I think you have hit on a critical point so I'm going to move this conversation to a more appropriate thread.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 01:53 pm: Edit

My answers to Ken's Poll:

1. What BPV should an Fed/Klink XCA have?
B. 275-300

I expect that BPV will go higher than this range but it's a noble goal to shoot for.


2. Should traditionally high BPV races (BP in general) maintain the:
B. Shrink the relative spread on BPV

I tend to want to let the chips fall where they may. I never bought the 300 BPV price tag for the ISC CCX anyway. Also races should gain or lose some advantage over time so holding to a BPV caste system seems a little artificial.


3. Should XCCs be____ over XCAs?:
B. A minor improvement

While I am willing to compromise toward a MC=1.25 "CC", it's not my first choice.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 02:08 pm: Edit

John,

For #3, "B" is a major improvement. A is minor. Which are you after? I'm assuming A, minor improvement.

Okay, my comments:

1. What BPV should the Fed/Klink XCA have? I went with B, 275-300. That's a hefty increase over X1, but keeps them below BB range.
2. Should tradionally high BPV races maintain: Again, I went with B or possibly D. The ISC will have lost their big advantage of studying the races for years and building ships specifically designed to combat the warring powers. But, since everyone basically continues using the same stuff, maybe they should still have a somewhat higher BPV...just not so much so.
3. Should XCC's be a ____ improvment over XCAs? Went with A...minor improvement. I guess it depends on what you consider minor. But, if you add a drone, some reactor power, a flag bridge and an additional pair of heavy phasers (similar to what the GW upgrades did), overall that's pretty minor. Major is adding 50% more phasers, flag, better batteries and the like. Just say no.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 02:20 pm: Edit

Tos,

The words are correct. I changed my vote after the fact.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 05:07 pm: Edit

Oops, here:

1)A - 250-275 for X2-CC
2)B - shrink for the same reasons
3)C - no different other than Flag C2

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 06:26 pm: Edit

OK, here's my reasons:

3) No need for an XCC, since the XCA will already have a 10 command rating.

1) 300-350 BPV for the MC1 X2 ship (XCA/XCC)
In a 1 on 1 with a MC1 GW ship, it should dominate.
In a 2 on 1, it should hold its own.
In a 3 on 1, it should be toast.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 07:12 pm: Edit

"3) No need for an XCC, since the XCA will already have a 10 command rating."

That is a questionable assumption. In the trade wars it won't be necessary to add all those fleet control enhancements to the cruisers. I'm expecting the XCA goes back to CR8 with the XCC CR10.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 07:16 pm: Edit

Some point to that. You don't need 6 of your 10 fleet ships with a CR of 10.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 07:27 pm: Edit

Can I just say that I don't actually think the X2 ships are all that powerful.

Consider an X2 Klingon cruiser.
Take a Klingon DX.
Add 8 Warp Engine Boxes.
Remove two Disruptors ( to be added in a refit latter but not placed at first to save money ).
Give the Disruptors built-in UIM and Defracs and Disruptor Caps with a 6 impulse double broadside penalty.
Add in Bridge as special thingy.
Add an extra Ph-1 to the boom for 12Ph-1s in total.
Give the vessel full X-Aegis.
Allow for speed 32 if it can pay the energy.
Replace the X1G-racks with X2A-racks ( they'll be refitted to X2B-racks ( 8-9 spaces ) and an X2E-rack will be mounted for drone defense during that refit ).

The weird thing, is that I see such a ship as being lucky to have a BPV above 250 ( considering what the DXD can do ).


SO even though I say we should aim our starting BPV at 300-330 so it can go toe-to-toe with an ISCs CCX, I have a hunch we're going to fall short of that.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 07:31 pm: Edit

Some point to that. You don't need 6 of your 10 fleet ships with a CR of 10.
I've been kinda Hoping for a command rating of 12 on the XCC...if the Two Steves have no problem with it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 08:32 pm: Edit

Jeff T.

If the XCA has a CR of 10 and there is no other cruiser with a higher rating then the XCA would in fact be THE Command unit and thus and XCC.

The XCA would be a different class of hull. That's why I wanted it dubed XCM and that the XCA and XCC are one and the same.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 07:22 pm: Edit

Loren,

I don't care if it's called an XCC or an XCA. Each race has one class of MC1, CR10 X2 ship. That's the flagship.

Then there's a need for a workhorse cruiser. I don't care if it's MC1 (your XCM proposal) or MC2/3 (an XCL).

