SVC and SPP:

I can only assume that Mike Fannin is attempting to start a flamewar.
Please ask him to play nice.


If my writting is hard to read they should try to read my handwritting.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 09:57 pm: Edit

I have been nothing but polite, Michael John Campbell, and will continue to be polite.

As I said, if you want people to read what you write, then write it so that it can be easily read, and stop making snide comments. If you had bothered to make your email address public, I would gladly have kept this off the boards.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 10:05 pm: Edit

MJC: I have pretty poor spelling for a guy my age so I do this.

After I'm done typing my whole post I select the whole thing in the editor window and click COPY. Then I open MS WORD and click past. The post appears on the page and I hit enter once. Almost instantly the whole post is spell checked and I make the corrections real quick. I then go to EDIT/SELECT ALL and then COPY. I close MS WORD and left click on the selected text in the editor window and click PASTE.

My whole post is now spell checked and my errors at a minimum. You only have to do it once or twice and the whole process goes real fast.

On real short posts I don't bother.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 10:10 pm: Edit

We know, Loren.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 10:35 pm: Edit

nowjohnitsnotthatbad!

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 10:40 pm: Edit

At least that was all spelled right..

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 11:37 pm: Edit

MJC, Mike F is not trying to start a flame war just trying to prevent one. Just stick with SFB and we'll all get along.

Nice spelling Loren!

My god aren't we horrible ogres!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 11:47 pm: Edit

Well, actually it wasn't. No caps!

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 09:15 pm: Edit

I've been having a discussion offline and the suggestion was made that I post the gist of my thoughts for X2. So I'll post them.

They are easily summarized by the notion that X2 does not have to trump X1.

I do not know where I got some of these ideas from, and I do not know if I made it up whole cloth. As I type this, I'm formulating various half-formed thoughts together into something semi-coherent, so if I wander, you know why.

I have this notion that the warring powers are pretty much strapped for cash, and (especially in the case of the Feds) the civilian government just won't tolerate the level of military spending that had marked the last thirty(?) years. X1, while successful in it's combat applications, was entirely too expensive to operate on a general fleet scale, both because of the technology itself and the high demands in crew efficiency and manning. At the same time, the war-production hulls were seeing the strain of years of constant combat, and the general purpose hulls (such as the old D6/7 and F-CA) were no longer seen as viable designs. A compromise was needed.

About this time, you start to see the beginnings of the trade wars era. I don't know much about the era, probably less than most of the people in the X2 threads, but from what I've heard, it seems like a period in time where the large-scale military battles of the GW would not be tolerated. The military is probably largely hamstrung by civilian leadership and all sides are largely constrained to ritualistic combats where they can't afford to take much damage or risk censure. Thus, defense and maneuver become more important than the ability to devestate planets. On the other hand, weapons have to become powerful enough to at least threaten, so you see an escalation in firepower to match.

In my concept, X1 remains as the fleet flagships. An XCC/XCA isn't needed, or considered affordable, before the Xorks show up and make it plain that the great powers aren't alone in the universe. The largest X2 ship I'm interested in seeing (in the era under discussion) is an XCL. I like the PH-5, but I liked it better when it was a sure thing out to range 10. O/L's should not be effective to that range. There's no reason that phasers and heavy weapons need to have a cut-off at the same range. I'm not sure about the PH-6. I like the idea of an upgunned PH-3, though.

I don't mind a 10 point photon, but I think that just making weapons stronger is pretty lame. I think that making Disr even MORE accurate is a mistake. Making them hit harder -and- more accurate -and- not cost any more power .

I'd be interested in X2 automatically hitting GW-era ships as if the leaky sheilds rule was in effect. Or some variation. Given that the lighter X2 designs will typically have fewer weapons, it's not completely overwhelming, but puts a clock on the GW ships.

You end up with GW era ships flying next to X2 flying under X1. The large X1 ships are the fleet flags. X2 is the current ship of the line. It's what you want to fly. GW stays away from the lines as much as possible, but is very prevalent still. When GW gets into it with X2, they have no choice but to try to run them down, or run away. Long term fights are all but certain to go in X2's favor because their guns can penetrate old-level shields, but they don't have the ship mass to take on squadrons of the old ships. X1 still has the power to trump X2 based on the fastloads and quirky (but undeniably efficient) targetting computers...but nobody wants to commit their X1 ships to space..they're just too darned expensive!

It's not necessary for X2 ships to have more power than the equivalent X1 ship. Heck, it's probably not even a good idea. The game is supposed to be about choices. So force people to make choices. Stop shoving more and more of the game's most precious resource on board.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 09:51 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

There's no reason that phasers and heavy weapons need to have a cut-off at the same range. I'm not sure about the PH-6. I like the idea of an upgunned PH-3, though.

---

---

Quote:

The military is probably largely hamstrung by civilian leadership and all sides are largely constrained to ritualistic combats where they can't afford to take much damage or risk censure.

