Nikolaus: Welcome,

there is a thread, IIRC, called X1R. THere we discuss refits of GW ships to X1 tech. We have been calling it the XP (Partial X) Refit.

We've all pretty much agreed that X2 tech should work on GW hulls.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 10:22 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I know that many X1 ships have a BPV range similar to these. But remeber, X1 is designed for war only.

Also, if we keep them in these raanges they wiill be far easier to balance out than if we put an XFF at 180 and it has to be able to desttroy a BCH half the time.

---

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 04:31 am: Edit

What SVC has said is that they must play nice with GW ships. Which means BPV has to be a consideration.

But the entire idea of the X2 proposals is putting together intergrated ideas, so we can see what a group of ships would be like.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 07:49 am: Edit

BPV must be on the same scale, so that a 2X ship of 200 BPV fights even against 200 BPV of GW ships. But the BPV could be anything as long as the same number of points is an even fight.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 09:44 am: Edit

Just some musing on terminology, which may be totally out to lunch.

I understand Loren's rationale for races building two types of X2 heavy cruiser, one a general purpose ship and the other a combat monster. But I'm not sure I'm happy with the designation XCC. Though CCs usually have a bit more combat power than the CAs they are based on, the real, essential difference is that the CC has a better command rating. For GW ships the CA generally has command rating 8 while the CC is 9. For first generation X-ships the numbers are 9 and 10 respectively.

The thing is, I find it difficult to believe that in the X2 era, the races would build any heavy cruiser that didn't have command rating 10. X1 heavy cruisers already have command rating 9 and the marginal cost of upgrading a CR from 9 to 10 would seem to be so slight compared to the base cost of any X2 heavy cruiser that it wouldn't make sense not to do it. That's why I'm not sure that XCC is really the appropriate terminology for a pure combat X2 heavy. Other possibilities would be XCA for the general purpose and XBC for the combat monster, or perhaps XCM and XCA respectively.

It could be argued that since most races use the CC terminology, they would continue to do so even if it didn't have any better command capability than the XCA. And for that matter, there's no reason that all races need use the same pattern. Some might retain XCC/XCA while some go with different terminology. The Klingons might go with, for example, XD8 and XD9 for the two versions.

This whole thing is a minor point, but I did want to mention it.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 10:26 am: Edit

Alan, a CX has a CR of 10.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 11:01 am: Edit

Cfant:

The CX is the Fed 1st Generation-X Command Cruiser. The Feds don't have a regular X1 Heavy Cruiser. But there are plenty of X1 Heavy Cruisers that only have CR 9. Romulan FHX, Tholian NCX, Kzinti BCX to name a few. I'm not sure what your point is. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 11:03 am: Edit

Ya, there should be some variation of terminology from race to race. The Klingons could use XCB for instance.

The XCM I had in mind would have a lower command rating than a CX and 9 sounds right. The XCC would be 10. Command points aren't going to be the major issue. In this era CR 9 or CR 10 isn't going to be used much.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 11:10 am: Edit

Loren:

I have to disagree with you on that. Even though battles requiring a CR10 will likely be very rare in this era (X2 but pre-Xork) the marginal cost strikes me as likely to be so low compared to overall cost that you would install CR10 anyway, just on the off chance... Leaving an X2 Heavy Cruiser at CR9 seems to me penny-wise and pound-foolish in the extreme.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 12:06 pm: Edit

Loren:

No, I was not accusing anyone of anything, just suggesting a possible compromise that people could agree to, such that the various races have uniqueness to them. To me cookie cutterism is homogenizing all competitive races designs to the nth degree.

All I want is a Fed that acts and plays like a fed, and a klingon that acts and plays like a klingon, and the two designs being diffent in some defined and understandable way.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 12:47 pm: Edit

Jeff, I want that too, however, in addition I would like to see their design evolve and as such their tactics for those designs evolve.

