Sounds like we agree!

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 04:37 pm: Edit

Okay, for fun, I've resurrected a very early Fed XCC design I did, back when I was lobbying for the 12 point standard photon. Obviously, it has a much higher BPV, but still remains quite a capable general purpose vessel. It also has somewhat more shielding, for this reason: if this was to be the Fed XCC, then the Klingon XD7 would mount 6 of the base-six disruptors. A full strike of overload disruptors at close range should be able to take down a full cruiser front shield, and about 1/4 to 1/3 more. With six disruptors of this kind, that equals about 72 points, granting a 54 point #1 shield to the XCC.

I am not necessarily advocating this option; but, there is a lot of interest in going this route (this design had a mix of phasers, and was not a pure P5 ship). As with the others, the ASIF is on board, costing 4 for standard mode and 6 for full mode. This is a power hungry ship, no doubt, especially since my original intention was that the hold cost for these photons would also increase by 50%.

Federation XCC

Well, what do the "bigger photon" crowd think? Is this type of thing more to your liking? That is, a major improvement to the photon, and less emphasis on better phasers?

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 05:23 pm: Edit

Mike, that is much closer to what I'm thinking about over in the photon thread. It's not identical, but its close. My own proposal is going to need to wait a little while - I'm going to sea for a few days. Hopefully, I'll have something to post by next weekend.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 05:35 pm: Edit

Well, its something to work from, anyway. Just have to see what others who favor the big photon think about it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 09:07 pm: Edit

RBN: That's close. I still would like to see every one put the DD ina pure combat role. GP stuff can be handled by XCL, XCM. The XCC being a ground breaker would naturally have many mission roles. Once the situation is in control XCM's or XCL would take over.

I agree Frigates would be non-multi-role. They would be specialized but here the big value of a XFF. I doesn't do a lot of different stuff but does it one main thing really well. Each type of XFF should out perform most every thing is its specified role (relatively speaking).

=====================

I like to make real clear my idea about the XCC in light of a game design PoV.

I think there should be something for every one. I do not understand this attitude that one ship class will ruin the whole module. I don't want to see a bunch of monster ships that destroy every thing and are no fun. But why can't there be one class of ship that players can have a little "Big Ship" fun with? I don't want to always play monster ships but sometimes it's fun. There is a reason ADB produced conjectureal BB's for the rest of the races. People like to play them once in a while.

All I've ever proposed is that there be this cool rare hull that is more powerful than anything previous (my XCC designs). The races build a few of them to lead the Theater Fleets. The rest of the ships go back to smaller designs. The internal count and types of my XCM's are very similar to the CAR (and D7 and so on). With the exception of the big XCC type ALL of my proposed ships are X1 and lower BPV's.

I think some people think I'm all about making X2 a monster ship module. That would be totally wrong! I'm for giving something to everyone in a way that works with establish history and clicks a bit with SFB's older cousen Star Trek. Early one many people like the idea of matching with Star Treks establish theme that ships got physically larger. My proposal nods to that with ONE HULL CLASS and then fills the rest of the fleets with smaller hulls reminicant of a by gone era (modified with lessons learned from 30 years of war in a new era).

90% ofthe ships will be smaller ships. 90% of the Fleets would be these smaller ships at most.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 09:55 pm: Edit

Loren, I'm with you on the cruiser thing. Semantically I call it a heavy cruiser (which gives room for the future). I don't think your XCC is a monster ship at all BTW. Right now I'm just looking at designs that are more limited because they fit with the idea I have in my head regarding early-X2, namely going back to basics but with better technology.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 11:01 pm: Edit

I think the DDX should be the basis of the X2 Scouts ( be that lollipop of not ).

---

Quote:

All I've ever proposed is that there be this cool rare hull that is more powerful than anything previous (my XCC designs). The races build a few of them to lead the Theater Fleets. The rest of the ships go back to smaller designs.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 11:07 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

All I've ever proposed is that there be this cool rare hull that is more powerful than anything previous (my XCC designs). The races build a few of them to lead the Theater Fleets. The rest of the ships go back to smaller designs.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 12:38 am: Edit

I am thinking of lowering the power generation levels on it though.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 01:22 am: Edit

Not to your design in particular Loren but I am starting to realize if we want these ships to play nice with GW we really have to hold the power reins tight. If we don't, well, lets just say there would never be a reason for an X2 ship to find itself at overload range from an equal opponent.

Also remember an effective way to reduce excess power is to increase the movement cost.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 01:48 am: Edit

Well, I've wanted this unit to actually be 1.25MC.

But I think I could reduce the total power on the XCC. For sure I'm going to on the XCM. Mike made me realize it's too much for the work horse unit.

I am being real careful about balance though. I would want a ship that doesn't play nice with equal BPV.

And here is the thing about equal BPV, BTW to all. It is possible to creat a ship that is equal to anothers BPV and wins only half the time. But out performs other forces of equal BPV, particularly when the ships come from different eras. We cannot have a design that would, say have a BPV penalty if facing GW era ships.

I do realize that balancing three eras is a difficult task. This is one reason I will never go for 24 point photons and why I put some restrictions on the 20 point ones (besides those restrictions kinda make them more interesting to play IMO. Makes the situation a little more tense.)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 02:25 am: Edit

Tos,

That's one way of balancing power.

This time late year the dominant theme was "more cpability costine more power."

I still think some version of that is the way to go.

