Just for fun I did a half serious Orion XCA. The orions never signed no stinking treaty. Mostly the Orions decided to stick with phaser 1's so they could target more ships in a convoy. But the Ph6's are to useful for defense not to use.

Orion XCA

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 12:59 pm: Edit

Click on SSD doesn't work.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 01:07 pm: Edit

Apparently you will have to save it to get a look at the O. XCA. Becuase the blow up isn't working. But Save is.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 01:44 pm: Edit

The link is fixed. sorry 'bout that.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 10:27 pm: Edit

I'm still fiddling with my own stuff, but y sute now features all the rules I have been sent broken ndown by rules section (or at least my best guess)

As always if you have and constructive criticism or feedbank on my format, please e-mail me.

http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/x2.htm

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 08:13 pm: Edit

Okay, from the speed limit thread.

Big debate on size of X2 hulls. We have two camps:

1: Keep cruiser at MC1, mostly because that's just how it is.

2: Expand the size of the cruiser to make it more durable, and increase the move cost to compensate.

The way I see it, either works fine. I know that big ships get the wind up on folks that own supplement 2. However, objectively speaking, the supplement 2 ships weren't all that bad as SSD's go. In fact, the X2 cruisers had less power in some cases than the X1 ships did. It was the batteries, 1-2 specific reinforcment and super weapons that ruined that supplement. Take all that crap away, and they really weren't bad ships at all.

Having a cruiser that is so large that it begins to have a higher move cost doesn't bother me. Yes, in general, cruisers are MC1. But, I gotta ask...so what? That doesn't mean they can't be any move cost we want. I mean, really...look at an Andro Intruder. Tell me that •••• thing isn't a DN. It's huge. The mini is bigger than the C9 or ISC DN. It has a huge BPV and can thrash any galactic DN in one on one combat. And yet, it's MC1. That mean its a cruiser? I don't think so. So, if the Intruder can be a MC1 DN, I don't see why we can't have MC 1.25 Cruisers for X2.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 08:28 pm: Edit

Another example to Mike's point is the Tholian DPW, a nasty MC=1 DN. Not a nice ship to tangle with.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 08:32 pm: Edit

The traditional reply is "a ship with a MC > 1 is not a cruiser, it's a Dreadnought. If you're going to build a ship call it what it's supposed to be."

Mike, I'm pretty sure the ISC DN has a MC of 1.5.

Of the normal Alpha-Sector races, the only MC = 1 DN on the books, AFAIK, is the Tholian D and they're the same guys with a cruiser that has a MC = ...what? 2/3? 3/4? (the Jindo DN has a MC = 1 also but thats a tangled subject all its own)

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 08:52 pm: Edit

Mike, I'm going a step further and saying make the main X2 cruiser the size of a GW BCH and keep the MC at 1. Otherwise, build the main cruiser the size of a GW CC. In the end, keep the MC at 1.

I'm all for shifting some paradigms, but keep the classic SFB core of a MC1 CA (whatever the main X2 CA ends up being called).

As to the Intruder, it's still classed as a cruiser, not a dreadnought. Look at a modern-day CG like the Ticonderoga Class. Taking its Harpoon ASM and Tomahawk LAM, slap in the Phalanx and AEGIS/SM-2 combat system and you have a ship with the firepower of a WWII battleship. It's still a cruiser. In fact it's not even as big as our old Heavy Cruisers, but which would you rather have in a fight? Go another step, the Arleigh Burke DDG. It's essentially a smaller version of the CG, but with its newer systems it's about equal. But it's still "only" a destroyer. Look back far enough and you see the Ticonderoga Class CG was orignially going to be classed as a DDG.

The firepower and capability has improved, but the basic concept still holds true. The Ticonderoga is a cruiser in a destroyer hull because that's what it was built to be. We can do the same in X2.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 09:04 pm: Edit

Loren wanted a fleet command ship that fudged the line between CA and DN.

