Archive through November 20, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
The "X" Files:
OLD X2 FOLDER:
The Generic X2 Hull:
Archive through November 20, 2003
I would just like to make a small note on the subject of cancelling out the extra warp power with a higher MC.
| Ship | CX | XCC |
| Warp Engine Boxes | 40 | 48 |
| MC | 1 | 1.25 |
| Ratio | 40 | 38.4 |
Thus the MC of 1.25 so drastically cuts down the ability of the XCC to move that an X1 ship has beeter performance.
Since pairs of Ph-5s have parity wit trios of Ph-1s and 6 Disruptors with Disruptors caps and built in UIM and Defracs arn't that much better than 6 X1 Disruptors and Four 24 Point alternate firing Photons aren't that much batter than 4 X1 Photons, maybe crucifying movement is a bad move with respect to trying to make these ships fall into the 300-330 BPV range.
Also restricting movement such that it's not as "outlandish" as weapon improvements will make manouver oriented players move away from X2 as a product they may wich to purchase.}
Mnorman: Interesting. Could be for one ofthe FF classes. I'll work on it.
I would point out that it couldn't survive in a fleet or even squadron situation.
But that isn't what you suggested. I like and I'll work on it.
Mnorman is going the direction I'm thinking regarding Frigates and Destroyers. More on that later (or look back at earlier posts).
MJC,
Look at the SSD again; it isn't 48 warp...it's 50. There are two in the saucer. That does mainain the ratio of 40-to-1, keeping the X1 and X2 ship at the same performance.
For frigates, I was thinking af having a squadron situation, but only a squadron of frigates, rather than a squadron involving both frigates and larger ships
IMO This is how the XCC should be deployed. Mostly using the same deploment style as a DN/BCH.
Having 1 XCC per border. With maybe 2 per big borders.
Klingon-Kzinti 1XCC
Klingon-Federation 2XCC
Thats how I wrote up the Romulans.
Mnorman, take a look at my posts in X2 Timeline regarding Frigates. The main posts began 07 JUN (8:07 am) and went through 09 JUN (12:22 am). I think we're looking at similar concepts.
Also the paradigm I mentioned then is still basically in tact now, the only difference now is the SC2 CV I'd probably made SC3.
Kenneth Jones: I figured something similar but the ships would be deployed evenly as they are built. The Feds might put one on the Klingon border first, then Rom, then Thol, then Home Fleet. The next two would go to Kzinti and Gorn borders but would really be backups for the Klingon/Romulan ships. Other races would do similarly. Round and round until...well, until the Xorks come.
Deployment patterns for the other classes would be less critical and would be placed where ever needed.
Quote:Look at the SSD again; it isn't 48 warp...it's 50. There are two in the saucer. That does mainain the ratio of 40-to-1, keeping the X1 and X2 ship at the same performance.
Okay, but here's an interesting question.
Should X2 have performance parity ( basically new designs of ships that aren't more powerful than X1 cruisers ( except for two turn arming DF Heavies ) or should X2s have performance parity.
I'm for 300-330 BPV ships that get refitted up to 410 BPV, not 260-280 BPV ships that get refitted up to 330 so I say, yes, the X2s should actually have advantagious performance characteristics!
What refits are you talking about?
I'd bet Xork era refits.
Another theory is these ships were designed to include refits that were never installed because of treaty limitations. Each race bent the rules as far as they could while staying within the treaty because they wanted to have an immediate upgrade path in the event of future hostilities.
I think pressures from within could cause that with out a treaty. Either way, the Admirals would build a ship that fully suited their current needs (and some wants) but would keep an eye for possible surprises. They hadn't considered an enemy like the Andromidans and would want to be caught so unprepared again. So, X2 hulls would have design alternatives built in.
Some peopleargued that you don't build a ship below it's maximum capabilities but the truth is that why build a ship to spec when just a little attention to future possabilities can make a world of difference should the worst present it's self.
I have a design for a house. In certain wall is the framing for doors; headers and all. When it comes time to add on, all one needs to do is cut out the wall, insert the jamb and hang the door (after doing the addition of course).
So on the XCC, 10 Single occupancy rooms and the two auxillary materials storage get turned into 5 double occupancy and power conduits and capacitors respectively. This allows for the addition of one more Phaser-5 on each of the LS and RS Phaser banks. Now, two shuttle bays get turned into shuttle storage and the current shuttle storage gets turned into two Drogue Bays. This makes room for two additional Ph-6s 360°.
