Yes, that's the link I was looking for. Thanks.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 10:19 pm: Edit

I disagree with the notion that frigates will be worthless in X2. *A* frigate by itself stands little chance against larger foes, but that's obvious. Frigates should not be used singly and therefore should not be designed to be used singly. This is why I harp on the composite-squadron concept for frigates, what I called FRIGRON (Frigate Squadron).

A FRIGRON (FR) is typcially composed of four friagtes of complimenting variants, though some fleets may desire as little as two or as many as six. The basic element of a FR is two frigates operating in a wing. The wings come together to compose the squadron. Each frigate variant in the FR compensates for the others' limitations. The FR is composed from a Fleet's FRIGRU (Frigate Group) to accomplish a particular mission.

I've posted before the variants as I see them ("X2 Timeline" back in June). Loren has also posted a similar concept. This is my updated version:

XFA: AEGIS Frigate (AEGIS, speed, heavy on phasers)
XFB: Attack Frigate (aux power and heavies)
XFF: Fast Frigate (speed and drones)
XFM: Mine Warfare Frigate (aux power and trac/trans, might also transport Marines)
XFS: Scout/EW Frigate (lots of aux power, scout sensors, labs, and drones)
XFT: Priority Transport Frigate (speed, trans, and cargo/barracks using NWO)

Note that thanks to NWO boxes some of those variants could be fitted out in starbase/spacedock and have the label slapped on as needed. Also frigates should generally be designed around a higher combat speed than the other ships in the fleet (e.g. where an XCA might be spd24 an XFF would be spd28). These designs might negate the inclusion of boxes otherwise considered normal for other ships (notably labs and heavies). The XFA/XFB/XFF would have a higher Command Rating than the others and would serve as squadron commander.

A FRIGRU (FG) might have six or so each of XFA/XFB/XFF and four or so each of XFM/XFS/XFT. The Battle Group commander requests a FR from the Fleet commander's FG based on his mission's needs.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 10:27 pm: Edit

Sorry for the long post but I wanted to get that off my chest.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 12:30 am: Edit

I e-mailed you, RBN, before reading this post. I basically agree with a couple exceptions.

The Attack Frigate wouldn't exist. It would be replaced by a XDD is such a squadron since it would be the prime target only the XDD could really handle it.

Second the XFB slot could be (different design) filled with a Convoy Escort Frigate.

Basically I see the role of the frigate being a behind the line unit. Never sent to go into combat though might in an emergency (hence the XDD lead XFF squadron).

XFF's are too small given the era. It's suiside to go into serious combat with them. IMO.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 12:54 am: Edit

---

Quote:

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)

---

---

Quote:

I disagree with the notion that frigates will be worthless in X2. *A* frigate by itself stands little chance against larger foes, but that's obvious.

---

---

Quote:

Basically I see the role of the frigate being a behind the line unit. Never sent to go into combat though might in an emergency (hence the XDD lead XFF squadron).

XFF's are too small given the era. It's suiside to go into serious combat with them. IMO.

---

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 09:54 am: Edit

I'm not active in this topic, but I'll say this as one of the 95+% of people who aren't but will be the market for the eventual end-product: Mike Raper is dead-on with the resurrection of the "lollypop" Fed DD. These are supposed to be ships for a new peacetime fleet and all that that implies (patrol duty, showing the flag, exploration, etc.), not tricked-out combat monsters churned out for a full-bore war with huge fleets heavilly augmented with trillions of credits worth of attrition units. The former would give new life to the Y205+ era, the latter would quickly approach ludicrousity.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 11:27 am: Edit

Thus spake Orsini......

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 12:53 pm: Edit

I'm inclined to agree with ...the Orsini... as she in this instance "spaketh" truth.

We need the "stock" designs so that when the war comes, we have a coherent framework to proceed from.

Plus, put me down with the group that likes the lolipop Fed DD!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 01:18 pm: Edit

MJC: I've planned the CM to be a full cruiser. Like the Gorn CM is a full cruiser. It would have an MC or 1.

I just would be as big a cruiser as the XCC.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 02:16 pm: Edit

Thanks for stopping by, Jessica. Hope to hear more from you.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 03:20 pm: Edit

I still do not like the XCM for the Feds.

