Well, at least in my proposals, you can only make the any box something you already have; so, only klingons could make it a security box. That's just me, though.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 07:42 pm: Edit

Working on a Klingon XFF; nice little guy. Very similar to the FFX, but with some nifty changes. I'll get it up later.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 09:44 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

And you can probably drop "hull." An any box is too useful to take as a free hit.

---

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 09:54 pm: Edit

I posted on July 6 to the X2 BPV thread:

---

Quote:

When I was talking about BPV, I meant the MC1 ship for whatever time period. I pretty much figured the rest would fall in line.

For example,
If the XCA is 350, then: XCM 275, XDD 200, XFF 150.
If the XCA is 425, then: XCM 350, XDD 250, XFF 200.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 11:24 pm: Edit

Yeah I'ld like to see the XFF go from 130 BPV up to 170 or there abouts but the idea that they make good oppoents for MY-GW cruisers is still legit.

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 01:44 am: Edit

Any X-ship already can use up to two of its control systems as "virtual" security stations for boarding party combat -- XD7.422.

So, X-ship control spaces are already triple function control/security/sometimes-lab boxes; add transporter and tractor functions (perhaps under the same only-if-none-left lab rules) and you've effectively got a five-system multi-function box.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 10:25 am: Edit

New 2X concept:

Federation X2 prototype

Happy Sunday.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 01:19 pm: Edit

You're sick. Get some help.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 09:45 pm: Edit

I love it...but the BPV is way too high.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 10:39 pm: Edit

Mike, got your Klingon XFF. I made the changes to the page and forgot to post it. It is now posted.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 03:25 pm: Edit

despite SVC quotes opening up the landscape to radical change our SSDs haven't really followed suit, so I decided to go a little strange with a new revision to the Fed. It's a heavily edited version of Mike Raper's last playtest XCA.

http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/x2/vorlonagent/Fed-XCA.gif

I incorporated Jeff's idea of phasers in the upper-right and left saucer "corners" since it gave me an opportunity to use a LS+RF/RS+LF firing arc and I always liked that arc.

It is a testbed for my Phaser Lance proposal (also called the phaser-mauler. It's down in the generic weapon thread where nobody's bothered to comment on it) Though I didn't put a mauler arc diagram on the SSD it uses the mauler firing arc.

It uses the secondary shield propoal floating around here (unlike Jeff, I prefer to use A,B,C than 1/2, 2/3, 3/4)

It uses a weapons turret that works off the Quari rules. The small boxes around the edge mark the different turret positions and the firing arcs for the C/D photons on the turret when the turret is facing that direction. The turret can't face directly to the rear (it can but why?) and the C/D photons can't fire into the line of hexes directly astern of the ship.

No I didn't mess up on the warp. The thing has 2x16-box extra-efficient warp engines. They still produce 16 warp energy each, but the energy used for movement is multiplied by 1.5.

The reduced power for the ship means that P-5s cost 1 point to arm and P-6's cost 1/2. For XCAs with 45+ warp, I still maintain that 1.5/.75 is the way to go. The XCA only has 6x P-5 because it has the Phaser-Lance to pick up the slack.

Of course, it uses my ASIF. The 2+1+1 housekeeping for shields is 2 for main shields (no minimum shields for this puppy) +1 for the secondary shields +1 for the ASIF.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 09:33 pm: Edit

It's different. I'll give you that.

---------

How often can the phaser-mauler shoot?
Once per turn?
Where is the connection to the batteries?

----------

It's been a while since I've played the Qari, how fast can the turret turn?

----------

No minimum shields?
I hope the ship doesn't get caught in a nebula.

-------------

Tracks seem a bit large for a cruiser sized ship. The scanner and sensor look like they came off a DN, and the dam con is from a BB.

Combined with the ASIF, it makes the sensors and scanners undamageable.

-------

The engines: This seems confusing. Suppose I plot speed 23. How much warp power do I have for everything else? 32 - (23 / 1.5) = 32 - 15.3333 = 16 2/3

Functionally, isn't this the same as saying the ship has 2/3 move cost? Because a player can use 2 points of warp power can provide 3 hexes of movement, or 2 points of power for something else on the ship.

23 hexes * 2/3 move cost = 15 1/3 warp needed.

--------

Photons:
Range 11 OL
10 pt standard / 20 pt overload,
improved to-hit numbers.

Way too much.

I posted a range 10 OL with improved to-hit, and was told it was almost a game-breaker even with 8/16 warhead strength.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 02:06 am: Edit

Jeff,

The phaser-lance shoots once per impulse, just like a mauler.

It only fires from the contents of the capacitor bank inside the turret. Literally, 4 points is the the max the phaser-lance can shoot in an impulse. That's why it doesn't generate shock.

For multiple shots, you drain power from the batteries into the Lance's capacitor supply. If the capacitor bank is destroyed its ROF will drop once per turn. I am considering 2 point capacitors that will give the lance 8 points of storage.

Actually, I forget how often the Quari turret can change facings. I think 8 impulses, but I don't know. I'd be fine with 4 impulses.

the secondary shields stand in for minimum shields during thost times when min shields are all you have.

The tracks and photons were holdovers from Mike's design. I agree that a 10-hex OL is excessive and will change the photon chart to 8 hexes my next opportunity.

The difference between a mc of 2/3 and the system I have is that the XCA is not fuctionally lighter than a CX or BCH when you're in a tractor situation. The ship is s MC1 ship, not a MC 2/3 and it should act like one.

