set of ideas off something that does not really exist in the game is building a foundation on sand.


Maybe so, but if 10 of the 13 people who are on this thread seem to think that a treaty restricting ship construction during the TRADE WARS PERIOD was indeed one of the central players within the TRADE WARS and that, that created in X2 a flavour that wasn't in X1 ( that of being able to choose your ships and balance them against eachother through the employ or not of those refits.
Indent Then I think both Steves are perceptive enough to say, hey yeah, that's going to be a great addition to the game.

Would you like me to ask them!?!

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 03:10 am: Edit

Sure, go ahead. As far as I know, the Trade Wars are outside the scope of what we are talking about.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 06:56 am: Edit

RE: BPV and power

Point 1: A BPV of 400 doesn't mean the ship is a BB or the same size as one. For proof, take a look at the Andros. The Intruder is a small ship in terms of box totals, but weighs in at 265 BPV.

Point 2: Nothing in point one either prevents or justifies high BPV's for X2. 350 is about as high as I think they ought to go.

I say this for a reason. We assume that the progression of BPV from X1 to X2 can follow the path of BPV down through the history; that is, that it goes up with each new generation. But, X2 may not work that way. For once, we're looking at building ships for a period when the GW is over, so the focus isn't on super-warships. X1 was all about warships, and getting the most bang for the buck. If X2 has less capable warships that happen to have better systems, then evening out the BPV's is reasonable. Should an unrefitted X2 CA be able to whip a CX all the time? Nope...ought to be about even, given the nature of the CX.

We'll see what comes out, and if it's really good stuff that we like and it happens to drive up the BPV of X2 to the mid 300 range, that's cool. But I don't know that we should assume that they'll be higher than X1 right away.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 08:56 am: Edit

For what it's worth.

IMO the Avergae (Meaning Fed Klink.) BPV should sit right around 300. But races with higher point totals on their ships should rack up a bit higher.

Here is what I came up with on my Rom proposal. I deliberatly set them a little high IMO to make it easier to whittle them down. Comapared to 1X.

XCC 420 CCX N/A
XCA 375 CAX 278
XCL 310 CLX 228
XDD 210 DDX 140
XFF 155 FFX 105

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 06:23 pm: Edit

I think (therefore I am) that in the specific case of the XCC it should out class all previous ships in its class, not be even. The XCC should be the shining example of the best the Military can come up with (and room for refits in case war starts). All the other classes should not be held to this standard and could be at any appropreate level.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 06:41 pm: Edit

I think that the XCC should be better than the XCA, and it should be designed to lead fleets.

But I think all ships made in peacetime should be the best the Military can come up with.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 07:17 pm: Edit

I should note that in my Fed proposal the XCA is the XCM. The XCC and XCM being different hulls. There is now lesser version of the XCC and as such no actual XCA. The XCM fills this roll (and is a XCA by another name.)

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 08:07 pm: Edit

I'd still prefer to keep ships as the general same class. A CM and a CA are two different things.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 08:19 pm: Edit

Well, sometimes. I suppose the hull design is always different but, indeed, that what I have. But look at the Gorn BC and CM. Almost exactly the same internals on a different structure (I prefer the CM but that's just me.)

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 09:01 pm: Edit

I wouldn't go for an XCC for the early period anyway.

I mean what is the Cammand Rating of a CX, the XCA has got to be better than that or the same.

So the only reason you'ld have an XCC is in the case of a 12 ship fleet.
It might happen in the Xork period, it might happen that an XDN is needed in the Xork period, but lets stick to one kind of Cruiser in the period of Y205 to 215.


Making the XCAs & XCCs; the linchpin of the X2 Squadrons will conveniantly allow the XDD to be the workhorse of the X squadrons.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 09:27 pm: Edit

Way long ago I mentioned why I prefer to call it the XCC. I'll repeate it briefly so people know where I'm comming from.

The big X2 ship will be the best ship of all time up to Y205. It's command rating will be equal the best ships up to now (i.e. the same as a DN). Every where it goes it will be in Command. Its fequency will be the same as a DN with maybe one per fronteer for the first round of building. Then two and so on. Probably a Fleet Flag will be the Home Fleet ship and maybe one more for the big boys. This ship labled as anything else would be a misnomer. It's a Command Cruiser right out of the slip way.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 09:39 pm: Edit

Quote:

So the only reason you'ld have an XCC is in the case of a 12 ship fleet.



So the only reason to have a DN is to commant 12 ship fleets? Yes, it is capable of that but DNs more often commanded lesser fleets. In fact, the minimum was two others. The XCC would often opperate alone and, depending on the mission, with two other ships. Probably a combat support ship like a XDD and a Mission Support ship like a XFF.