For instance: Some say that the Disruptor Cannon will make the Kzinti into Feds. While it depends a bit on how the DC is made to work it is not the two turn arming issue that does it. The Kzinti wont fight exactly like before, indeed, but they will be modified KZINTI tactics. I believe that with the DC the Kzinti can do the Kzinti thing better.

Tactics evolve, they have to or the system breaks down.

There is no point to X2 if you can do the same ol' same old in a new ship.

Anyway, Jeff, I didn't think you were accusing. We are, I think, in basic agreement about CC'ism. And this post expanded to cover a broader subject.


================
I'd like to point out a couple things regarding the historical context of the X2 era and the reason I DON'T see the races returning to the prewar pardigm.

The Prewar paradigm FAILED. It didn't deter war. Now granted from the PoV of the prewar viewers they didn't know there was such a great need. But from the PoV of the post war viewer there is a need. The war mentality isn't going to be just dropped for the Organian Era of Tranquility. Further, the Governments must acknowledge that the GW saved them all. Had it not happened their ship designs would not have been able to handle the Andros at all. The Andros would have won and they would all be slaves. Even the ISC would not have been as prepared.

I don't see the logic of returning to a prewar pardigm. Sure, there would be those who lobby for it in all the governments saying "We need to take care of our people." but the arguement "We need to make sure we have a people to take care of." would win out.

"But there is no threat!"

"Did you see the Adromedins comming? The All Seeing Organians didn't. Are you sure our bordering empires won't take up old grudges in our moment of weakness?"

"But we are now friends. We all fought together against the Andros."

"Every one fought for their own survival. We are NOT one nation and still there are unknown threats out there. We will maintain and build our strength or perish. Peace is good and we will provide a deterent to that which would threaten it. We will not stumble again."

I can imagin this argument occuring in every councel/senate across the galaxy. Eventually, peace would take hold and the Fleets would settle into that peace perhaps...and then the Xorkaliens come.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 03:25 pm: Edit

Nikolaus,

I did an X2 KE conversion once.

You'll find it and other X2 designs here.

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

I don't have a specific disagreement with Loren's idea about 2 different X2 cruisers except for the part where his "XCC" is a move cost 1 1/4 ship. IMHO it's a DNL in cruiser clothing and I don't like fudging the terminology.

I tend to be the both one of the most oddball designers here as well as the one of the most tradition-minded.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 04:50 pm: Edit

John: I'm not stead fast on that MC thing. I've argued for it but that doesn't mean I think it absolutly must be that way.

I call 'em like I see them but doesn't mean I'm seein' straight.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 05:08 pm: Edit

I'm with Alan on the CA/CC thing. I've been leaning toward just calling the main cruiser a heavy cruiser. It just so happens that it also fills the role of command cruiser. XCA is good enough for now. It also hearkens back to the pre-war days.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 05:14 pm: Edit

Which is why I'm for something else. See above.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 05:50 pm: Edit

Connsidering that late in the war, Command Cruisers could be built in place of regular CAs, I do not see why you would build aanytthing BUT CCs. Just call it the heavy crusier and theen the next size up is just thee DN, CA/CC is the same ship.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 06:56 pm: Edit

While I am not opposed to the "dual cruiser" concept, I never understood the rationale for it.

I never understood why ships needed this masive increased patrol range over what is normal for a SFU warship.

OK, a few survey ships, yes, but I never understood why line warships need extended range. Not in 205. By 205, with a number of years of mostly-peace, there are still plenty of Standard-tech ships, and a good list of X1 ships. I don't see the huge empty territories that require a lone XCA to patrol them.

I also have a less rational reason for not being fond of the concept: It reminds me of "holds" from Commander's X2 and anything that reminds me of Commander's X2 starts with a strike against it.