It's partly a holdover from Jindo prejudice with me. I despise the fact that the big, Jindo heavy asteroid CA has a 2/3 movement cost when 2 or 3 should be more like it.

It's also a procedure thing. Once you get down how the engines function you're fine. It seems sloppy to say the ship's MC is 2/3 except when it isn't, and you'd have to do something like that to avoid strange tractor interactions and possibly other counter-intuitie side-effects.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 02:12 pm: Edit

I just finished doing the newest version of the Romulan XDD, XFF. Minor changes. I'm going to sit on them a while then go back and see what goofs I missed the first time. Turns out I had forgotten the the PPT Ammo boxes on the XFF. Who knows what I'll find after a break.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 02:43 pm: Edit

send me updates when you're ready.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 06:56 pm: Edit

More "house cleaning" . . .

Is this a good thread to post links to X2 SSDs or should it continue as a thread to discuss what X2 SSDs should look like?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 07:22 pm: Edit

I believe it's for posting potentially interesting SSDs.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 02:28 pm: Edit

Alright, since these should go here and not the proposal thread. There has been much interest in the 24 point photon lately, with several good arguments for it; I still say it's too much, but since this is really a group effort, what an individual wants or doesn't want is immaterial; it's what the most of us will go with. So, I came up with a couple of new SSD's based on the 12 point standard photon. Given that knowledge, I made a few assumptions or leaps of logic in making the designs. These include:

• A Klingon XBC would have six disruptors, just as the DX. These would be based on six points, though, instead of five. Since a full set of overload disruptors at point-blank range has always been able to pull down the front shield of a CA, and about 25-30% more, I based the Fed XCC forward shield on the max damage the Klingon could do; 72 points. This results in a 54 point #1 shield. The others are set up accordingly.
• Energy for the XCC is 48 warp, and some AWR. I know there are players who feel that's too much. But really, it isn't...not when you're upping the cost of your primary heavy weapon by a half. The CX could arm standards and have 36 points of warp leftover; the XCC can arm standards and have 38 points leftover, and still must pay to operate the SIF. In short, the power curve is almost the same. Hold cost increases as well. So, the power available to the XCC shown here feels right to me, at least for a ship armed as this one is.
• The P5 is a primary offensive weapon, though in limited use. Only the forward phasers are P5's; the rest, X-P1's. While this does reduce the effectiveness of the ships phaser suite, it also puts the emphasis back on heavy weapons, for more racial flavor.
• Phaser arcs, in keeping, in keeping with the above, are back to their old standard Fed configurations.
• The XDD is still a lollypop, and uses the same engine the XCC does. Neither are particularly modular, and carry no NWO boxes. Frankly, the don't need them. The frigate may; I still have to figure out my X2 "big photon" frigate.
• BPV is speculative, though it feels pretty close; these are very potent ships.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 05:50 pm: Edit

Mike, our XDD designs are very similar but also different in noticable ways. Mine loses a photon but gets wider arcs and a bunch more lab/NWO. It also clocks in at a lower BPV. Other than that and its •••• hard to tell them apart.

I've sent my SSDs to John and he says they will be up in the next day or two. It should be a fun exercise to compare these ships once mine are also up.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 12:28 am: Edit

I like them both, but I would still like to see 4 photons on the Fed XDD.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 07:59 am: Edit

I did consider it, but went with three for two reasons; one, it's still on par with the damage any previous destroyer could muster, and even a bit more. And two, the power cost of three of these will tax this ships energy pool; it already has marginally less than the DDX did, and has to spend more on the three photons it carries. Besides, I kind of like the pattern; 4 heavy photons on a cruiser, 3 on a destroyer, and 2 on a frigate. Working on the frigate; it's mostly done, but needs some tweaking.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 10:36 am: Edit

Besides the four photon lolly pop DD would only load three of its photons to keep up battle speeds. In this way it was a free hit.

Since your designs would have an ASIF and another weapon (2xGX racks) that XDD comes out ahead by a full torp.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 05:15 pm: Edit

Okay, got my latest Fed Frigate, to go along with the others I posted above. I put them up here again for convenience. BPV's are obviously speculative.

R2.?? Federation 2X Frigate
R2.?? Federation 2X Destroyer
R2.?? Federation 2X CC

There are ways to refit this one as needed, just by shuffling around some stuff. With two NWO boxes, you already have a fair base for options, especially with such a small ship. Now, as to the photons:

These photons are exactly like those used in the GW era, save the 50% increase on everything. Standards, arming costs, hold costs...everything is up by 50%. The only difference is that the range is at 40, as with the X1 photons. NO DOWNLADING. If you want damage every turn, cycle fire the things. That's still significant punch, the equal of four heavy disruptors if fully loaded.

Now, a corresponding Klingon:

R3.?? Klingon XD7 Advanced BC

The disruptors cost the normal 2 points, but do a bit more damage.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 05:45 pm: Edit

Why not bump the DISR power requirements up?

Adding damage shouldn't come for free. It certainly doesn't in any of the photon proposals.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 06:11 pm: Edit

Couple of reasons:

1. At only one point of damage more, you're looking at a 20% increase in damage. Making it cost even one more point to arm is 50% more, and extremely expensive for the Klingon. Even if we went with three for standards and five for overloads, you'd still have to spend 30 points arming your disruptors...and that's a huge amount for a ship with this much power.
2. The theme of "better targeting" is part of the Klingon design. The P1, for example, is nothing more than a P2 with better targeting equipment. This is where all those K refits come from in the GW fleet. UIM and DERFACS are better targeting tools, as well. So, by intergrating those systems into a better disruptor fire control device, you get more damage.