Just how revolutionary are we talking here?

Are we talking the difference between the first MY Fed CL and a Fed CX?

That seems way too much.

We are talking about a 25 year time period here.

Just how much of a leap is possible?

If we look at the evolution of the Fed CA (which is what we should be looking at) then we go from Y129 to Y180.

That's 51 year. The progression is:

CA(129)->CAR(160)->CAR+(165)->CB(175)->CX(180)

Now, not much going on between 129 and 160 there was not a huge war on, so no changes were made.

So, assuming wartime research we have a 15 year period from the best the MY CA could be to the best the CA could be period, the CX.

Assuming the CX was not as successful as they wanted it to be, they would of course continue research into the better cruiser and better tech in general. In the mean time, we have to fight the ISC and the Andros. Research will be accelerated, but assuming they have a new useful hull that they can use for many years I don't see them making an all powerful breakthrough.

I still feel that X2 should, in its beginnings, be an all around better ship for general use. In other words, going back to the traditional role of the MY CA: the backbone of the fleet. Exploring, fighting monsters, taking out a bad pirate, etc.

Again I say, how much of a revolutiuonary breakthrough can you get in 20 years?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 07:03 am: Edit

---

Quote:

A better way of describing what I think Jessica was getting at for movement is to rephrased as: "when expended for movement (and only movement), warp energy is multiplied by 1.5" A MC=1 CA would only need to spend 20 warp to go 30. Impulse would not be affected. This gives the CA an effective move cost of 2/3 but the full MC=1 weight for things like tractor beams.

---

---

Quote:

My own thinking about having to make tough decisions at EA was why I suggested that we may well not want to give X2 version 1.0 any warp increase over X1. The increased power cost of our proposed X2 weapons should make for a nifty set of options but the lack of increased power should help to make for a lot of hard choices. Increasing the warp power by even 5-8 might disrupt that balance.

We might change when we get to the Xork era and X2 version 1.1 (2.0?).

---

---

Quote:

Again I say, how much of a revolutiuonary breakthrough can you get in 20 years?

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 11:26 am: Edit

Mike R.

I'm going to send you my latest XCC. The SC3, MC1 choice. Could you post it? I'll explain my warp idea then.

This will also reveil an other idea I've been keeping to my self for when I post my own site. Thats OK.

The Warp is a variation of my 1.5 type but there is a box for each unit of power. I'll post the rules tomarrow because I have a huge day today.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 12:23 pm: Edit

R2.?? Federation XCC by Loren Knight

There you go!

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 01:26 pm: Edit

I think I can see how this is supposed to go. Let me guess:

When you lose 2 unshaded warp boxes, a shaded one is marked off?

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 04:20 pm: Edit

Oh, noooo. PLease, no PF warp-pack type happenings on a real ship.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 04:44 pm: Edit

That's just my guess, Cfant

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 06:06 pm: Edit

I'm sure Loren will explain it when he gets the chance.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 08:12 pm: Edit

Here is my latest XCC with the new way of doing my 1.5 engine proposal. The shaded boxes represent the extra power and extra durability (or overdrive componant;ODC). The physical engine is a 16 box warp engine.

I figured a way to implement my X-Warp without the hassle others have complained about (the math mainly). What this will allow is my repair rule( to follow). If you shut down the shaded boxes you can repair the engines for less (6). Long term cruise costs are reduced as the ship typically cruises with the engines at nominal (shaded boxes off). There is no extra damage rule as before and you can take damage to the engines anyway you want. You can apply damage only to the shaded boxes at first if you like. If your engine is damaged down to 18 for example (having marked all the shaded boxes), you can run it at the reduced level and repair it cheaper. At least one non-shaded warp box must be functioning for each shaded box to operate. So to use all 8 shaded boxes you must have 8 non-shaded boxes functioning. If you dip below 8 non-shaded warp then you may have a situation where you have undamaged shaded boxes that produce no power (but can be damaged). Engines are in overdrive as a whole engine each, not in part. Changes in mode ONLY occur during EA.




What 'chya think? No math!

I suppose to really understand this post you have to be aware of my previous Warp proposal which was the the engins of 24 points were the size of Gorn and Romulan engines (which the other Alpha races couldn't master). So the scaled back the engine but made it produce more power. I represented this by a 16 box engine that produced 1.5 times the boxes in power. The having to calculate the power wasn't well recieved. This eliminates the math by adding the vurtural boxes to the SSD but maintains the unique angle of the original proposal.

I check back tomorrow. Got to go to a wrap party.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 08:47 pm: Edit

BTW: (As I'm running out of the house) this represents a more durable engine so my ASIF will be scaled back in effectiveness. Probably to absorbing the first of four hull or cargo and the first of three in Reinforced mode. THe other benifits will remain intact.

Quick run down of benifits of an ASIF in opperation.

Shuttles are not destroyed when the shuttle bay box they are in is destroyed but rather, are crippled (what ever damage it takes).
Cargo in distroyed cargo boxes is 50% recoverable when the box is repaired.