Also,

I am currently away from home, checking these boards infrequently. If you or anyone else has e-mailed me much after morning on Sunday, you won't get an answer until sometime Wednesday. I'll post your stuff then.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 06:44 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Not to your design in particular Loren but I am starting to realize if we want these ships to play nice with GW we really have to hold the power reins tight. If we don't, well, lets just say there would never be a reason for an X2 ship to find itself at overload range from an equal opponent.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 07:06 pm: Edit

MJC,

I agree. A small increase in power is easily offset by the added systems, and expense of some of these new heavy weapons. Holding 4 of the mega-photons alone will be 12 points. The latest cruiser I have weighs in with 48 warp and 2 AWR, and has a similar power curve to X1. I don't think that's unreasonable.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 07:13 pm: Edit

Think about it.

If there were to be 12 point heavy standards and Ph-5s cost 1.5 power but came out of 3 point Caps and a Fed XCA was a Fed CX with slight improvement, but notably 48 warp engine boxes, 4 Saucer Warp and every other prower producing box the same.

Her total power is 58 ( 48 Warp Engine + 6 AWR/Saucer + 4 Impulse )
She pays, S-Bridge & H.K =5
She pays for Four Fastloaded Standard Heavy 12 point Photons = 24.
She pays 7 ECCM = 7

Her battle speed can therefore be a maximum of 22 excluding BTTY ( and a maximum of 31 with BTTY used ).

Exactly how fast will an enemy DNH move?...paying for 6 ECM ( possibly throwing out an ECM drone or possibly forgoing ECM to save power ) HK and arming standards.


Making attacks at R12, the XCA will hurl out ( 3/6 x 4 x 12 ) 24 points of Photons damage and about another 12 points of Phaser damage from her 6 bearing Ph-5s.

How long can a DNH withstand hits like that and how much damage is the DNH doing back.

After the second battle pass comes a problem for the XCA...her 24 points in the caps have spent 18 points of power, so on her next attack run she needs to find 3 points of power and that will mean 3 fewer points of movement. On the attack run after that she has to find 9 points of power for the Phasers ( or do less Phaser damage ) which means her battle speed isn't 22 but rather 13!

And this is before she puts any power into ASIF.

She could Pay for Phasers from BTTY but that's only a tempory solution.

And then there is the effect of enemy drones on the XCA, which move at speed 32!
They could be shoot down with bearing phasers in which case they'll reduce the damage done to the DNH or they could be held in a tractor and shot down with non bearing phasers in which case the reduced battle speeds on latter turns will come sooner and there will be less BTTY to recharge the phaser caps.


The XCA could take a break somewhere peaceful and recharge the BTTYs and Caps...but where!?!...on a floating map maybe but on a fixed map, there really isn't anywhere to hide.
Any turns spent refilling BTTYs and Caps arn't spent doing damage but probably are spent taking damage.

Even with 58 power instead of X1's 48, the XCA isn't going to be going so fast as to be able to completely out manouver an Equal BPVed GW ship nor are it's uber weapons going too be so powerful as to allow it to do serious internal damage gaainst the equal BPVed ship in the few turns that it can keep up a battle speed that does out manouver the GW vessel.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 09:46 pm: Edit

12pt heavy standards? What the? No no no no no no no.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 11:42 pm: Edit

I don't mind 12 point heavy standards.
I think perhaps all heavy standards should have an R30 range limit...but so long as that's in place it should do fine.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 12:40 am: Edit

6 point proxies out to 30.

Pffttt, ya...ok.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 12:40 am: Edit

Not.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 09:19 am: Edit

Really?


Six DEFRACS Standard Disruptors ( is there any other kind !?!) hits for 2 damage on 1-3 which yeilds 6 points of damage every turn.

Four 6 point Proxies which are restricted by the R15 rule to two turn arming...you could calculate this as pairs of turns but since both damage values will be less than the BTTY of these ships the differences is purely academic.

Four by 1-3 by 6 by 1/2 is 6 points of damage per turn.

Identical Damage at R23-30 and the Disruptor gets better at R16-22!

And those are X1 Disruptors.


If the Feds start to break even with the X1 Klingon Cruiser with their X2 Cruiser then that's a good thing.


I'm really beginning to think that some people think the X1 Klingon cruiser was a D7W!

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 10:12 am: Edit

I'm really beginning to think that you are becoming extremely offensive, MJC.

I would appreciate it if you would keep the derogatory comments to yourself. It is already a chore to read your posts, please do not make it an ordeal.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 11:16 am: Edit

Nice math...

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 11:16 pm: Edit

Mike F.:

If you want to claim a flamewar is being perpetrated by me then take it up with SVC and SPP.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 08:24 am: Edit

If I believed that was the case, I would have said so. I do not mince words.

If, however, you want people to continue to read your posts, I suggest that you learn the virtues of punctuation, grammar, and common courtesy. It is visually painful to read your posts, and finding snide comments interspersed throughout is not helping.

Unless, of course, you somehow want to be the oft-ignored bastard stepchild.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 05:41 pm: Edit

MJC I'm pretty much with you on the destroyer thing but I think the frigate could stay the same size. Are you saying the 12pt standard is the only warhead for that torpedo or are you including the 24pt overload with that? Check my post in the photon thread regarding that.

Also Mike F's right when he says your post are a chore to read. I've been there myself and I try to chop mine down or at least chop them up when I do post long. Try breaking your posts up a little more. Mike F, watch the language there.

My $0.02.