---

---

Quote:

In my concept, X1 remains as the fleet flagships. An XCC/XCA isn't needed, or considered affordable, before the Xorks show up and make it plain that the great powers aren't alone in the universe.

---

---

Quote:

I'd be interested in X2 automatically hitting GW-era ships as if the leaky sheilds rule was in effect. Or some variation. Given that the lighter X2 designs will typically have fewer weapons, it's not completely overwhelming, but puts a clock on the GW ships.

---

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 10:02 pm: Edit

MJC

I would intend that the two eras play nice. Ships from my proposal would not have ECCM bonuses to hit, nor would they have fastloads. Nor, for that matter, would there by any Feds with 4 phots (probably. the XCL might, but since I haven't actually made an SSD, I couldn't tell you.) Nor would my vessels have 48+ warp. Did you not read the part the suggested X2 ships would not have the power curve that you are talking about?

So, no, no X2 ship would sit at R10 and blithely throw out proxes with 1-4 to hit, every turn. Certainly not without getting shot in return.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 10:05 pm: Edit

Oh, I missed something. My XCA (presumably Xork era) would be designed to be a match for an X1 ship. Not a clear superior.

(edit)
I missed something else.

Once again you resort to snide comments. Once again, restrain yourself. It becomes tiresome. I am not discussing mechwarrior, nor battletech. When I speak of ritualistic combat, I do not mean to imply anything on the order of the batchall and the subsequent testosterone-induced fight for supremacy that followed. I am thinking more of the sort of deep space combat that was discussed (in historical context) in early Honor Harrington novels (author: David Weber, the first book is free on www.baen.com. Follow the links to the Baen free library).

In these stories, battles between fleets of capital ships tended to be long ranged, rather boring affairs, where both sides would throw thousands of missiles at each other and one would turn off and run when the demands of honor were met (and escalating damage reports got to be too bad to bear). In this sense, battles in open tended to be very 'ritualistic', and tended to result in little loss of shipping.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 10:30 pm: Edit

Okay, I missed the very last thing about powercure, reading it first time as FIREPOWER rather than power.

Still, 21 points of damage from phasers at R10 on a ship that can choose not to pay for heavy weapons if it wants is is the start ( IMO ) of a very boring game for any ship that isn't an X2 Ph-5 user. That means all Ph-1 X2 Klingon vessel are put at a serious disadvantage.

A huge hunk of damage like that at that range and there is no need to get to overload range so either the BPV jumps up like crazy or the ship doesn't play well with GWs ( or X1s for that matter ).

---

Quote:

In these stories, battles between fleets of capital ships tended to be long ranged, rather boring affairs, where both sides would throw thousands of missiles at each other and one would turn off and run when the demands of honor were met (and escalating damage reports got to be too bad to bear).

---

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 10:42 pm: Edit

Regarding damage at range 10:

Then the power curve of the ship would have to be adjusted to make these difficult choices. After all, the opposing side will likely be cruiser-sized vessels vs destroyer hulls (assuming GW vs X2). More ships puts the EW game in the favor of the GW ships.

Alternatively, Tos has several designs where, even on the feds, the Ph-5 is not the primary shipboard phaser.

I recognize that these are potentially more difficult to balance that just throwing bigger and better weapons on the ships. But, to me at least, they are more attractive.

Regarding the battle of Jutland:

Yeah. I believe that is by design.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 10:46 pm: Edit

My latest versions of XCA and XDD:

The State of the Star Fleet
Star Fleet is a military organization with combat starships. The Federation just came out of a near-catastrophic galactic war and has a lot of infrastructure to rebuild, as well as the Fleet itself. Cost savings are paramount in designing the "new fleet," at the same time the Admiralty refuses to sacrifice combat power in the event of follow-on invasion or outbreak of war.

The Federation decided to build a family of starships that maximize combat power within a given hull. The new phasers are more stable than earlier phasers and the new photon torpedo is more flexible. Mission flexibility is possible through the use of non-weapon option spaces wherein various non-weapon systems can be swapped out. Initially the Fleet can only swap these spaces out in spacedock but the future Fleet Tenders (XAT) will provide an underway option-swap capability.

Federation X2 Heavy Cruiser
(R2.RBN.4) In the post-war era heavy cruisers remain the obvious choice for long range patrol and endurance operations. Since dreadnoughts are becoming prohibitively expensive heavy cruisers will assume battle group command and power projection. The XCA can perform these roles with room to spare. The XCA will supplement the CX as flagship and will assume the lion's share of frontier and beyond-frontier expeditions. The heavy cruiser's non-weapon option spaces will enhance long-range operations.

