Hull might not stay the same for the same reasons that Orion cargo boxes are smaller.

The feds scrimp out that 6th rec room and instead crisscross with a little extra bulkhead and we have effectively more hull boxes. Throw in generally more spartan accomodations and you can pack more people in the same or less space. And have more hull boxes to boot. Didn't the crews on war cruisers often complain about the lousy accomodations? That's why. Look what the Klingons pack into a hull box as compared to what the Feds or ISC do.

I tend to agree with your comments on cargo being a uniform size.

I can believe that a P-5 is about the size of a MY P-1. A CC of both time periods has 8 so there's symmetry.

So what's left taking up all that extra space?

The reason a XCA's internal count approaches that of a DN is because of the engine boxes. If you want an apples-to-apples comparison you need to cancel right and left warp engines out on both ships because the efficiency and power of X2 warp drive will cook the books in favor of a large XCA.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 02:15 am: Edit

By michael john campbell;
Now assuming we have an ASIF that cost 6+15 ...and then if the ship uses her Disruptor caps

You are talking about systems and rules that do not exist. A poor basis for supporting another rules change.

I don't know about the rest of you but I don't see 15 as being so much more than 12 that I fear breaking the game.

You have missed the point. Unit speeds faster than 31 will have the possibility of breaking the game, when there is simply no good reason to allow it.

On the other hand giving players a new set of dynamics ( such as making hack&slash less profitable ) will add FUN to the game.

Sheer conjecture.

Perhaps it will break the game...but we really need to playtest a lot more before we can say for sure.

Playtest what? There has been nothing approved for playtest. I would not waste time playtesting anything allowing unit speeds over 31.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 05:56 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Sheer conjecture.

---

---

Quote:

Playtest what? There has been nothing approved for playtest. I would not waste time playtesting anything allowing unit speeds over 31.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 06:23 am: Edit

---

Quote:

The reason a XCA's internal count approaches that of a DN is because of the engine boxes. If you want an apples-to-apples comparison you need to cancel right and left warp engines out on both ships because the efficiency and power of X2 warp drive will cook the books in favor of a large XCA.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 11:37 am: Edit

John: First let me say I agree about not counting engines. Actually, my proposed engines are somewhat smaller that X1 Type (16 box with a sort of overdrive providing 8 more boxes), so physical size of engines should really just be counted a 1 engine, 2 engines etc.

You ask whats the extra room for? Besides a few new systems and a bit of cargo, I see many X2 vessels being designed for longer mission so crew accomodations would not get more spartan. Feds most of all would have even more space for perhaps slightly larger crews. Klingon would even have more room (though certainly not at the level the Fed grace on their crews!).

My XCC design also has six shuttle (is allowed an HTS) and two Drougue Bays (small shuttle bays designed specifically for drogues). It gains a few hull (two in the aft), some cargo, saucer warp (4), a larger impulse deck (6) and a couple NWO (or these could be the "any box", which I'm not fond of but hey...who am I to say.) It really approaches the DNL level of internals and could really be MC 1.25

However, I designed it that way. The discussion is really about whether it should be designed that way. Going to MC 1.25 for the big X2 ship is fine with me. It is the one class for the era that will be that. If this is so, though, there really should be a good X2 MC 1 ship as well. For this I designed a Medium Cruiser. A work horse vessel with BPV rated in the high 200's.

I understand that many of my arguements seem based on my own designs, but I am thinking design before the SSD and not just trying to push my own designs. To be honest, IMO, the XCC design I have would do well (with only slight modification) with either MC 1 or MC 1.25. The first requiring only an "Efficiant Warp Design" explaination and the other perhaps a little more power (probably just a battery). The BPV difference would be the main change, with the MC 1.25 being less BPV.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 12:11 pm: Edit

Loren,

Cargo's where we differ. I never was into the whole long-range ship gig. It comes from the extreme distaste that Commander's X2 left in my mouth.

Besides that, I fall back on, yes, tradition. The CA has been MC=1 since EY. The game was founded on the MC=1 Fed CA and Kligon D7. I'd prefer to keep a consistent set of expectations for what a CA/CC means.

There's room for a long-range patrol ship, but I'm not fond of attaching CA/CC to the beast unless it IS the fleet workhorse. In SFB the CAs and CCs historicaly have been. If the long-range critter is the specialty ship, rather than the commonplace one, it should have a specialty designation appropriate to its status.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 12:32 pm: Edit

I suppose the bottom line difference in our views is that you see some traditioal concepts holding and I see several fundimental changes in opperations.