The Feds do not have medium crusiers. They have heavy and light and that's it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 03:40 pm: Edit

They have in the past, why must it be for the future?

The Gorns used the term because they needed to differentiate between two types of FULL MC-1 cruisers.

I'm proposing two types of FULL cruiser. Hence, the need for a term as such.

In addition I want to see an actual XCL (MC 2/3).

Setting aside that you probably wouldn't want to see more than one Cruiser as above, what should I call the smaller of the two units?

Also, why would the Fed only do what they've done in the past? Seems to me that if there is good reason to do something they would do it as opposed to resisting change.

For instance: The DD and the DW. A definite change from the past design.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 06:18 pm: Edit

Change in design is fine within limits.

Change in terms is a un-needed flair.

As for units, again...

XDN...MC 1.5

XCA/CC...MC 1

XCL...MC .75

XDD...MC .67

XFF...MC .33

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 06:49 pm: Edit

Well, I can live with either. I can understand the desire for a medium cruiser, if it meets a few restrictions, namely A) it is less capable than a CA, and B) less expensive. Then we get X2 CM's that fill a roll midway between CL's and CA's, simply because the X2 ships are of such an expense that a mid-sized, multi-roll cruiser becomes highly desirable...even to fleets that have never used them. In some ways, the Fed NCA is a CM; it's smaller than a true CA, but bigger and marginally better than a CL. It's all in the taxonomy. They were called NCA's because they were based on the NCL hull. Had there been no NCL, and a ship like the NCA had come along, it may very well have been called a CM.

Frigates. Been a lot of talk about these, and I have mine ready to post. But, before I do, let me explain how I had envisioned the X frigate.

The X2 fleet is fairly small, and while it likely has less territory to cover, it still has quite a job to do. Flexibility, then, is key. The big ships, like the cruiser, by their nature are large enough to have a good variety of systems inherent in the design. Like the original CA, for example, the Fed XCA is a well-rounded vessel, with all the necessary systems onboard to do pretty much any mission it wants with reasonable facility. In wartime, this mission changes to combat and command/control...hence the 10 command rating. But the rest of the time, it can do pretty much anything the admirality wants it to. So, it needs no NWO or Y205 variants...it's fine as it is. The important thing, here, is to keep these ships functioning and not tied up in the yards with alterations or modifications to do jobs it should already be able to do.

The XDD, though, doesn't have the luxury of so many integrated systems on board. It must fill a variety of rolls, from border patrol to escort and scientific duty. While it does have a fair amount of systems in the basic design, a pair of NWO boxes greatly enhances its flexibility while still keeping as many of the hulls out of the dock as possible. A quick trip for a change to the option boxes will suffice for most missions, and will keep the bulk of the XDD's out doing their thing.

Frigates, though, are a different story. They are too small to have all the systems integrted into their design that they may be called on to use, and too small to include an acceptable amount of NWO to remedy this. They do have one advantage, though, over the XDD and XCA...there are more of them. The XFF is likely the most numerous hull in the fleet, and therein lies its flexibility. You can have simple variants and still maintain the numbers you need out on duty. Where you might have one XCA and 2 XDD's, there will possibly be up to 6 XFF's. Half these might be the "standard package" XFF, suitable for escort, patrol or pirate interdiction missions. Others, though, would be specialty frigates, designed specifically for other missions. Drone frigates for fire support, escort frigates for convoy or carrier group duty, commando frigates...there's variety of options. It would be far easier and more economical for the X frigate, which is just as capable as a GW light cruiser, to fill these rolls than it would be to use a cruiser or even a DD. Granted, not all races would subscribe to this; the Klingons would almost certainly have an XD7-D, sort of super drone cruiser...at least, I have one drawn up. But still, the little frigate is the easiest to make variants of, if for no other reason than it is the most numerous hull in the X2 fleet.

All of the above is, of course, my vision. Others may differ. But I do think it makes sense, both historically (look at the scads of frigate variants in the GW) and economically. Exhausted economies need to stretch their military dollar, and being aware of both the fundamental strengths and shortcomings of each hull type would be cruicial to success.