The cargo bay (two box) is conveniently structured to handle stresses such as the loads placed by that new wonder weapon.
NWO gets turned into power systems.
We now have a XBCH with 12 Ph-5, four Ph-6, a wonder weapon and four new Photons including the power to handle it all.
With all that's happened in the last 200 years how could the Admirals not do this?
Quote:I'd bet Xork era refits.
They could be an anti-Xork refit...a bigger hammer's gotta smash more stuff than a regular hammer even if the proper way to deal with this particular problem is a more accruate hammer ( to smash stuff ) or a faster acting hammer or something.
Indent But they are probably the refits that occour when the treaty system that created the "Trade Wars" broke down and each race ( refreshed by it's pause ) went hell for leather to solidify it's aspirations.
If a CX can carry 12 Ph-1s and an XCA can carry 8Ph-5s, one has to ask why?
Now if the CX can carry 12Ph-1s and the XCA can carry 12Ph-5s but was built with only 8 of them in order to avoid a full scale war, then when the full scale war comes the XCAs would start running around with 12Ph-5s, and that seems to make sense under SFB and SciFi logic.
One doesn't have to ask why a CX can carry 12Ph-1s and an XCA can carry 12Ph-5s...although I've met some two year olds that might ask it anyway.
Quote:One doesn't have to ask why a CX can carry 12Ph-1s and an XCA can carry 12Ph-5s...although I've met some two year olds that might ask it anyway.
One can also ask why all Fed ships don't carry P-G's instead of P-3's, since they have them, or why all Hydrans don't ditch the fusion beams for P-1's or P-G's. The answer is the same; limited availability. If the P-5 is the latest and greatest "new thing" in phasers, then you can bet there won't be many available...especially to nations/empires who are essentially broke after not one but three intense wars back to back. Just because someone can make something doesn't mean they are in unlimited supply. The entire purpose behind the P-5 was that it was better than the P-1, but mounted in pre-war numbers on the ships. So, a Fed XCA would have six to eight, with possibly a pair of P-6's thrown in as a refit. Mounting 12 heavy phasers wasn't done even by BC's...the Fed BC series only had 10. Mounting not only better phasers in the form of a P5 but also more isn't very sporting, and doesn't particularly make good SFB sense.
Quote:One can also ask why all Fed ships don't carry P-G's instead of P-3's, since they have them, or why all Hydrans don't ditch the fusion beams for P-1's or P-G's. The answer is the same; limited availability. If the P-5 is the latest and greatest "new thing" in phasers, then you can bet there won't be many available.
An interesting idea, but we are talking about the main line armament of the ship!
Better to ask, which is better...129 Fed CAs or 125 CARs!?!
To be honest it'ld be more like 129 CAs to 128 CARs but we'll stick to the numbers given.
Some people would argue that 129 CAs can cover more territory and thus would be better ( particularly if your focus was anti-pirate activity ) whilst others like myself would say that the longevity created by those two rear Phasers, with respect to drone destruction as well as sacrifically dieing in place of Forward Phasers ( There is a left and right 30° arc where this can happen ) allows the CARs to fight like more than 129 ships, more like 160 CAs, resisting drones and hitting back after taking a hit with more damage generated than damaged CAs.
So too with the Ph-5s, as the mainline phaser of the X2 ships it is quite common (in so far as anything X2 is common ) and thus the refit to increase the fighting capasity and survivability of the ships would be looked for by the admiralties during the design process even if they could not afford to purchase the entire phaser suite at the time of launch.
Quote:Just because someone can make something doesn't mean they are in unlimited supply. The entire purpose behind the P-5 was that it was better than the P-1, but mounted in pre-war numbers on the ships. So, a Fed XCA would have six to eight, with possibly a pair of P-6's thrown in as a refit.
No, the purpose of the Phaser-5 was to create a weapon that inflicted more damage than Ph-1s at longer ranges than Ph-1s so that ships didn't have to run around with 12 ( or for X2 more ) Ph-1s but rather could have fewer more powerful weapons to free up play.
I'm saying players should have the choice.
If the player wants a ship with X1 weapon numbers then he should play the refitted ships in the late X2 period and if he wants a fewer number of weapons then he should play in the early X2 period.
Quote:Mounting 12 heavy phasers wasn't done even by BC's...the Fed BC series only had 10.