Now once we start talking Xork in 225, THEN a long-range warship makes sense. At that point, I can see a warship that gets longer range and extra hull boxes as opposed to the extra firepower of a XBC.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 07:13 pm: Edit

Yeah, me too. To me, the only difference between a CC and a CA is that the CC needs a better command rating. So, you get a flag bridge to accomplish this. But with an XCA, with an inherent command rating of 10, why would you need a different version? Fleets are smaller, and made of very expensive ships. The XCA should be just fine at handling this role.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 07:38 pm: Edit

I disagree.

Command Cruisers have something special about them...even if it's only replacing RH arc Phasers with 360° arcs or installing those phasers before the other ships of the fleet got those Phasers. The padding of extra control boxes probably isn't enough.

Since it is a capital ship it will be prioritised by enemy fire and therefore something defensive is warrented.

Personally I'ld mount an aft hull G-rack and a Pair of 360° Ph-6s with the Flag bridge and call that the command cruiser...but maybe it's something that should be held for a spare page in a CL.

Speaking of CLs, I don't mind if there is two cruiser classes...the MY period already had CCs, CAs, CMs ( for some races ) and CLs.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 07:51 pm: Edit

CFant: The reason is (whith in my proposal of an XCC and XCM) the XCC is big and expensive. It is a fleet leader/flag. I'm not talking an (S8.0)fleet but a theater fleet. The XCM would be the ship more common.

John: My concept is that there is a basic change to the naming convention. However, it can be XCC and XCM or XCA and XCM. Either will do. My favor is for XCC because where ever this ship is it's in command. FOr the X2 era I would be cool with seeing the term CA fall wayward for a time but it's not so very important.

Long Range: With vast areas of devestated zones to be reintegrated into the empires there will be mission that must work for a time 'out of supply'. Indeed, the mission will be to establish the base point for lines of supply and to reestablish borders. There is a good chance that some races would send these ships to other nations capitols to establish new diplomatic relations. The Feds may send the Home Fleet XCC...er...XCA to visit and make a showing to the ISC. They will have to be prepared to be WAY out of supply.

Also, there is new territory to be give attention. Each race has an off map zone. These areas have been surveyed. Y205 is a good time to deal with opening new colonies.

Last but not least, there is the LMC. Suffering economies will welcome trade here. But it is dangerous even after the task of establishing relations and bases and supply logistics.

There might well be Andro stagelers to deal with too.

The hayday of the Orions may be past but with X1 ships they could make a real come back. In any case the threat is there.

The real threat of the Xorks is not yet known but they have been raiding Alpha space for a while. To paraphrase Don Rumsfeld: There are known unknowns and there are unknown unknowns. Xork raiders, along with many others I'm sure, fall in this catagory some where. Space is dangerous.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 07:54 pm: Edit

Loren, as I disregard your proposal as unreasonable, it does not enter into my line of thinking.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 08:23 pm: Edit

It's a matter of semantics. You say XCC, I say XCA. CA's are peacetime ships built for a variety of duties. CC's have only one real function; command of a fleet. If the CA can do the same job, why would you need it? So long as it's just one cruiser type, I can live with it. But not two, at least not initially.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 08:38 pm: Edit

I've proposed two cruisers with the XCM being an entirely different hull. But you know this.

I call it an XCC because it a Cruiser in command. You can't make a CC out of it because it's already all the way there.

The next type down is a different hull so it need a different designation for clearity.

If I call it an XCA there would never be a XCC since it maxed in command. Anyway you look at it it is already a Command Cruiser. The basic hull is a Command Cruiser.

I would ask, is there a CAX?(X1) I guess it's not totaly fair since it's called a CX. I would point out it is a totally new naming structure. Why does X2 have to return to the old?

The next step up would be a XBCH.

Actually, I don't want to see XDN or XDNL. The XBCH should be the total max, IMO.

So it's not quite potato/potawto to me.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 09:13 pm: Edit

I say agaain, by late war all tthat is built are CCs. CAs no longer are built for all intents and purposes.

The CA hull is iused for varients. CC is the stock crusier.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 10:10 pm: Edit

So you agree with the XCC nomenclature?