So, to sum up:

1. X cruisers are quite capable without options, in large part because of the number of systems they mount as part of their design. This means they are quite efficient as they are, and have to spend no time in dock re-fitting for missions they can already do, which keeps the big ships out doing their job.
2. X destroyers are a middle ground; more numerous than cruisers, but not large enough to do everything in a basic configuration. A couple of option boxes will turn the trick, maximizing the number on patrol while enhancing their flexibility to an acceptable level with minimal dock time.
3. X frigates are too small to have much in the way of option boxes, and cannot as successfully fill a mission profile as the XDD and XCA. However, they are more numerous, allowing for a variety of hard-built configurations to serve multiple rolls. In Y205, these are where you primarily find variant hull types.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 07:50 pm: Edit

Personnally I only see only one reason why we can't have an XCC, XCA, XCM & XCL and then the two steve can list some as conjectual units ( or some as units with a YIS of much latter than 205 ) based purely on what they feel is the Design Philosophy of the owning race at each particular stage of the ecconomy & technology of said race in the X2 period.

That reason is simply that SVC & SPP probably don't want a 196 page SSD book.

But let's just leave it up to them as to which types of ships get published.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 07:52 pm: Edit

Interesting. I'm going to have to take a whack at those myself. Mike you're kind of going where I'm going, but we have our differences of course. Same for Loren and John. MJC, what's your take on X2-frigates? Tos? CEF? Orman?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 07:56 pm: Edit

Mike R.

I like your Frigates, although I would commend moving the NWO ( or whatever boxes ) to somewhere else and thus have 8 Hull Boxes rather than 6 as time imply longer missions.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 08:07 pm: Edit

I agree with 7 or 8 hull boxes for frigates but for different reasons. Still that would be a lot of hull boxes for a FF. I'm thinkin' on it.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 08:11 pm: Edit

My take on X2 Frigates...mostly the same as everyone else.


• Frigates are the most numerous X2 hull.
• Frigates are developed as many varrients ( if the XFS has been found by the Admiralties to be too poorly defended then the XFDB can be special sensor mounting light scout substitute ).
• They will be great for Convoy escort ( especially since they are the BPV of a CA ) as well as CVA escorting as rapid pulsed phasers will come in handy ( not that there'll be lots of CVA based assault, but regaining lost planets and showing the flag and even Convoy escorts with old CVA hulls will happen from time to time...the AxCVA & AxCVL are the best Q-ships in the game ).
• X2 Friagtes will be handy in picket duty as they can run away from most things they can not fight and inform the Admiralty of the enemy invasion fleet and the old CVAs and CCa+s and CLs can be sent off on an interception coarse, sure in the knowledge that whilst they might not be able to run away from the enemy invasion fleet, the won't need to. If you can buy an XFF and an XDD for the price of an XCA, then they are a better option for picket duty.
• Frigates may well be some of the earliest X2 vessels because the ecconomies can't afford larger ships and the empires can't aford ship building skills and talent to evapourate.
Some Races will build an XCA as the testbed ship and XFFs to keep the skills up. Others will be poorer still and build an XDD as the testbed ship and then build XFFs to keep their skills up.
• If total war breaks out from the tradewars then the XFF might go the way of the dod, but only long after the FFX does.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 08:18 pm: Edit

I would also go with 4 Lab boxes to represent the longer duration nature of these vessels.

But also because the same number of warp engine boxes as the XFF on a ship with a higher BPV is bad because you'll loose your warp engines in a hurry.
If you have 2 extra Hull and 2 extra Labs it might make the ship 5 BPV more but it'll keep those relatively speaking ( with respect to the FFX ) fragile Warp Engines from being crushed.


This is even more true if the ASIF couples with HULL and LAB boxes to give extra protection .

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 09:30 pm: Edit

I must have missed a post somewhere...why is the .5 mc not included in the charts above?

I mean, i could see the frigates in the X2 era become larger than the gw frigates...leaving the .33 MC for the lowly escort role...