I'd be willing to see a "XCC" at MC = 1.25 as long as the XCA is MC = 1.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 09:20 pm: Edit

As to the flagship, I think the "typical" X2 command cruiser can fulfill that role. I think the argument is that the early-X2 era (i.e. "Trade Wars") won't see much in the way of fleet actions, rather small task forces will be dispatched with an X2-ship or two at the center. C2 won't be an issue, besides (Jedi-mind-trick-finger-waggle again) the advanced technology (call it the Space C2 System or "SCCS" or whatever) makes it so.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 09:28 pm: Edit

While there is some opposition to XCC = MC1.25 I have yet to see anyone state that the XCA/XCM should be anything other than MC1. The MC=1 XCA/XCM would be the backbone of the fleet while the MC 1.25 XCC is equal in quantity and mission to the pre-GW DN. What changes is the X2 CC is no longer just a CA with two extra phasers and a flag bridge, it’s an entirely different class analogous to a BCHX/DNLX.

For the reasons Brodie stated it isn't necessary during the trade wars to field every Cruiser as CR=10. More so since the CX is still in plentiful supply. I envision the XCA/XCM to be back to CR=8 and the XCC to assume the role of the BCH with CR=10. Of course I also favor S8 limits to one XCC in a fleet.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 10:14 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Mike, I'm pretty sure the ISC DN has a MC of 1.5.

---

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 10:46 pm: Edit

Tos, IIRC, there was a line of thinking in the timeline thread that said the MC 1 would be the flagship, the MC 2/3 and 1/2 would be the workhorse, and the MC 1/3 would be the varients.

Personally, I'm beginning to come around to agreeing with the idea of a MC 1.25 X2 flagship and MC 1 workhorse. By Y205, the admiral has been commanding his fleet from a DN for 40 years. National prestige will prevent their navy from going to go back to MC1 CCs. My ONLY arguement against it is the name of the ship class. If it's MC 1.25, it's not a CC, it's a DN.

Most of the MC 2/3 ships are "war" varients, while the pre-GW MC 1 ships were the multi-role workhorse ships. The extra guns that you see on the CCH, BCH, and CX are a form of "war" construction: Sacrifice peacetime cruising range for extra firepower.

And from the beginning, I've said that the fleet dynamics in The Trade Wars should be similar to the pre-GW period: multi-role workhorses, remove the extra guns. But X2 also means that each weapon is superior to its pre-GW counterpart: ph-5 replaces ph-1, disruptor/photon improvements, etc.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 10:56 pm: Edit

Late-GW and Pacification/Andro War saw more fleets being lead by BCHs and CCXs, not just DNs.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 11:08 pm: Edit

John T.: We're gettin' there. It was because the CC is typically a flag version of the CA that I wanted to call the next ship down a CM. The Gorns CA (actually called BC) and the CM are vurtually idetical but the CM designation was used to identify the new design.

Thats why I wanted to go with the designator of CM as that is a rarely used designator and it denotes a fully capable cruiser. (Also, my Fed XCM design is so different from the normal cruiser design that it really needed a new designator).

Indeed with the power and size of the XCC, it might should even be called a XBCH (if it's MC1). What I figured was that these would be fleet flags in a time of uneasy peace. But the XCC would be realatively rare (remeber when we all basically agreed the big X2 cruiser would be one or two per border?), and they would be in Command where ever they went.

I did consider a new designator fo Flag Cruiser, but it doesn't roll off the tongue right and sounds....well, not good for a fleet Cruiser. So, my thought is that Command Cruiser takes on a new meaning.

So, basically, your idea of the XCA and my idea of the XCM are the same (though might be different designs) and both MC1.

I guess I never mentioned my XCM is MC1. Sorry.

I'd also like to point out that if we were talking going all the way to MC1.5, I would fully be on the "It's a DN" side.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 11:10 pm: Edit

We could just call it a Flagship and figure out the name later.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 11:25 pm: Edit

Oh, I forgot, I suppose some races would use XCA instead of XCM. For some it might not be appropreate. The Klingons, in my proposal, use the designator of XBC (bedamned the other nations who take offense to the name. Just stay out of the way and it wont matter what its called!)

One other problem I had with Flag Cruiser is that any ship can be the flag and that designator then should be applied to one design.