Repair cost for Hull, cargo, and shuttle is a two for one deal when the ASIF is in reinforced mode.

ASIF cost 2+2.

Jeeze, now I'm late!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 08:56 pm: Edit

Relating to a subject I brought up a day ago, the use of the X2 destroyer to replace the X1 cruiser as the primary offsensive weapon of the X2 period could be explained by a look at the weighter points method of product analsys.


Certain values shall be determined through raw numbers whilst some shall be determined through providing a weighting for non numeric values.
Science shall be considered the number of labs plus but each lab acting through a special sensor shall be trippled.
Rescue shall be the sum of the number of shuttles and the number of labs.
Heaviey weapon damage shall be at range 8 and use alternate arming for those weapon for which two turn arming is best and fastloading for weapons where that is best.
Phaser damage shall be at R8 in an oblique.
Shield #7 shall include the influence of the ASIF.
Battle speed shall be all remaining power after 5 HK 8 EW and heavies are armed to full overload.

I shall use the XDD that Mike Raper and I have toyed around with ( hence 1.5 points of power per warp box ).

Ship Production	Priority	Calc'
Capasity	Weight	CX	Sum	XDD	Sum	XDDa	Sum	XDDb	Sum	XDDc	Sum
Strategic Speed	10	7	70	9	90	9	90	9	90	9	90
Phasers damage R8	1	19.5	19.5	14	14	14	14	14	14	21	21
Heavy damage R8	1	24	24	12	12	18	18	24	24	24	24
Shield Factor	1	40	40	40	40	40	40	40	40	40	40
Shield #7	0.1	112	11.2	96	9.6	97	9.7	106	10.6	109	10.9
EW	5	8	40	8	40	8	40	8	40	8	40
Drones	4	2x6	48	2x8	64	2x8	64	2x8	64	2x8	64
Battle speed	2	12	24	16	32	4	8	18	36	18	36
Improptu Reo	1.5	15	22.5	9+18	40.5	9+18	40.5	9+18	40.5	9+27	54
Science	3	8x1.16	28	3+5x1.16	26.5	8.83	26.5	8.83	26.5	8.83	26.5
Rescue	2	7	14	5	10	5	10	5	10	5	10
Price	-10	4	-40	0.75x5	-37.5	.75x5	-37.5	.75x5	-37.5	.75x5	-37.5
		Total	301.2	Total	314.6	Total	323.2	Total	358.1	Total	378.9

As can be seen by the table above the XDD becomes consistantly more effective with her refits and thus she becomes more desirably to deploy over the CX.
She'll have some drawbacks to start with but after the refits hse'll be a much better ship. this is why the Admiralties will go for replacing their CXs with XDDs.

As such this is where the idea of the smaller more effective fleet comes from, these ships will be able to do all the tasks of the bigger ships ( some better some worse...notably kneif fighting ) but be a little cheaper and thus become what will be built to deal with the trade wars and post Andro Period.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 08:58 pm: Edit

Fun stuff is good. But I would really like to avoid "special" boxes on the SSD.

Make warp just warp. If we keep it between 40 and 50 it should not be a problem. The CX has 42 warp, so it is not a stretch.

I would like to see 46 warp for the Fed actually. 4 points of warp in the saucer.

Also note, that the CX does not have much power in the way of reactors. I'd like to see that aspect stay in. The larger, more powerful warp engines allow those bulky reactors to be replaced with more useful systems, like Lab and weapons etc.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 01:21 pm: Edit

CFant,

Wouldn't that be 44 warp?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Special boxes are at a minimum. NWO is old school by now and Special Bridge doesn't add much new but reuses scout channel rules in a new form. The only really new thing not previously discussed (and I wonder if anyone noticed) is the Drogue Bay.
DROGUE BAY: Proposal by Loren Knight, June 26 2003.
The Drogue Bay opperates drogues (from Module J2) and not shuttles. Since drogues are totally controled by their tether they do not need the large area that shuttles do and so require a volume not much larger than the drogue its self. Since drogues are so much cheeper to opperate over shuttles it was felt that a special bay was in order for two reasons. It would encurage Captains to use drogues over shuttles for the missions that drogues are good for and would also not reduce the number of shuttles on the ship (shuttles being important for missions drogues are incapable of). Ships with drogue bays can still opperate additional drogues in their shuttle bay. Some ships have NWO boxes that qualify to be drogue bay. This is noted in their ship description and on their SSD.

Basically a drogue Bay is in all ways a small shuttle bay exept it can only opperate drogues and not shuttles of any form. It is simply not possible to land a shuttle in a drogue bay. An empty Drogue Bay could hold 15 points of cargo. As with a shuttle bay, if a drogue bay is destroyed with a drogue inside the drogue is also destroyed. The ASIF does not save a drogue destroyed in this manner as it does with shuttles. The Drogue Tether is a permanant instalation in a Drogue Bay. There is no difference between permanant or non-permanant in the game rules but it did mean less maintainance and was more durable in the long term. THis Tether can opperate any drogue type.

