Archive through February 08, 2004
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 BPV: Archive through February 08, 2004
By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 08:45 pm: Edit

As far as I'm concerned, X1 vessels could function as fleet flagships, still being more combat effective, overall, than X2 ships.

The baseline assumption that X2 must be able to defeat X1 is flawed. X2 can be better, without being BETTER.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 09:18 pm: Edit

indeed!!!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 09:38 pm: Edit

Quote:

It's a good ship but no way is it worth 315.


I was speaking to Anderw Harding the other day...he said he had played an ISC CCX and said that if it was awefully close to being the right BPV and if it wasn't worth 315 it was definately worth 300.

IIRC.


Quote:

Besides, the ISC is in the same position everyone else is...broke and not about to look for trouble for awhile. They have also lost their technological edge, and no longer have a custom-made fleet designed specifically for pacifying the rest of the galaxy. X2 ships are way, way to expensive to make them purely combat driven. This was the design of most ships prior to the war, and I think returning to this paradigm is the best way to start.


In 1903 with 10" cannon on the dreadnoughts of other fleets, would you really be willing to serve in a fleet that said; "screw the fact that the Japanse and a couple of 10" cannon demolished the Russian Pasific fleet and their 8" cruisers we can build 10 ships for the price of 8 if we limit our selves to 8" guns and their effective range of about half the effective range of 10" guns"!?!...I know I wouldn't.

Do Admiralties build ships on the basis that they are at peace and will be at peace for a long time to come!?!

As to MY era fleets...those things might not be WAR DESIGN:- ALL WAR ALL THE TIME but they can still carry themselves VERY well.
Really what's a D7bk got that a D6 doesn't...once you cancel out all the other stuff.
• Speed 32 drones are great with those 2 B-racks...but 2 F-racks ( or two A racks ) don't have to deal with the Fed ADD-8.
• Boom Ph-1s are handy...but the CARa+ has Ph-3s to take care of drones and SS so a higher percentage of it's Ph-1 suite is being brought to bear on you need those phasers up-graded to Ph-1s just to keep in the running.
• UIM lets your Disruptors work more effectively, but AWRs let him run his Photonjs more effectively.

The GW era ships are COMBAT CAKE WITH icing. MY era ships are therefore COMBAT CAKE.

Even compairing GW BCHs to the MY CCs, the core of the combat capability of the vessel existed in the MY period.

So too X2 ships. They should be fully combat capable ( without being overloaded with so many weapons and weapon systems that they become unable to function in other roles ) as well as serve in the other peacetime roles of warships.


Quote:

But for now, no...it just doesn't make sense financially for these broke, war torn nations to start cranking out uber warships when there isn't any real need for them...not when a good general-purpose ship is every bit as effective as the best X1 ship was.


That's pretty much where I stand too.
A good all round warship with lots of non-combat capability, room for refits AND the combat equal of X1 ships.


Quote:

The baseline assumption that X2 must be able to defeat X1 is flawed. X2 can be better, without being BETTER.


Even if we make it no better directly at combat.
Consider what happens when you add 8 more warp engine boxes to the Fed CX, give it Labs that ID drones better, give it full Aegis, bring the Transporters up to R7 & the Tractors up to R5, replace all the Admin shuttles with what are effectly MRX shuttles upgrade the Probe to 25 points of data and mount 4 point BTTYs.

A ship that normally comes in at 240 BPV with all those changes will have a fairly massive BPV.

We're just gunna have to come to terms with the fact that the starting BPV of the X2 XCA will be around that of a DNH.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 09:39 pm: Edit

While the ISC CCX is expensive, it's BPV isn't unreasonable.

Taking the Gorn CCX as starting point (260 BPV and worth every penny), it replaces two S-torps with PPD's, adds six rear L-torps and two tractors. 55 points for that set of goodies might be a little high, but not by much. Every-turn PPD's are not something you want chewing on your back shields while you try to outrun it's EPT-M's :)

One reason the CCX looks expensive is that the ISC CLX is so cheap that it's broken.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 09:48 pm: Edit

A point I've made in the past: compare a Flight II Arleigh Burke Class Guided-Missile Destroyer to a WWII Heavy Cruiser. The DDG is smaller than the CA, has fewer and smaller guns, and less crew and less armor.

However the DDG has Harpoon Anti-Ship Missiles, Vertical Launch Anti-Submarine Rockets, Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles, SM-2 Standard Surface-to-Air Missiles, a single 5" gun, two 20mm Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems, two M-242 Bushmaster II 25mm chainguns, numerous M-2 .50 caliber machine guns, Mark 19 40mm automatic grenade launchers, M-60 7.62mm machine guns (why the Navy hasn't gone to the M-240 yet I don't know), and two SH-60B ASW/GP helicopters, not to mention the AEGIS combat system with AN/SPY-1D phased-array RADARs for fleet air defense and theater ballistic missile defense. It is faster, more maneuverable, more durable, and more survivable (witness USS COLE). Its highly trained crew, automated systems, and embarked helicopters enable it to perform a wide range of missions.

