CFant: That is actually the gist of all the designs I have exept for the XCC.

These are Fleet Flag ships and, IMO, need to be better than anything previous. I think it will be attractive to a broad base of players to get one super cool ship per fleet.

The rest of the ships will be just like you suggest but with the addition of a third cruiser class (actually, replacing the straight CA role).

The XFF is not much more that 100 BPV (with some variants under). The XDD and XCL are both under 200 BPV. My XCM (or XCA) is about the same as a CCX (X1). The XCC is the big boy of X2. One class per race with a build rate of about 1 per year.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 01:22 am: Edit

C.E.F.:

People like you want a 250 BPV multi-role high strategic speed cruiser with the combat ability of a BCH and whole lot more functionality.


This is just plain wrong.
There is no point in building a front line warship in the X2 period unless it can go toe to toe with an ISC CCX which comes in at 315 BPV.

We have to look to 300-330 BPV ships or else it just wouldn't have been built as a frontline cruiser.


Maybe X2 period should have a higher rate of GSVs in their fleet because peacetime opperations caused a larger number to be built.
I for one don't want to play my GSX beats your GSX and then call it a my XCA beats your XCA battle. I'ld rather give it the name it deserves!

---

Quote:

I think it will be attractive to a broad base of players to get one super cool ship per fleet.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 02:17 am: Edit

Loren,

One thing to remember about the designs that I made (or that others made, as well) is that they aren't really "mine"...the are expressions of what the group discussing this stuff is talking about. And, even though many have 300+ BPV's, it isn't because they can go toe-to-toe with a battleship. It's because of all the extra goodies and such they carry. NO cruiser should be able to survive the alpha strike of a battleship of any kind...not and be able to continue to fight effectively, anyway. Comments I'm seeing here lead me to think we're heading that way. Supplement 2 did that, as well, and didn't make the cut. I think that any time we really start seeing a ship approach the combat effectiveness of a BB we need to slow down and think it over. Remember, too, that these 300+ point ships are the first X2s without refit. If we start with 300 points, what will we go to when we see Xork refits?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 09:53 am: Edit

I posted my "personal" X2 choice in the proposal thread. That might help explain where I'm coming from.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 11:35 am: Edit

Mike: I read your "Personal Proposal" before that and took that as the answer to my post. I understand now.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 12:00 pm: Edit

D****T Mike! Why'd you have to go and make it so stinking simple? You know it's people like you that threaten bureaucracies! Here's your X2-photon reposted from "Integrated Proposals" for all to see:

Mike Raper - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 09:52 AM
"The photon torpedo is both greatly changed, and not. It does not increase warhead strength past 16. Not yet, anyway…that may come later. In Y205, the photon still does a base damage of 8, with 4 point proximities. The major changes involve flexibility. Proximities no longer have to be designated on turn two of firing; any standard load can be designated as a standard or proximity at the owning player’s choice the instant of firing. Standards can now also be fired at range 0-1, albeit not as accurately as overloads. Further, fast loads can now be held and are now limited to a range of 20. This means that you could fast load proxies every turn, if you liked, and right before firing change to a closer target and fire as a standard. Fast load “overloads” are still limited to 12 point warheads and a range of 8, just as any overload. So, while much more flexible, the raw damage potential of the photon isn’t changed. But, with ships designed like this, there really isn’t any need for more."

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 01:46 pm: Edit

I'm a little confused about the comments regarding a 300-or-so-BPV X2 cruiser taking on a battleship. I had understood that X2 BPV were supposed to be compatible with GW BPV. But most battleships are much more than 300 point ships.

Consider first the Fed BB. It has a nominal cost of 326 BPV. But that would be the cost with slow drones. By the time X2 ships are available a Fed BB would certainly be carrying fast drones. Filling the 48 drone spaces with fast drones would bring the cost to 374. Now some of the drone spaces are in G-racks and may hold ADDs. Also, the BB could save some points by replacing pairs of 1F drones with single IVF drones. But the use armored drones, ATG, Type-III drones, or any other "special" drones would serve to raise the cost. I submit that without specifying an actual drone loadout, 374 is a much better first order approximation of the Fed BB's actual BPV, even without fighters. Similarly, the Kzinti (344 nominal) is actually more like 400 BPV.

For the Plasma races you have BPV of 415 (King Condor), 376 (Gorn), and 360 (ISC). In all cases, this does not include mech-link refits or any fighters/PFs. It also doesn't include sabot-refits. I find it very difficult to believe that any plasma race which actually produced a battleship would not spend the extra money to make its torpedos sabot-capable.

