Archive through February 14, 2004
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: Integrated Proposals: Archive through February 14, 2004
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 10:48 pm: Edit

I agree that the XCA should be callled either an XCA or an XCC but you should not have both, just a ship that is an XCC.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 10:50 pm: Edit

I guess I'm going nostalgic here when I support the name XCA. I agree that the ship really is an XCC, but the term "heavy cruiser" really has that classic edge to it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 11:34 pm: Edit

Yes, but we're talking the Future here. :)

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 02:40 am: Edit

Right, and in the future a cruiser is a cruiser and a uber CCX is actually a XDN.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 09:12 am: Edit

Nomenclature just doesn't matter at this point. SVC will create an ADB integrated proposal and create a logical nomenclature at that time. CFant, why not allow the author some literary license until then?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 10:59 am: Edit

Loren Knight:

Last night you asked whether their was such a thing as a CAX(X1). I would say yes their is. I consider an X1 heavy cruiser (not counting special purpose ships like the Fed GSCX) to be a CAX if it has a CR of 9, a CCX if it has CR10. Now there are no ships in Module X1 that use "CAX" as the specific designation, but there are plenty that meet my definition (whether you accept my definition as valid is another matter).

The Gorns have a CCX but the also have a CR9 CMX. The Hydrans have the Ranger-X and Dragoon-X (don't remember the abbreviations) at CR-9. The Kzinti have a CCX with CR10 and a slightly weaker BCX version (same weapons, a bit less power) and the Tholian NCX is also CR9. The Romulan FHX and K7X are CR9. Interestingly, the only CCX the Romulans have in X1 is the (comparatively) ancient Advanced King Eagle - KEX. I'm not sure but I believe that the Klingon D7DX is also CR9.

Some races only built CCXs for their X1 heavy cruiser hulls but their are also a number of CAXs as well. Interestingly, in several of these cases (Gorn CMX, Tholian NCX, Romulan FHX and K7X, arguably Ranger-X and D7DX) the race's CAX is more powerful in single combat than their CCX (Which is based on a different hull except in the Klingon and Hydran cases) but the CCX is better as a fleet flagship.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 11:21 am: Edit

Alan: My point was that nomenlature hasn't always stayed the same. X1 changed some things beyond the 'X'.

Tos points out the final answer to the whole discussion. SVC will do as he sees fit and it's silly to discuss it at length. If I type XCA or XCC everybody knows what I mean. I've made my proposal. It's not wildly popular but some things I've proposed some people like so I'm happy I've contributed.

Thanks Tos for the moment of clearity!

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 10:31 am: Edit

Okay, here are the two Fed ships I have for my “personal” X2. I’m including a point-by-point comparison with their X1 equivalents, as well, just as a way to illustrate that better doesn’t necessarily have to be bigger.

Federation XCA
Federation XDD

CXXCADDXXDD
Box Count1131187671
Total Power48523229
Batteries151899
Avg. Phaser Damage (oblique)27331825
Avg. Phaser Damage (centerline)35252712
Max Photon Damage64646464
Total Shields200224156180
Total EW7777
Cost for HK, capacitor charge and HW242419.519.5



A few notes on the table:

  1. Average phaser damage is calculated by taking the average score for each range, and then averaging the total across all ranges and multiplying by the number of phasers that can bear. This is the best way to get a simple average score that can illustrate the base effectiveness of the phasers overall.
  2. Cost for HK, capacitors and HW recharge: this assumes capacitors are charged only with one point, and that HW’s are armed as standards…2 points each. This, again, provides a fair and basic comparison. For the X2 ship, it includes the cost of running the SIF (the one I proposed) on full power, the normal setting for combat situations.


Okay, you’ll notice that the XCA outdoes the CX in most categories, though it cannot generate as much centerline phaser damage as the CX. Housekeeping costs are the same, letting the XCA enjoy a very slight power edge over the CX. Total possible damage is very similar, as is the protective abilities of each, though the XCA fares a bit better due to slightly stronger shields and the SIF. All in all, they match up fairly well, and the XCA is a nice but modest improvement. It is not by any stretch an uber-ship, just a slightly better armed and more flexible one.

The DDX and XDD are even more dramatic. The XDD is both smaller and less powerful than the DDX. Like the XCA it can perform better on the oblique, but suffers on the centerline attack. It is marginally better shielded and has the SIF for some more protection, but is overall a smaller ship. It has less power, but does have the same engine as the XCA, giving X2 a certain economy of scale, just like the pre-war DD and CA did. Besides…I like the lollipop, and always have.

In any case, the major difference in the 2X ships and the 1X are that the 2X ones are a great deal more flexible, have better research capabilities (better labs, and more probes) and are more efficient. They have slightly smaller crews, better but less phasers, and a much more flexible photon torpedo that can still crush an enemy’s shields, but are much better suited for mid-to-long range duels thanks to the other options I planned for it (see the post on this back in the proposal thread, for more details). All in all, what this gives us is a rare but very powerful CA for the fleet; one that, with a high command rating, can perform as a CC during combat. The DD (and eventual frigate) are still quite effective, though in some ways are weaker than their X1 equivalent; fair enough, given that they are not optimized for combat. The can perform a variety of duties fairly well, especially given the NWO options they have. Labs for research, cargo for escort and convoy duty, hull for ferrying around special civilian passengers, barracks for marines…the XDD has a bit to offer for every duty. When war time comes around, a refit will be in order to beef it up. This configuration is the Y205 one. And, much of these designs are predicated on many of my personal opinions, including the abilities and costs of an SIF, the one point cost of the P5, and a more flexible but not more damaging photon torpedo.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 10:57 am: Edit

Mike Raper:

Total EW 7? Shouldn't that be 8?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 11:26 am: Edit

Yeah! Sorry about that...