Which ship would you rather have in a fight?

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 09:54 pm: Edit

MJC, how about you come to terms with a 250-280 BPV ship?

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 10:01 pm: Edit

Ya know, the X2 CA could stay at 40-42 warp, a few of those news systems being kiicked arouond, 8 heavy phasers 4 heavy weapons and maybe a few drones...I think we could make that happen foor around 275-280 BPV.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 10:02 pm: Edit

Besides, if you're building compact uber-starships you're going to reach a point where you can cram only so much stuff into the hull. Eventually we end up bashing our heads into the brick wall of cookie-cutterism. Starting smaller and smarter gives us room for the future.

250-300 BPV

I think I'm repeating myself when I suggest a valid paradigm is:

X2-CA compares to GW-DN(H)
X2-DD compares to GW-CA/CC
X2-FF compares to GW-DD/CL

Imagine an X2 FRIGRON (Frigate Squadron - four XFF) taking on a CX+DDX or some such. What a fight that could be.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 10:09 pm: Edit

Mike R. One point about being broke.

The development of X2 is, IMO, really the final product of X1. Those photons and other stuff have been in research for over a decade. Getting them into production wasn't possible when they were ready. Had not the ISC come and then the Andros each race might have introduced X2 at different times from Y190 to Y196. But every one was delayed. This is why we see every one introduce their version of X2 simultaneously. In the mean time testing of X2 tech probably went on long before Y205. In an extended program many problems would have been worked out early and cost of implementation might actually be reduced. (This has happened before in our own military contracts).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 10:20 pm: Edit

Quote:

(why the Navy hasn't gone to the M-240 yet I don't know)


Is the M-240 a 7.62mm weapon??? On the high seas, a clear line of sight for a very long way ( by hand held weapon standards ) is the nature of reality...or was that the reality of nature!?!


Quote:

Ya know, the X2 CA could stay at 40-42 warp, a few of those news systems being kiicked arouond, 8 heavy phasers 4 heavy weapons and maybe a few drones...I think we could make that happen foor around 275-280 BPV.


One of the core aspect of a generational leap forward would be a higher strategic speed an I don't see 40-42 warp engine boxes being beleivable.

Now 48 Warp Engine boxes on an XCA but keeping the shields at CX level MIGHT be believible.

I'll repeat myself with my Paradigm.
X2 Vessel Equivalent
XCA CCX
XCA+ DNH
XDD DDX
XDD+ CX
XFF FFX
XFF+ DDX

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 10:22 pm: Edit

Loren,

I look at X2 differently.

I look at X1 as the final incarnation of standard technology.

X2 is the start of something new.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 10:40 pm: Edit

In a lot of ways X1 is the development that was done between 130 and Y180 comming to fruition because the GW spurred the funding.

X2 is really the R&D done in the GW-Pas-Andro period comming to fruition.

Once stuff is invented the only thing stopping it seeing mass production is capital. Thus even if peace breaks out before implimentation governments will be loave to just let their R&D sit on a shelf...even if they build one uber-system X2 ship with uber weapons at a time they will because the investment is for nought if they don't.

The First B1 bomber cost how many $billion!?!
The rest were a lot cheaper because everything needed to invent the stuff was already bought and paid for.

It takes a real mess for government to invest in better weapons in time of war and then when peace breaks out to not capitalise on that massive investment by putting in the last few dollars.

Maybe one race would hold their X2 stuff for 10 years or so, but eventually, they'll see the added advantages.
• Ships with higher strategic speeds can patrol more territory reducing the number of ships in the fleet saving you money.
• Ships with better shields spend less time in space dock after a battle...saving you money.
• Ships with more powerful weapons ( particularly at range ) are more likely to win battles...making money for you if you capture a planet that you once didn't own and saving you many because you don't have to build a replacement from scratch.
• Ships with better scientific capasities and higher speed make dealing with space monsters safer...which in turn saves you money.
• If X2 ships are the only vessels that can catch X2 Pirates...you'll loose a lot of money insuring cargo if you don't feild X2 ships.


Most of the empires will build a couple of these uberboats as soon as they get designs simply because even if war doesn't break out, it'll still be a better return on their investment than letting everything go stagnant.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 10:40 pm: Edit

Well, that's one way to look at it I guess. I had an argument against that way back when we started this but I've forgotten the specifics...

And I'm too tired to bring it up again. A lot of the newest discussions are those we had a year ago.

I believe I have published historical support for my view but I don't think that there is anything so concrete as to not allow your view to be just as legitimate.

Please forgive me if I sound passive aggressive here. I’m not trying to be rude. Though it’s been a good day for business, it’s been a really bad family day. Life sucks when you’re not getting along with your mate! Thank god for tomorrows!!!

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 10:48 pm: Edit

8 more warp does not need to be there to justify higher strategic speeds.