The Hydran BB comes in at 390, the Neo-Tholian at 376. The Lyran only costs 336 but I believe this to be too low. While it is not the most powerful battleship around, the Lyran, even without its PFs clearly fights "heavier" than 336 BPV.

The point of this rant is that if an X2 cruiser costs 300-325 BPV, it is much closer in real combat power to a DNH than to a true BB. An X2 cruiser that could fight a BB on even terms (even without the BB's fighters/PFs) needs to cost more like 375-400 BPV. Otherwise the BPV system is broken between X2 and GW.

It's possible I'm missing something here since I haven't been following the X2 threads all that closely, but if so what?

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 02:56 pm: Edit

Let's move this discussion over to the "X2 BPV" thread. I'm posting there.

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 07:11 pm: Edit

Mike Raper wrote:
I can understand your concern, but you must remember that the BPV of these ships isn't just determined by the power/number of heavy weapons they have.

BPV is BPV if the Fed and Klingon X2 cruisers have a price of around 325 then the nearest Fed/Klingon ships are the BB and B10 sans fast drones. If a Fed X2 cruiser is equipped with 8 phaserV's (equal to 12 ph-1) then their offensive capability must be invested more in their torpedoes and drones.
It is also a reflection of their phaser power, available energy, EW abilities, damage resistance, speed, special abilities and defenses. An XCA with an SIF system can absorb much more damage than you would think; combined with better EW and the power to exploit it, AND improved shields, they'll be very resistant to damage. The phaser V is greatly superior to the P1, as well, giving the ship a very effective phaser suite for both offense and defense. The S-bridge system is something else to consider, as is the possible "any" system box that can be whatever you want it to be. A ship with all these abilities combined and packing 20 point photons is plenty to worry about. 24 or 32 points? Just say no, at least if you plan to use this other stuff, which I think most people do; simply making weapons more powerful is what Supplement 2 tried to do, and it was an abysmal failure.


SIF, Improved EW, Improved Shields and more power, all are detrimental factors to the photons ability to deliver crunch power. A photon equipped ship will have a harder time maintaining high speed, sufficient ECCM and arming torpedoes. There are two ways to deliver more crunch power, more damage or better accuracy. To avoid increasing the warhead strength, you have to either improve the photon's accuracy or switch to a different paradigm. Also, I am aware of the "egg-shells with sledgehammers" problem; I am concerned that the other extreme is being approached.


That said, I do sort of like the notion of the super-standard photon that can be any warhead size from 1-16 with no hold penalty or myopic zone. Talk about a flexible new toy. Would such a thing have no feedback, as well?

My thought is that there is no reason to remove the feedback effect. If this option is chosen this would mean that the Fed's preferred fighting style would move even more towards the direction X1 was heading.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 07:17 pm: Edit

Orman, we carried the BPV discussion over to the "X2 BPV" thread.

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 07:48 pm: Edit

R. Brodie Nyboer,

I had seen that, however it was easier to make all my responses to Mike in one thread rather two or more.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 08:04 am: Edit

---

Quote:

SIF, Improved EW, Improved Shields and more power, all are detrimental factors to the photons ability to deliver crunch power. A photon equipped ship will have a harder time maintaining high speed, sufficient ECCM and arming torpedoes. There are two ways to deliver more crunch power, more damage or better accuracy. To avoid increasing the warhead strength, you have to either improve the photon's accuracy or switch to a different paradigm. Also, I am aware of the "egg-shells with sledgehammers" problem; I am concerned that the other extreme is being approached.

---

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 01:49 pm: Edit

At range 8, a pair of D7s would be firing 8 OL disruptors, all 1-5 for 6. Max damage 48, average damage 40. That will take down a shield of an XCA, or leave it with a couple boxes. In return, if the Fed hits with 2 photons at range 8, one D7 has 15-20 internals, the other is undamaged. If the Fed jackpots, the Klingons have one cripple and one undamaged ship.

Now compare that to an analysis of a GW battle:

At range 8, a D7 would be firing 4 OL disruptors, all 1-5 for 6. Max damage 24, average damage 20. That will take down a shield, or leave it with a couple boxes. In return, if the Fed hits with 2 photons at range 8, the D7 has a down shield and 5-10 internals, but is still in the fight. If the Fed jackpots, game over.

If a Fed CA is balanced against a D7, then the XCA is more or less balanced against a pair of them, but we're still writing the rough draft.