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:29 pm: Edit

I'm a lollipop-DD fan too. The only changes I'd make would be two more hull (makes it tougher), one more FX-Ph (brings up CL better), and one more battery (more endurance). How would that balance out?

As you have them now, how do their power curves balance against each other?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:33 pm: Edit

They don't, really. But, the DDX was a pure warship, built only for that purpose. The XDD is a more GP ship, with the ability to do lots of things. When the time comes (Xork invasion) it would see some improvments, one of which would be the addition of one each FX and RX P5.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:48 pm: Edit

Funny, in my proposal I saw the Destroyer as the one ship that would be the most combat oriented.

XCC: Flag
XCM: Workhorse
XCL: Workhorse alternative for smaller missions.
XDD: Combat Escort
XFF: Niche filler.

This might gear players to flying the DD more often.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:55 pm: Edit

I see where you're (both) going. The changes I suggested keep in line with my philosophy that the DD would replace the CL in X2. The X2-CL wouldn't show up until wartime (if at all) as an X2-CW. Those changes make the XDD more powerful admittedly, but necessarily so due to its increased mission requirements.

Recall that my thinking is that early-X2 won't see diverse shipbuilding, just a few common hulls that may have a variant or two (e.g. XCA/XGSC/XCV and XFF-variants). The result is that the CA is the daddy of the fleet again, the DD is the workhorse and replaces the CL, and the FF is the pure-combatant with composite-squadron design. Theoretically you could have one shipyard that builds heavy cruisers, one that builds destroyers, and one that builds frigates, thus cutting costs by improving shipyard efficiency.

Can't wait to see your XFF(s).

I was also wondering what the others' shipbuilding philosophies are for (early) X2.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 01:05 pm: Edit

Loren, just to clarify. When I say XCA and you say XCC, we're saying the same thing (near as I can tell).

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 01:12 pm: Edit

There was a link to someone's page that hosted a few different ideas, but I lost it. Someone here will remember and post it.

The main thing, call me silly, that I dislike about Mike's SSDs is that they look mostly identical to GW/X1 ship outlines. I want X2 to be built on new hulls with no X1 to X2 conversions possible, and with new outlines.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 01:31 pm: Edit

LOL, just goes to show you can't please everyone! The few "unusual" outlines I did received the exact opposite criticism...that they didn't look like earlier stuff, and hence didn't look or feel like Feds. For now, I'll be happy if we can all agree on the basic boxes a ship will get, and its abilities...I'll worry over artsy stuff later.

Brodie, my XFF is done, but (much to Tos' chagrin, I'm sure ) is very similar to the X1 FF. Same power, but with a bit more shields, the FX/RX phaser arcs of the other Feds, and a few different boxes; most notably, NWO. I'll get it up sometime later.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 02:01 pm: Edit

In X1 the DD did replace the CL for the most part. The goal was pure combat and that totally fit the doctrine. Indeed, the Klingons followed that doctrin best by having a CL (D5X) but that was a unique situation.

I believe the CL would have a real place again in the new situation though would not be the first off the lines.

I think it would go like:
XCC-Y205 (only one yard producing one ship at a time)
XCM-Y206 (soon after to start filling the workhorse role. Several yards eventually)
XDD-Y206/7(Several Yards with equal production of slightly more than the XCM)
XCL and XFF-Y209 simultaniously to start replacing non-X2 retirees and various duties.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 04:29 pm: Edit

XCA,XCL,XDD,XFF

XCA first( a crusier, not Loren's version of the Uber battleship), XCL,XDD,XFF out at about the same time a year or two later.

then a year or two later an XDN.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 04:40 pm: Edit

CFant: You've see the SSD, right?


Anyway, Christopher, I logged on here to apologise to you about something. A few days ago I realised something I hadn't before. For quite some time I've percieved you as a nay sayer as there seemed to be somemuch you didn't like but weren't presenting proposals. I was wrong. What I understand now is that, like me, you have your own vision of X2 but that you just don't illustrate it as others do (which is perfectly fine). I'm sorry for mis-reading you and value your oppinion as part of this group.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 05:18 pm: Edit

Tos,

I put up an X2 page. Ar eyou thinking of it?

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

Fleet structure is where the traditionalist in me comes through. Everybody seems to be kicking the poor XCA upstairs and focusing on the XCL/XCM or XDD.

I will respectifully disagee.

The XCA would be the fleet workhorse, aided by the XCL/XCM (there really isn't enough room for both a XCL and XCM or you have two competing designs of the same SC)

Especially if the XCA is only slightly better BPV-wise than a CCX, why not give the XCA a CR of 8 or 9 and leave the CR10 CCXs for fleet command? That paves the way later for a Y215 XCC or XCB and a XBC for 225 or 30.

The XCL/XCM would pick up duties we'd like a XCA for but can't afford to deploy one for.

The XDD would pick up light duty assignments and heavy convoy escort duty.

I particularly like the idea of all XFFs getting a little bit of nimble-ship ECM otherwise the class is simply too small and too easily killed to be worth producing, not unlike the PFX.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 06:03 pm: Edit

XFF: Nimble...yes.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 06:49 pm: Edit

We've kicked this idea around before. The FFs are's striclty nimble but are small enough and built with enough borrowed Orion stealth tech that the XFF and only the XFF gets that little bonus.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 06:49 pm: Edit

duplicate post

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 06:52 pm: Edit

I'll get up my complete Fed list later this weekend, with luck, including the two already posted and the XFF and XDN. Should spark some conversation, anyway.

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