Fast ships have the same strateegiic speed as X-ships, but with less warp. We can say that the new X2 engines are even faster strategiically than X1/Fast ships, but have maybe...2 more warp. They just haave more efficient engines.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 10:48 pm: Edit

Hang in there, Loren.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 10:49 pm: Edit

R. Brodie Nyboer:

One comment I would make about your Arleigh Burke example, is that by WWII size standards the Arleigh Burke IS A CRUISER. I believe a Flight II comes in at a bit more than 9000 tons displacement fully loaded. Most WWII cruisers displaced from 8000 to 12000 tons fully loaded, with some larger than this. A WWII destroyer typically displaced about 2500 tons or so, but again with variations across class. By WWII standards a ship with the length, beam, draft, and displacement of an Arleigh Burke would be classed as a cruiser, a light cruiser perhaps, but unquestionably a cruiser.

I'm not disputing your basic point, just pointing out the "inflation" in size standards.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 10:56 pm: Edit

MJC, the number of warp boxes is irrelevant when talking about the operational and especially the strategic levels. Also X2-ships having strategic superiority doesn't necessarily mean being faster, they could also have a longer range (i.e. endurance). And yes the M-240 is a 7.62mm machine gun.

John, I'm pretty much in between you and Loren on GW/X1/X2 tech. I see X1 as the evolution of GW tech into what becomes the revolutionary result called X2. In other words, X2 is the adult, GW is the child, and X1 is the adolescent.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 10:59 pm: Edit

Alex (just kidding) Alan, you make a good point. The contemporary DDG is roughly equal in size to a WWII CL. BTW I've suggested before that the SC4 X2-DD should be just under the size of the SC3 GW-CL and should replace its role. FWIW, I originally considered using the WWII BC in the comparison.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 10:29 am: Edit

Cfant and I are in general agreement.

If you're adding 8 power to the ship, you're still talking about making bigger/badder/better ships than X1. You're still working on the Trump Card Formula of Game Design.

Dueces don't have to be wild.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 10:46 am: Edit

Quote:

One of the core aspect of a generational leap forward would be a higher strategic speed an I don't see 40-42 warp engine boxes being beleivable.

Now 48 Warp Engine boxes on an XCA but keeping the shields at CX level MIGHT be believible.



Maybe later...not at Y205, though. Besides, higher strategic speeds may not fly. A single hex of strategic speed may not sound like much, but in F&E, it is. I think it might be more realistic to say that X2 can match the speed of X1 or Fast Ships, but without the "wear and tear". They have a life span of 30 years, instead of the shorter one of the fast ships. That's a significant improvement in and of itself, especially economically. I don't remember what the official life-span of a fast ship or X1 ship is, but if X2 is longer, and more like the original, pre-GW era ships, then they become a better investment.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 11:52 am: Edit

I'm not so opposed to scaling back the warp to 20 box engines.

My first proposal was for a sort of Turbo charged warp that only had 16 actual engine boxes +8 boxes that required 8 actual to exist to opperate. That design was one that is smaller than the X1 engine but generated more power. It was both harder and easier to repair (actual boxes harder and turbo type much easier).

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 01:44 pm: Edit

Problem with that concept Loren is iit works towards the eggshell with a hammer that was Supplement #2.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 02:06 pm: Edit

Loren intended his ASIF to cover for the engine vulnrability.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 02:16 pm: Edit

I had originally proposed that the vertual boxes not be hit but that created problems and people didn't care for it. So they can be hit.

This concept just above actually lends to more durability since the "Turbo"(shaded) boxes are easy to repair (less repair points). The regular boxes are harder than normal warp (i.e. require more repair points).

No "Turbo" box can function without an accompanying standard box.

It sounds a little more complicated than it is.

When I changed the warp type from the first version I down graded the ASIF.

Thanks John for remembering the proposal.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 07:08 pm: Edit

Quote:

In other words, X2 is the adult, GW is the child, and X1 is the adolescent.


There's a lot of people who see X1 as the TEENAGER in that situation.
Strong enough to do a lot of harm, but with none of the finess of the adult.


Quote:

Besides, higher strategic speeds may not fly. A single hex of strategic speed may not sound like much, but in F&E, it is. I think it might be more realistic to say that X2 can match the speed of X1 or Fast Ships, but without the "wear and tear". They have a life span of 30 years, instead of the shorter one of the fast ships. That's a significant improvement in and of itself, especially economically.


Does F&E have rules to make the longepardy of the ship have a meaning under its play?
If so cool.
If not, then yeah an extra a hex of strategic movement is what we're after.


As to fewer more powerful warp engines...I'm still not convinced that fewer more powerful warp engines will cause ships to be eggshells wil sledgehammers but since it's simpler and easier to stay with warp engine boxes as they are and have a handful more of them, it remains playable.

With the playtesting I've done, the XCA had forgone the ASIF for most of the battle and by the time the player knew he wanted it it, the ship was so badly damaged that it wasn't worth the energy.
The thing is, that if he had used the ASIF, the 6+15 power requirement of it (for that ship) would mean that he wouldn't be making battles speed much faster than GW ships even with those extra 8 warp engine boxes.

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