Oh ya, one last thing. I had planned the XCC to end up the XCB or XBCH via refits when the Xorks arive. A hull with the possability for refits built into the design. I figure the designers met the specs for the design review and then went to the Admirals and said "Heres the ship now. It meets all specifications and shoudl come in on budget. And here what we can turn it into if the need arises." to which the Admirals reply "Ohhhhh, Koooool."

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 11:38 pm: Edit

Mike,

BPV does not a DN make, or we'd be forced to drop the MC of the Fed YDN (a glorified CC).

The Intruder has DN BPV because it's tough enough to warrant it. It's internal box count puts it solidly in cruiser territory.

Loren,

I think of it as you making room for us by calling your "XCM" a "XCA" and we making room for you by letting what should be a XDN pass asa a "XCC".

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 01:26 am: Edit

OK

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 05:46 am: Edit

You know we could develop MC 1.5 SC 2 XDNs and call them conjectual units that simply never got out of the simulators, even during the Xork invasion there just wasn't enough money to build them ( except for the Fed who probably went for a CVA version or SCS and skipped past the XDNs all together.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 08:03 am: Edit

---

Quote:

BPV does not a DN make, or we'd be forced to drop the MC of the Fed YDN (a glorified CC).

---

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 10:03 am: Edit

Good point, Mike, but again why does it have to be MC1.25? If one of the biggest concerns is too-much power, then let's come up with new ways to use that power that make the ship tougher while moving at conservative speeds (the alternative being zipping around at top speed in an eggshell). If we can make the ship tougher (with the ASIF as a step in that direction), we might be able to remove some of the power boxes for balance.

Loren, if we do the split cruiser fleet what I'm suggesting is call the GW-CA hull size simply "cruiser" and the new flagship the "heavy cruiser." That will leave room for expanding the X2-"CA" to "CV," "BC," etc. for war years. Keep in mind I'm also proposing that the X2-DD take the role of the GW-CL.

One of the ideas in the back of my head is that during war years some races may decide to "bloat" their DD/CC hulls which result in them jumping into the next higher SC. This would allow for war-time CL/CW, DN, "Supercarrier," etc.

All the same, I still maintain that the main X2 cruiser be built at GW-BCH size (which was a bloated GW-CA) and keep the MC at 1. If we can do what I'm suggesting above ("tougher not bigger") then we can knock it back down to GW-CC size.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 10:35 am: Edit

RBN: There was several things pushing the Star of X2 into the size I propose. There was, for me at least and I think others, a certain expectation of what it should have. That is should have more power, more powerful weapons, and indeed be based on the BCH. But since all this had to out class the CX it was hard to get the cake and eat it too. MC1.25 solved the problem for this class. It made the unit palettable. I think this ship would be plain fun to play and would be balanced.

It also makes room for a more standard cruiser that doesn't have to meet all the expectations of the X2 super cruiser. It too can be fun to play and we all get everything we want in a balanced package.

I too see DDs taking on a support role. I'm not sure if the Light Cruiser would have a role for some time being that there will still be pleanty of X1 and GW ships to fill that need. X2 might not produce a CL because of galactic circomstance. That's OK with me. Perhaps during the Xork war where there is need for a replacement. It would be cool to have a ship introduced in that module that isn't a refit.

The XDD, as I see it, would patrol like worker bees and go where needed. Probably often lending backup to what ever XCC or XCA that called.

And just to fill out the recent conversation, I'll bring back what I felt the FF should be. A pure support hull with no main battle unit. Sort of a "Variant only" hull. I had designed two different classes of FF as well. COmpleatly different hulls. One is a Naval vessel intended for front line work, the other is even lesser armed and used for rear area missions. Both can carry limited cargo in the form of small "Containers".

I have a new freighter that uses containers instead of bulk pods. The small version carries a little more cargo than the F-S and is X1 tech. bases (able to move at GW stratigic speeds).

By Mark James Hugh Norman (Mnorman) on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 05:43 pm: Edit

I don't like the idea of a frigate being a pure support hull, especially if the destroyer is enhanced to fill the CL role. I think that a frigate should be returned to it's original real-world role of a pursuit, raiding and escort ship, rather than a light fleet ship, which will be the role of the DD