The Fed BCG has 2 extra drones racks, are you saying that 2 extra drone racks is worth less than 2 extra Ph-1s!?!
Just becuase GW cruisers didn't mount 12Ph-1s does not mean that X2 cruisers can't because X1 cruisers did!
Quote:Mounting not only better phasers in the form of a P5 but also more isn't very sporting, and doesn't particularly make good SFB sense.
Actually it is quite sporting.
I've playtested a 12Ph-5 XCA against a CX and DDX and the XCA lost.
Sure the ability to do 31.5 points of phaser damage at R8 in an oblique attack from 9Ph-5s sounds like a lot but since your opponent and her 15Ph-1s can generate 32.5 right back at you ( and eight 16 point Photons tends to beat four 24 point photons and 4 GX racks defend very well against 2 GXX racks ), the XCA has to be very careful about what it intends to do...it can win but a 12Ph-5 cruiser is not a cake walk against all commers, not when the BPV is high ( and 410 is high...and about right ).
So too a 12Ph-5 ( 410 BPV ) against a D7bk, D7D and D7W task group, could conceivably remove a sheild purely with obliqueing Phaser fire...but what would it have left to use against the drones?...and what could it do to stop the other two doing the Ph-1/UIM-O.L.-Disruptor combo at R5!?!
A ship with a powerful reach at intermediate ranges might frieghten some players but most people know that such a ship can be mauled if it concentrates on one ship and thus allows the others to get into effective ranges of their weapons...and can be mauled worse if they fail to inflict internal damage against any of the chargers!
The X2 ships will have to fight at longer ranges with the GW and X1 opponents and arm their weapons less to maintain a high battle speed because getting too close to a taskgroup of GW cruisers will kill an XCA ( 5 point BTTYs and ASIFs will only prolong the agony ).
Quote:No, the purpose of the Phaser-5 was to create a weapon that inflicted more damage than Ph-1s at longer ranges than Ph-1s so that ships didn't have to run around with 12 ( or for X2 more ) Ph-1s but rather could have fewer more powerful weapons to free up play.
I beg to differ, but I distinctly remember a key argument for the P-5 was a move away from the X1 "phaser boat" syndrome. If you want hordes of phasers, then stick with the P-1. Adding a new and better phaser while keeping high numbers isn't a good direction for X2 to take.
From X2 Poll Thread, Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 02:59 am
9. What should be the Phaser basis for 2X ships.
A. Same Phasers as 1X (2)
B. Reduced number of Improved phasers (PH-V) (7)
C. Same number as 1X but with improved phasers (2)
D. Undecided. (2)
The notion of less but better phasers has been part of this discussion from its earliest days and was a key factor in designing the P5 as a better phaser at middle ranges. The ASIF was in large part also driven by this as a way to provide padding so that X2 ships wouldn't be stripped of weapons too quickly. Now all of the sudden we're talking ships with bigger phasers, more phasers, and all the other stuff that's been tossed around. This is getting worse than supplement 2 ever was.
Quote:I beg to differ, but I distinctly remember a key argument for the P-5 was a move away from the X1 "phaser boat" syndrome. If you want hordes of phasers, then stick with the P-1. Adding a new and better phaser while keeping high numbers isn't a good direction for X2 to take.
If the X1s have the X2Ph-1 as a Ph-2 analog and have 12Ph-1s and the other races ( mostly ) move to 8Ph-5s, then there is balance but it makes sense at a certain point in time refits will bring both sides to the point of 12Ph-5s on a cruiser.
Quote:Now all of the sudden we're talking ships with bigger phasers, more phasers, and all the other stuff that's been tossed around.
1) Not all of a sudden.
2) Not More weapons, X1 numbers of weapon AFTER a refit.
3) All the other stuff that's been tossed around might seem good but ain't really as cool as one might think.
Sure the Bridge as special thing might kill two incomming drones but if you've got a BPV in an unrefitted state that makes you a match for a C7 and D7D and in a Refitted state a match for a D7D, D7bk & D7W, then your bridge as special thingy doesn't make you immune from drones.
Furthermore Full X-Aegis doesn't make you immune from drones because of a the small number of phasers you have to fire ( and when the refit comes the drone numbers go up almost as quickly as the phaser numbers ).
ASIF doesn't make you immune to damage.
Higher speeds don't make you immune to DF weapons and swordfish drones and extended range already exist.