The Feds have always specialized in one impulse crunch power. To expect the Klingons to equal the Fed in that one aspect is to not understand how Klingons fight against Feds.

The Klingons will have to do what they always needed:
Get multiple shots on the same shield with their disruptors,
Use their maneuverability and drones to keep the Feds out of range 4,
Hope the Fed either doesn't take the shot at range 8, or hope he misses.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 02:29 pm: Edit

That's the thing, Mike. That's the Fed slot-machine. In a same-BPV matchup, if a Fed hits significanlty above average the opposition is always in trouble.

Especially with the photon, you can't balance based on a full-spread of torps hitting.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 02:31 pm: Edit

Agreed, and the particular disrutptor I came up with for my own X2 stuff does this very nicely. Integrated UIM and DERFACS, base damage of 6, and good D5 firing arcs...what more does a good Klingon need?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 03:06 pm: Edit

What's the damage chart for a base-6 damage disr? I must have missed your post on that.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 03:13 pm: Edit

One angle to observe is Reserve Power and it's affect on the Feds Big Gamble.

With large X2 reserves the Klingon XCA can handle an average photon strike. The Fed then needs to take time to reload (or launch a smaller strike). In the mean time the Klingon is hacking at the Feds reserves. Now here is the point. While the Klingon has a good chance he wont need any reserves or considerably less in the even of a Fed miss (or bad rolls) the Klingon is far more likely to hit; hacking at the Feds reserves.

In the long game the Klingons will make progress better than the Feds.

This same thing will apply to Klingons vs. Kzinti (with DC). The Kzinti will have to maneuver fast to set up the Klingon with drones then strike big. Oddly, this is very Kzinti in style. Old Kzinti used this style but also had to hit with at least a few drones. In the X1 and X2 era the effectiveness of drones will be reduced so they will need the crunch power in their first main strike. Old Kzinti couldn't finish you with that strike but it didn't matter because they would then get some drones in.

The Kzinti will need the DC to hit hard enough to make their drones effective afterwards.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 03:20 pm: Edit

JT,

It's on the Klingon XBC I posted over in the proposal thread.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 08:30 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

All true. However, while those things are detrimental to photon power, there are two points that make me still think there is no need in making a 20 or 24 point photon. For one, while X2 ships have those systems, X1 and below do not. Since BPV must be the same between those generations, an uber-photon equipped X2 Fed would end up having an enormous BPV, just to allow earlier ships to compete. Imagine. A 300 point X2CA with 24 point photons would be expected to fight a pair of D7BK's, with some drone purchases. A single volley of those overloads would gut one D7 instantly. And with the speed and EW advantage the X2 ships has, it wouldn't be a problem.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 08:33 pm: Edit

THE BATTLE IS SIMPLY NOT DESCIDED BY THE FIRST BATTLE BASE OF 20 POINT PHOTONS...

Should read:-
BATTLEPASS BASED ON

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 09:00 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

THE BATTLE IS SIMPLY NOT DESCIDED BY THE FIRST BATTLE BASE OF 20 POINT PHOTONS...and this is battle that is decidely unfair to the GW ships.

---

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 09:32 pm: Edit

I feel that we need to evaluate what the photon should be able to generate in regards to crunch power. During the early GW era two full overlaods or four standards would just about drop a cruiser's foreward shield (30 point shield + 3-5 battery reinforcement). A full overload jackpot against a cruiser would crush a foreward shield plus battery reinforcement and damage 25% to 30% of the target's internals. The question then becomes, should the X2 photon be able to generate a proportional amount of single impulse crunch power.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 08:02 am: Edit

IMO, no. The trade with X photons was not increased crunch, it was the ability to fire every turn if you wanted too. I firmly believe that this route was taken expressly because more crunch was undesirable. Since this ability will likely be retained for X2, with a few other enhancements, I don't think more crunch will be needed. That's just me, of course. The only way I could see allowing more crunch would be the elimination of the fastload. Give it what technobabble you will; that the new photon is too unstable to fast load, or something.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 12:38 pm: Edit

MIchael John Campbell:

The problem I have with your analysis is that you often seem to assume a particular tactic for one side with no acknowledgement that there are plenty of other tactics that might be used instead. For example, in your post on this thread arguing that 20-point photons would not be unbalancing, you assume:

1. That the Feds commit 8 points to EW during energy allocation. Why? First of all, if they want to ensure that the Klingons (max 6 ECCM for each ship) are shooting against a positive DRM during the "off turn", how about commiting 7 points to ECM? Granted, the Klingons could overcome 7 ECM with an MRS or a sensor drogue. But not only do both of those means have limitations of there own, they would also allow the Klingon to overcome 8 ECCM. But this is a minor point. The major point is that the Fed needn't allocate anything at all to EW during energy allocation. One of the advantages of an X-ship is the reserve power. This allows the Fed to wait and see what the Klingon ships have allocated to EW and then use the batteries to allocate EW with maximum efficiency. You hypothesized two possibilities for Klingon ECM, zero or 6. In the former case the Fed spends one ECM and one ECCM, giving the Klingons a +1 DRM and the Feds a -1 DRM and saving 6 points of power relative to your assumption of 8 ECCM allocated during energy allocation. Or they might spend one for ECCM and 4 for ECM, making the Klingon DRM +2 and still saving 3 points from your assumed energy allocation. If the Klingons commit to 6 ECM during energy allocation the Feds might spend 8 points of reserve power for 7 ECCM and one ECM, again giving a +1 Klingon DRM and a -1 Fed DRM. With only 3 batteries on each ship, the D7Ks simply can't compete in tailoring EW the way an X-ship can. And if the Klingons try to use an ECM drone to bring the total to 9 ECM, the Feds kill it with phaser-fire and fire the photons and remaining phasers next impulse.

You assume:

2. That the Feds need to use 3 Phaser-5s in rapid pulse mode to kill drones that get past the ADDs, assuming average rolls. Yeah - or maybe the Feds grab the drones with tractors with the intent of killing them next turn but allowing all the Phaser-5s to be used against the Klingons this turn.

You assume:

3. That the Feds will either slow down to recharge the batteries after the first attack run, or leave them empty. How about this - the Feds make their initial attack run at speed-31 (see below) and turn off and separate after firing. They continue speed-31 at least through a good chunk of the next turn. The damaged D7K can't keep up with this at all and the undamaged one can do so only by leaving the damaged D7K behind, creating a risk that it might be attacked while unsupported by the other ship. Even if the undamaged D7K is willing to take this risk, at those speeds and facing an undamaged rear shield, it can't arm enough weapons to do more tha scratch the paint on the XCA. If the Klingon D7K follows at high speed, the XCA maintains speed and has more than enough power to recharge batteries gradually over several turns, even while reinforcing the rear shield and annoying the undamaged D7K with rear facing (and 360) Phaser-5s. In the meantime, the damaged D7K falls further and further behind. If the Klingons don't follow closely, the XCA creates adequate separation, slows down to recharge the batteries, refill the phaser capacitors, and rearm the photons. It then turns back around and accelerates for the second pass.

You assume:

4. That the Feds will make their attack at moderate speed. But if I were playing the Feds in this scenario I would rather have the control of the range that a very fast attack run gives me. If that means loading the photons to something below 20 points, well just because you can load to 20 doesn't mean you have to. If that means not charging ASIF, well I'ld rather rely on ECM, shield reinforcement and control of the range, at least in this scenario. If that means not allocating for EW during energy allocation, well see 1. above for my opinion on that. Note also that the XCA might save a few points by starting the turn slower but accelerating to high speed as ships approach R8. Depending on their distance at the start of the turn, they can probably allocate for this, saving all their reserve power for EW, tractors, shield reinforcement, or any other use that seems appropriate.

I'm not claiming the tactics I've described above are the best of all possible Fed tactics or that there's nothing the Klingons can do in response. But I submit they are quite viable, that unlike your assumed Fed tactics they take a more realistic account of the actual advantages an X2 ship would have over a GW ship in areas other than raw crunch power, and that your analysis doesn't even consider them.

One final point - you say that two D7Ks cost 280 points. But thats the cost with slow drones. By the time X2 ships become available, fast drones have been general availability for more than two decades. 300 points is a more accurate cost for the Klingon force than 280 points. If the Klingons take nothing but Type-IVF drones in their racks, the ships come out to 146 points each, 292 for the force, but that would not include any ECM drones. You also suggest that a more balanced match for an X2 cruiser would be a C7 plus a D7D with fast drones. But once the drones are payed for, that force costs over 350 points, depending on the exact drone loadout. A C7 with nothing but Type-1F in its racks and nothing fancy is 204 points by itself. I'm not saying that your version of the XCA is right or wrong regarding what an XCA "should" be. But it is worth MUCH more than 300 BPV.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 12:59 pm: Edit

Michael John Campbell:

In rereading my previous post, I've decided it's a bit more strident than I had intended. I apologize for that. But I do think your analysis would be better if you didn't lock in on one assumed tactic so often.