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 09:50 pm: Edit

My take on X2 FFs and DDs is that there probably shouldn't be any dedicated variants. XFFs and XDDs should make extensive use of NWO and weapon option mounts to simulate viariants. My reasoning is that during this period it would be easier to mass produce ships with modular capabilities than to produce a half dozen variants. Also, this could allow less combat oriented ships during peace that are more capable of long range patrols and scientific exploration, while retaining the ability to be quickly converted to more combat capable ship. For instance a Fed XDD could be equipped with four labs and four NWO, during peace time the NWO would typically be used as lab and later if need be exchanged for AWR. In this way most races could optimise the non-combat usefullness of their hulls and with relative ease improve the combat effectiveness of their ships. I think this would be the primary lesson learned from the GW. Additionally, I temd to think frigates will not be present often in fleet actions and will be used more for scouting during the X2 period.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 12:42 am: Edit

Frigates in the GW were found to be too small. X1 Frigates suffer the same fate. The Frigates I have designed are modestly larger. In fact I have asked John Trauger if he would be willing to add my latest designs to his X2 board. They include the following Federation units:

XFF MC = 2/5
XDD MC = 1/2
XSC MC = 1/2
XCL MC = 2/3
XCM MC = 3/4
XCC MC = 1

Note specifically that my Frigate has a new 2/5 MC. It is designed to operate alone in internal sectors. It is not designed to support front line fleet operations as the photon arrangement should suggest. Both my Frigate and Destroyer follow the lollipop design philosophy.

All of my designs include NWO. The reason for this is I perceive a need for cargo bays on all ships and the NWO concept allows them mission flexibility.

So as not to tease I’ll go into more depth once I receive confirmation that the designs are posted and available for viewing.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 11:09 am: Edit

Various thoughts
=====================


Mike Raper: Exactly what I mean. Thank you!

As to NWO...well I'm a bit for both ways now. My primary plan was exactly what Tos stated as his reasons. This has been my arguement since the beginning.

However, I do hear Mikes point when it comes to NWO on the XCC and the XFF. The XCM would most certainly have them as would the XCL.

I'm not sure the XDD would and I can see the XDD not having any variants (or very few). Same goes for the XCC and XCM. The XCL and XFF would be the hulls for variants. These would be the two most numorous hulls of their size class. (though the XDD would be a close runner).

I see the XDD as a Force enhancement unit. Even though it is a time a peace (realitively) it is a ship designed for combat. It is the only ship designed purely for combat. (and yes, this is a change from the old pardigm, I know. Change is what X2 is about IMO).

Part of the advancement in technology for the Frigate could be in the design and ease of construction. Hence, it has a bit less hull that you would probably want BUT can be built at a low cost and at a high production rate while producing a high quality, long lasting, maintainable unit.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 04:18 pm: Edit

I think I see where you're going Loren. This is how I look at it (again I apologize for the long post):

The Federation Star Fleet (gotta start there as it's the basis for the game) is a military organization with combat starships. The Fed just came out of a major galactic war and has a LOT of infrastructure that needs rebuilding, as well as the Fleet itself. Cost savings are paramount in designing the "new fleet," at the same time nobody wants to sacrifice combat power in the event of follow-on invasion or outbreak of war. The Fleet decides to build a family of starships that maximize combat power within a given hull. This means that the smaller the hull the more GP capabilities are sacrificed (and vice versa).

The Combat-to-GP ratios I list below are for illustrative purposes only. Actual mileage may vary.

Smallest size: Frigate - 3:1
Medium size: Destroyers - 2:1
Largest size: Cruisers - 1:1

This indicates that cruisers would have a hull roughly three times the size of a frigate. Keep in mind the ratios above are for illustration purposes.

The reality is obvious: frigates have less internal volume than the other classes and therefore are the most combat-oriented in design. Destroyers will have more combat power than frigates because they have more space to put it in, but they will also have more GP capability. Cruisers have the most combat power due to size, but they also have the greatest GP capability.

Cruisers remain the obvious choice for long range patrol and endurance operations, as well as battle group command and power projection. Destroyers supplement cruisers in surge operations and provide the bulk of "homeland defense," as well as forming the "gun line" in battle groups. Frigates protect the internal areas, convoy routes and borders, and serve as tripwires and flankers in battle groups.

This is where I'm coming from.