The extras are nice but the XCAs are already crippled...48 warp isn't enough when your enemy ( even against the unrefitted XCA a C7 and D7D have a lot of warp power and against the refitted XCA's 48 warp power the D7D, D7bk & D7W combo has about twice as many warp engine boxes! )...and 8 EW limit keeps the X2 from having any real advantage over a CX & DDX...and the weapons are so few, 9 bearing Ph-5s in an oblique might sound great but the D7D, D7bk & D7W combo can fire 9 boom Ph-1s and meet four 24 point photons with 12 O/L Disruptors!
Just because ships are powerful doesn't mean they are game breakers.
Quote:9 bearing Ph-5s in an oblique might sound great but the D7D, D7bk & D7W combo can fire 9 boom Ph-1s and meet four 24 point photons with 12 O/L Disruptors!
That's ludicrous. Are you seriously suggesting that ONE XBC should have the ability to evenly fight some 450 to 500 points of Klingon ships? 'Cause thats about what you have listed is worth depending on your drone selections. Powerful doesn't mean game breaking, that's true. But you have a whole different definition of powerful if you seriously suggest the above as a fair match for any one X ship of any generation. Just because they're advanced doesn't mean they have to be battleships in disguise.
I reiterate...this is far worse than supplement 2 which was canned by SVC as too powerful and no good. There were no P5's...there were no monster photons or drones. Other than the improved accuracy of heavy weapons, they didn't change near so much as the various photon and disruptor proposals we're seeing now do. Ships had less generated power in supplement 2 than in X1, and had almost none of the special stuff being tossed around right now, such as SIF's, special high-warp maneuvers, or trans-speed 31 capability. So I gotta ask...what makes you think that if supplelemnt 2 was completely thrown out that this kind of stuff is going to make it? And, further, what possible reason is there to make such uber ships? What critical purpose does it serve to make X2 ships 400 point super-ships?
The reason we didn't give XCAs 12x P-5 is to keep the upward escalation of starship combat power in check.
The reason still holds.
This is a bad rehash of a silly discussion.
You want 12x P-5 on a cruiser hull, look to the Xork era, not before. This is the only post I'll make on this matter.
Well, as for myself, if an X2 XCA is much over 300 BPV I'll not be buying the product.
Bigger, better, faster, more power. Just say no.
The assumption is being made that X2 should trump X1 in all ways. I disagree. CFant says it well.
Well, the new designs do need to do thier jobs BETTER or there's no point in building them.
How that is implemented is a rash of discussions.
Quote:The assumption is being made that X2 should trump X1 in all ways. I disagree.
X2 should trump X1 because X1 trumps the GW ships.
If we want X2 to have some cheap build ships that can't do everything an XCA can do but do some things better than a CX, then I recomend we look at a module X2R: Cheap Builds for the X2 Era.
Personally I don't see how the Admiralties would build an X2 cruiser that can't go toe-to-toe with a the ISCs CCX so the starting point is 300-330 BPV and refits will take it beyond that...People who refuse to play X2 if the X2 cruiser is above 300 BPV should either limit themselves to XDD and XFF battles or not buy the product...if we want a bunch of ships that are kinda like X1 but a little less on the number crunching then I sujest that X1R be made as:- cheaper, lighter, less sophisticated X1 ships.
Quote:So I gotta ask...what makes you think that if supplelemnt 2 was completely thrown out that this kind of stuff is going to make it?
Suppliment 2 was broken for a number of reasons all of which we are not looking to revive.
1) the combination of 5 point BTTY and a 2:1 ratio of SSReo allowed the ships to be immune from damage.
Sure an ASIF reduces damage but the really bad part of damage ( teeth pulling ) still happens.
2) The ability to fire all your Ph-1s as Ph-G at ships ment that CLOSE AND HOSE became the only tactics.
Perhaps that's not broken, just boring but still enough to make the module scrpped...particularly since it's a commander's edition rule book.
3) The long range of heavy weapons was extended to outside overload range for GW ships making it very difficult for them, to compete.
Ph-5s and all the uber heavies have been designed with R8 overloads so that GW ships can have a fighting chance.
Quote:Are you seriously suggesting that ONE XBC should have the ability to evenly fight some 450 to 500 points of Klingon ships? 'Cause thats about what you have listed is worth depending on your drone selections.
Remember that you have to give the GW ships a force dynamics component so the GWs might well be 450-500 BPV depending on drone load out whilst the XCA+ is comming in at a mere 400.