I see X2 as an oppertunity for the races to restructure various concepts and fleet organizations.

Also, I see the DN concept being put down by the Political side while the Admiralty, being forced to accept this, then builds Cruiser Flags. It's not econimical to build to many of these so a Medium Cruiser is built to handle the workhorse effort. The XCC then being the front line represenative of political/military force.

I don't see the races building DNs as those would threaten the other races and are expensive. While the XCC would still be expensive, such miltary power is guised as a cruiser and doesn't produce the look of war like intentions.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 12:55 pm: Edit

As a traditionalist I'd prefer to see the main cruiser be MC1. As John states, the game was originally designed around the Fed CA. I agree that core paradigm should remain. I think it's critical to the SFB flavor.

Perhaps the rest of this would be better served in a different thread. If so someone please move it and let me know, but in the meantime here goes:

Why call it a Medium Cruiser? Why not just keep it simple and call it a Cruiser? If we're interested in changing some paradigms let's change that. There's no need for a CL if there's a so-called CM, especially since the X2-DD could easily be designed to fulfill the role of a CL.

If the new CC (whatever you call it, Flag Cruiser, etc.) "has" to be bigger due to all the doodads being stuffed into it, then compromise and use the pre-X2 BCH hull size and (Jedi-mind-trick-finger-waggle) say the X2 components are compact enough to fit in it.

If we go with this, note the paradigm shift:
X2-CC = GW-DNL
X2-DD = GW-CL

With this paradigm the SC3 X2-ships can fill all the multi-role missions. The SC4 X2-ships can be the dedicated-role hulls.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 01:47 pm: Edit

I still fail to see why we need a crusier the size of a battleship, and are still going to call it a crusier by the way.......

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 08:06 pm: Edit

Nobody said anything about battleship size. Not counting the engines, most of the proposals are no bigger than BCH size.

Personally, I'd like to see X2 ships be roughly the same size as pre-GW ships.

To see what people came up with a couple months ago, check out Vorlon's list of X2 ship proposals

If anyone has an idea of what the MC 1.25 ship should look like, please make the SSD.

Another thing about the XCA/XCC, what role will the ship play in the fleet?
Pre GW, it was the flagship/workhorse.
GW, it gave up the flagship role and became a mainline combat ship.
X1, it began to regain the flagship role
X2, ??? Flagship? Workhorse? both? Just like the old days?

It's a good thing this bulletin board keeps a year's worth of archives. This whole thing is a re-hash of the "X2 Timeline" thread.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 08:17 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Nobody said anything about battleship size.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 09:09 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

If anyone has an idea of what the MC 1.25 ship should look like, please make the SSD.

---

---

Quote:

Now, a few obvious points. The warp power available follows the same increase patter seen from EY-0X-1X. To compensate for too much available power, move cost is upped to 1.25...reasonable, since the ship would seem to be bigger than a CC, but not quite DN sized.

---

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 09:23 pm: Edit

I don't object to a MC1.25 XCC. But I would still prefer a MC1 XCA. AS I mentioned in the early days.

The sheer number of boxes on a CX compared to a DN IMO represents the extra bracing (for Hull) and more damage resistant systems in the first place. It's only the SSD display that causes a problem simply because theres a maximum limit to the size of boxes that are practical to use.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 11:06 pm: Edit

Also I'm not against the 1.25 MC XCC although I think the XCA ( or should that be XCM ) should have an MC of 1 for tradition's sake, and playability...people do like to leap into playing cruisers ( which negates some of my 410 BPV arguments* ) partly because of the MC 1 ease of play ( See R10 for details ).


* People who know the game a little better know it's better to choose a BPV that reflects the level of difficulty that one wants to play at and dropping to a fractional MC for the bonus of getting a ship with fewer SSD boxes to manage could be worth while for those players.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 11:51 pm: Edit

I do like Mike's ship, though it reminds me of the Supercrusiers from the Commanders Edition.

Though, with no shift against it, it is gaurunteed to do 20 damage at range 8 with just Phasers, Max 50 and a possible 90 with photons, average around 40 or 50 with middle dice for photons and phasers....

That will mission kill a General War DW or smaller, mess up a CW or CA....and this in once per turn....the return fire will most likely always be through a shift....with a 48 point shield and a 18 point reserve, we are talking no damage in return.