But if it's MC1, then the question is what's the difference between an XCM and an XCC. MJC's answer would be "about a hundred points". My answer would be "a flag bridge and a couple extra phasers". The best answer is somewhere in between.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 07:33 pm: Edit

MJC said:

---

Quote:

SO even though I say we should aim our starting BPV at 300-330 so it can go toe-to-toe with an ISCs CCX, I have a hunch we're going to fall short of that.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 09:39 pm: Edit

Somewhere regarding X-ships there is a statement that the BCH hulls could not be converted to X tech. due to the fact these hulls were built to the maximum the CA hull dasign could handle. But that eventually these problems were solved and these ships were X2.

So, what I'm seeing is that the big X2 Cruiser is a ship based on the BCH (though due to circumstances not so war like in initial design). My version on the MC1 workhorse cruiser is a NCA looking vessel. Very GW cruiser like internal wise.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 09:50 pm: Edit

I equate an upgrade conjectural BCHX to an XCC.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 09:51 pm: Edit

Loren,

That's nice and apporpos to the CM designation.

But that's not really what I, personally, am interested in.

I mean no slight to you or your ideas. It's just a difference in what we have a taste for.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 10:10 pm: Edit

No offense taken. Quite understandable.

The thing that is driving my ideas is what I think the races would be facing. I'm trying to create my designs from a historical perspective. What is the next step based on whats happening, what was succesful before, what failed before, what is affordable, and what will serve the needs of the Navy best.

My best guess at the situation is that the ISC pushed the races back to their core systems and then the Andromedans made things worse. Once OpU is over the races begin to rebuild, having more than half their nation to retake.
During the ISC and Andro wars R&D went into overdrive but implementation was problematical since no one could spare a moment to experement, instead building X1 ships and carriers and such as fast as they could to survive. Everyone enters the X2 era at the same time because thats when Galactic events allow for it to happen.

Oops, I'll stop now, this isn't the place.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 10:13 pm: Edit

...so you're assuming that the races will want a ready stock of technologically current war-production hulls?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 11:23 pm: Edit

No.

The XCC is clearly the most desirable unit but it just isn't going to go into production as fast as the GW CA was. The NCL and subsequent NCA had some design advantages the lent to faster production (aside for cost cutting and corner snipping). Some of these advantages make it into the XCM design. Also, some to most missions wouldn't require a full XCC to serve. So, an alternate cruiser is put into service. These are fully capable cruisers, just not the premere Starship of the era but more capable than a CL. The XCC handles the Extreme missions while the XCM handles the others (but is still serving in front line missions.)
XCL/XDD handle anything from back up to rear area missions. Also, this hull will have the most variants.

The XFF fills in any gap including Scout, DB, and Fast Transport.

X2 is meant to phase out other technologies as it is easier to maintain and is more user friendly (as such requires less of the crew. Important because experienced crew of exceptional quality is more rare at the time).

I get caught up in answering and forget what thread this is.

Again, sorry about that.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 11:35 pm: Edit

Moved to Generic X2 Hull.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 04:28 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I equate an upgrade conjectural BCHX to an XCC.

---

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 01:05 pm: Edit

Although the BCHX is a cool idea and is probably pretty scary (perhaps X1R will also have conjectural ships?), I'm not sure the GPs could've built one and I'm not sure they'd want to once X2 came into being.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 01:23 pm: Edit

I'm inclined to not worry too much about an offhand non-rule comment in X1.

I certainly don't want to escalate the CX to BCH levels then escalate power again switching to X2.

A BCX would have to have on the order of 18-20 P-1s on it before adding extra photons/plasma/drones (a Fed BCFX would replace plasma-F with plasma-S like just about everybody else? -- Brrrr... That's why I'd like to quietly forget that sentence in X1)

It may be that the the BCX is an alternative to the XCC and the two are more or less parallel-evolved equals.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 01:29 pm: Edit

The comment implied that when the problems were solved that allowed X-Tech on a BCH type hull THAT'S what X2 was.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 01:40 pm: Edit

Loren,

The problem is, the sort of X2 we're proposing (at least Y205 X2) here doesn't square with that.

XCX to XCA we trade 1.5 P-1's for a P-5. to got to the BCH benchmark a ship should then have 10-12 P-5s and we're stopping at 8.

We made a conscious effort to limit the escalation of raw power going from X1->X2 and I think that decision was the right one. Our XCAs in general are upgraded CX equivalents, Not BCX euqivalents.

Now come the Xorks, THEN we'll talk about true BCXs.