Of course, GW and X1 ships might fill those roles. If retaking a Planet it would likely be accompanied by a GW Troop Transport ship/tug. A DDX might take over, replacing a XDD for the Combat Support roll.

In a serious mission there could be any mix. The only time the XCC would NOT the the Flag Ship would be in a Fleet lead by a CVA/SCS/SSCS or B10K. Regular DNs could find themselves in a subservan roll for the first time but more likely DN's and XCC's would never be combined into the same fleet.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 09:45 pm: Edit

I think I see a problem of definitions here.

What is an XCA?

What is an XCC?

How are they alike/different?

My answers:
XCA is an MC1 ship.
It's the flagship of the fleet in Y205, and very rare.

Since any MC1 ship in the X2 period will have a command rating of 10, there's no need for a specialized command ship. Therefore, the term XCC is not needed in Y205.

XCC is the flagship of the fleet in Y225, and is designed for anti-Xork work. What it looks like is anyone's guess, and for right now, designing it is off the table.

Do we agree on these definitions?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 09:58 pm: Edit

Sorry, I don't see it that way. The XCC you speak of is the XCB to me.

The XCM is the CA of the era. IMHO.

Though, some races may have a XCA instead of an XCM. The Feds and the Klingons have been the focus of my recent posts.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 10:46 pm: Edit

Quote:

I think I see a problem of definitions here.

What is an XCA?

What is an XCC?

How are they alike/different?



I would say the XCA has 48/40/40/40 shields whilst the XCC has 50/50/40/40.

The XCC would have a pair of RX Ph-6s ( to make the existing Ph-5 array more depenable and fend off drones )
The XCC might also have a bit more firepower, specifically a third X2 G-rack mounted in the engineering hull ( like the plus refit of the CARa+ ).

The XCA would have a command rating the same as the CX; 10, whilst the XCC would have a command rating the same as the DNX ( wait for module X1R to find out ) but probably 12.


The XCC will not be needed in the early period, because the X1 rules already mean that a fleet can only have two X ships in a full fleet ( meaning the XCA could take on a CC role or if there was a DN and thus drop into the BCH role ) and as more X2 ships are built the X2 squadron idea will be formed, but it like the X1s before will be limited to six ships ( and no more than three cruisers ) so that doesn't need a high command rating so you'ld be best off having an XCA.


I would say the XCC isn't needed until the Admiralty learn to organise full 7+ ship fleets of X2 ships.

Really if you need a ship to command a 10 ship fleet in a starbase assault or some such, you'ld let the CVA or DNH or DNX take the command ship role, because it doesn't have the speed to go galavanting about but a command ship doesn't need speed higfher than the bulk of the rest of the fleet...it's only when you've got huge numbers of X2 ships in a fleet that you'ld even consider deploying an XCC.


As much as they might be good for moral, most races would rather one more DNX or CVAX than to have an XCC...an XCA is a great moral ship as it is...until there are a lot of X2 ships about you don't need an XCC...you'll need CCXs a lot earlier and if you don't have enough in the X2 period you'll be building them instead of the high tech ones.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 12:26 am: Edit

Jeff, I can agree with that for the most part.

However.....

The CX or XCA can command a fleet. Even if it is combined X1 and X2.

I see the X2 XCA and the X1 CX as being the border patrol heavy hitters, so at least 3 (total, not of each) per border.

The XCM is the NCL of X2 as far as I am concerned.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 10:10 am: Edit

IMO the XCM should basically be the XNCA. The XNCL would then be where it is supposed to be.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 11:04 pm: Edit

Should X2 ship separation be governed by the (G12.0) Ship Separation rules, or should it now be governed by the (C13.0) Docking rules?

In other words, should X2 allow tactical ship separation?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 11:23 pm: Edit

I'd vote (G12.0).

The other is very TNG.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 11:44 pm: Edit

I vote similar to the Neo-Tholians.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 01:40 am: Edit

Hmmm, I'll have to refresh my memory on those rules. Maybe...

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 01:23 pm: Edit

It sounds nice. BUT you would have to Completely redisgn the Fed. The Klink could use this. Except for the background.

IE: The slaves races are in the aft hull primarily. So I don't think you want your subject races having the ability to shoot you in the A** as soon as you disengage. Since you probably set the Self destruct anyway to keep it from being captured.

All in all I would say it would be far more trouble than it's worth. Plus the fact that we even base it off the Neo which was around BEFORE TNG. It could still invoke the wrath of Paramount.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 03:27 pm: Edit

(G12.0)

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