I suppose that is all reasonable.....but jeez, if I get a great roll I kill a crusier and get nothing back. Feds are kinda that way....at 350 you would be figting 2xCCs or so.....but still.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 12:07 am: Edit

To CFant's point that's another reason the XCC should be rare, to prevent a small squadron of these from taking out a full GW fleet. Something I consider a hidden advantage of MC1.25 is to do what MJC suggests, make the ship SC2. That limits the XCC to no more than one per fleet using the pre-Xork S8 rules. The mainline cruiser would still be MC1 and without S8 limitations.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 12:55 am: Edit

So then it's SC2, MC 1.25? Then it's a dreadnought, no matter what time period we're talking about. The 20 F Hull only emphasizes that point.

That's not to say I'm against XDNs. I'm not. But I don't like calling a DN an XCC.

Although, after looking at that ship, perhaps the 48 warp I put on my propsed MC1 ships is too much.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 01:54 am: Edit

I think that 45-48 seems reasonable on a ship that has MC of 1.25, but really, call a pot a kettle and designate such a ship as a XDN.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 10:51 am: Edit

I'll capitulate that, by GW standards of size and power, it's like a dreadnaught. Even when you consider the number of engines you can't make a determination (there are cruisers with three engines and DNs with two).

However, pushing the envolope of cruiser design is something I like. And clasifying the XCC as such only lends to the races avoiding antagonizing each other by not building "Dreadnaughts". It's a bigger cruiser and there is room for a bigger DN.

YES, if these units were introduced during the GW era I would classify them two engine DNs. But part of the paradigm shift of X2 is that they are not.

Couldn't it be said that the BCH is a dreadnaught from an EY perspective?

Does that really just leave MC as the defigning notation? Perhaps, but I say that 1.25 is that place between the two. More than a cruiser, less than a DN. I think its a crossover point where you can have either.

Size class: After much thought I think the XCC should be SC3. That holds it back in the cruiser realm. Yes, it's unique, as should be. If you put it in both MC1.25 AND SC2...well, theres little or no arguement for it being a cruiser, is there?

And heres the rub, most expect to see a certain progression of power and size (and cost) but to reach these goals it gets almost too big. The ship needs to be able to handle a level of damage and needs the power to do it. All these things lead to 2 x 24 warps plus the various other sources. That is so much power that a MC 1.25 is just the perfect balancer. It slows the ships just a bit and makes the XCC just in reach of GW ships. You end up with a ship that can't put power into EVERYTHING. (at least it can't after batteries run out)

Even if it couldn't before, it was very close to it. MC1.25 brings it back down to earth (so to speak).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 10:57 am: Edit

The Gorns were the first (IIRC) to come out with the CM concept. The CM being nearly the same (and depending on your tactics; superior) as the main cruiser; the BC.

So, to have a ship called the Medium Cruiser is not to create a glorified CL. It is a designation for the alternate cruiser design. And that fits it into the "Workhorse" role exactly, IMO.

And once again, it's a new paradigm for X2. A reoganizing of fleet standards.

Lets break a little from tradition (not a lot) to avoid cookiecutterism.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 11:05 am: Edit

The Gorn CM was basically their NCA. Why it was called that, I don't know.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 11:39 am: Edit

Because the concept of NCAs for other races (other than the FH) wasn't even considered at the time.

It's part of the development history of the SFU. Like the Tholian D. (Which was a BCH before the concept ever really got started.)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 03:16 pm: Edit

Here's a compormise.

Loren, you're building a command ship, so you don't need both the CA and CC designations.

We're used to thinking of CAs and CCs as the same size but, as the Gorns showed us by calling their CW a "Heavy DD", we can sometimes play with this.

Suppose we had a MC=1 CA and a MC = 1 1/4 CC?

That would fit right in with Loren's intended backstory and still preserve SFB traditions I and others like.

That would pave the way for improved ships in the Xork war:

MC=1 XBC
MC=1.25 XBCH

Whataya all think?

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 04:58 pm: Edit

Might I suggest we move this conversation to the Generic X2 Hull thread? We might also want to ask Joseph Butler to move this block of posts there as well so we can continue uninterrupted. Can that be done?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 05:41 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I think that 45-48 seems reasonable on a ship that has MC of 1.25, but really, call a pot a kettle and designate such a ship as a XDN.

---