A ships BPV does not include any of the cost for any type of drogue. Drogues purchased for each drogue bay are paid for with Force BPV and do contribute (or maybe not, I'll have to look into it further) to that total for commanders options calculations.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 07:27 pm: Edit

Yeah I noticed.


That Brings me to something Jessica said about Andro Tech.


There is something Andro I would like to see:-
Internal Bays for PFs.
The Lyrans are probablly be the only ones to pick it up but being able to lay PFs by transporter would be cool.


I wonder if we could say that transporters are larger ( say 2 BPs or 1 Crew Unit ) and thus are able to lay NSM by Transporter!?! That'ld be cool but probably only the Romulans would take advantage of it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 08:10 pm: Edit

I would think the Lyrans could, due to their catamaran style, fit Heavy PF inside of their warp field. In SSJ it stated that experiments failed because HPF could not be towed by ships but why not have that problem solved due to the unique design of the Lyran ships, keeping it uniquely Lyran. Then have the leader HPF (HPFL?) have an ESG, or have a HPFE (2-ESG version) per flotilla.

<EDIT> Maybe give the leader a Special Bridge and eliminate the HPFS. Then reduce the flotilla size to 5 HPF. THis could be partly how the Lyrans manage to fit a full flotilla.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 08:40 pm: Edit

All you wouuld need is two side-by-side internal bays like the extra mech link on the SSCS.

Internally housed PFs...mmmmmmmmmmm....

I considered a limited co-opting of andro tech for, say launching shuttles. (or parallel development once the alpha races see it's possible) Say 1 pt of power allocated to transportes will allow a shi pt launch a huttle by transporter.

It would have to be a manned shuttle. Too many buses RE suicides. Could say yoiu couldn;t launch a seeking shuttlew this way because it screws up the targetting.

Means the balcony and track gets replaces with a bank of transporters.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 09:02 pm: Edit

Yeah, launching shuttle by transporter had trun past my mind aswell, but I thought it was too much to usgest, a seeking shuttle restriction would make it a heck of lot more player friendly as your 3 Transporter and one shuttle bay couldn't put four SS in the same hex at the same instant. One SS and 3 Ph-3 platforms, not that's workable.


I don't think the PF-trimaran is do-able above speed 1 as there is 1 O₂ molicule per cubic metre of deep space. Superluminal speeds would create drag that would cause the PF to fall a few milimtres behind the ship in the first second so there wouldn't be enough time for clamps to lock it into place...but if the prototype worked at speeds 1 or below ( that is the beaming step ) then going to an entirely internal bay wouldn't be a step beyond the designers abilities.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 11:43 pm: Edit

I don't see transporting shuttles as doable but if it were I'd say you could launch seeking shuttle that way but they couldn't explode or launch anything for the first eight impulses after they materialize.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 12:13 am: Edit

---

Quote:

but if it were I'd say you could launch seeking shuttle that way but they couldn't explode or launch anything for the first eight impulses after they materialize.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 07:29 am: Edit

A Question about interactions.


Should we have an strong A.S.I.F. and no marked shield improvement or should we have a weak A.S.I.F. and a mild shield improvement, such as Caps-to-SSReo, Shield Shuntting, Damage Shunting, 2:1 SSReo ratio or just a huge increase in shield boxes ( say 60 and the #6,1&2 of a cruiser )?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 07:34 am: Edit

To get the ball rolling.

I would say that we need a little of both.

If we have one great defensive capability ( certain designs of A.S.I.F. ) then ( and perhaps I've been listen to Bruce Lee too much ) we'll have style of fighting become dominant...worse still other styles of fighting will become obsolete.

By having an improvement in both Offsensive and defensive capasity ( and particularly in both shallow offensive ( shields ) and deep defensive ( shield #7 )) we'll avoid making certain techniques go the way of the dodo.


Ahh...the Way of the Dodo...what a great martial art that is.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 10:47 am: Edit

Maybe they should vary race by race?

I already hear the outcry of.

The {Insert Race) got better goodies. I demand equal treatment for (Insert another race.)

Meaning the tech lines would blur again and we are back to cookie cutter ships.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 07:09 pm: Edit

Well, one thing to consider is that there will almost always be some parallel development purely for the sake of simplicity and game balance. An SIF or shield-shunting has to be a level playing field, or its going to be either A)broken out of the gate, or B)vastly more complicated than necessary by having multiple sets of rules.

I was looking through the old 2X stuff from supplement 2, and I gotta say, in many ways those ships aren't as powerful as some of the ones we've been tossing around. If it weren't for the 2:1 shield reinforcment, scads of phasers, and the uber-heavy weapons, they'd be pretty balanced. DId you know, for example, that the Fed XCA has less power than the CX? Yup. It has 2 APR, 42 warp, and 2 impulse...2 points less than the CX. The five point batteries certainly make up for that to some point, but the ship generates less power than its predecessor.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 09:04 pm: Edit

Mike: But back then, IIRC, the X1 ships had 18 point engines. I could be wrong, its been a long time. X1 was redone as well.