Federation X2 Destroyer
(R2.RBN.6) The new destroyers will replace the Fleet's war-worn light cruisers. The DDX will be limited to homeland operations where the XDD will be made available to supplement heavy cruisers for frontier and beyond-frontier expeditions. The XDD will supplement the DDX providing the bulk of "homeland defense" as well as forming the "gun line" in battle groups. The XDD's hull is based on a modified XCA primary hull and indeed some have argued the XDD is a small XCL. Ultimately its space-trial performance classed it a destroyer. The XDD's non-weapon option spaces provide a destroyer with operational flexibility, further enabling it to replace the light cruiser force.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 11:56 pm: Edit

Nicely done RBN.


=====================
As a side note I would suggest that (taking in account the state of events I've written about before) upon conclusion of the Andro War there would be a brief state of breath catching for about a year and then a near instant state of cold war, probably among every one. To a degree even between traditional allies as every one feels the other out and the feeling of vulnerability lesses with rebuilding.

Yes, the galaxy allied together againstthe Andros and that is why they didn't go streight back into making claims on others territory. But even the old alliance between the Klingons and the Lyrans would be uneasy for a time. It is likely the Klingons would stop supplying the Lyrans with some technologies and maybe even go so far as to try to disrupt the Lyrans X2 projects. Not in bold obvious ways like they might with the Kzinti but in other way. There would likely be misunderstandings as various Nation become extra protective of themselves during their most vulnerable state in decades.

As the nations recover and their X2 projects get under way things would return to normal and traditional allies would return to normal while old enemies would end up on opposite sides of a cold (and sometimes hot) war. This would be the secret driving force behind the Trade Wars. As nations compete over resources and colony developement there is always another agenda behind the scenes. Sometimes leading to combat when the situation at face value wouldn't seem to warrent it.

This is something that could drive Starships into real combat without starting all out war. Hard core all out fighting that neither side will openly acknowledge. Thus no GWII.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 11:57 pm: Edit

Wow, a note of personal pride here. After writing that MS Word spell check had nothing to correct!

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 12:03 am: Edit

Mike Fannin, some well thought out ideas. Go back and study the X2 Timeline Thread, I think you will find additional ideas there that will help you round out your position.

As for the range 10 P5 an old P5 table that had its sweet spot out there was mistakenly left on my XFF and XDD upload, perhaps that is similar to what you had in mind.

Regarding the end of the Andro War I see a massive surplus of navy ships. Since the Andros could move strategically so much faster than the X1 ships of the day they would choose to attack wherever you are weakest. The only defense is to defend everything you can and let the fringe colonies go to seed. That leads to a massive surplus of GW and XP ships and Empires way over their heads in debt.

Regarding the Trade Wars by this time many of the fringe colonies have been abandoned or subjugated for as long as a generation. Independence has left many in far better economic shape then their former empires. I see these prosperous independent colonies and trade cartels buying off the surplus GW era ships at bargain basement prices from Empires eager to engender political alliances, trade agreements and hard currency.

What this creates is a historical atmosphere conducive for any conceivable mishmash of conflicting forces. In this environment conflict of a trans-generational nature with an independent could be more commonplace then a clash between Empires.

Do some more research and keep developing your thoughts. So far your premise seems promising.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 01:46 am: Edit

Ummm... Jutland.

British ships sunk:

Battlecruisers - Indefatigable, Queen Mary, Invincible

Armored Cruisers - Black Prince, Warrior, Defense

Destroyers - Shark, Sparrowhawk, Tipperary, Turbulent, Ardent, Fortune, Nomad, Nestor

German ships sunk:

Battlecruiser - Lutzow

Obsolescent Battleship (pre-Dreadnought) - Pommern

Light Cruisres - Frauenlob, Elbing, Rostock, Wiesbaden

Destroyers - V-48, S-35, V-27, V-4, V-29

I believe this is more than "six".

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 02:37 am: Edit

And how many ships were involved?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 02:47 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Then the power curve of the ship would have to be adjusted to make these difficult choices. After all, the opposing side will likely be cruiser-sized vessels vs destroyer hulls (assuming GW vs X2). More ships puts the EW game in the favor of the GW ships.

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 04:30 am: Edit

MJC:

There were a total of about 250 ships "involved" in the Battle of Jutland, depending partly on how you define "involved". There were Destroyers and Light Cruisers scattered across the North Sea trying to find the enemy. Many of these reconnaissance groups never saw an enemy ship but were certainly part of the overall operation. The British (not sure about the Germans) also had some oddball ships in the area that were supporting the operation but were never intended to come in direct contact with the enemy. - things like a destroyer tender and even a seaplane carrier.

If your question about the number of ships involved was meant to imply that only a small fraction of all the ships involved were actually sunk, you are correct. But you need to be careful about making statements like "... and only six ships were sunk." Twenty-five ships were in fact sunk.

And you quoted the passage about battles between fleets of capital ships being long ranged, rather boring affairs with one side retreating when the demands of honor were satisfied, following it up with "Sounds just like the battle of Jutland." No, it doesn't sound anything like Jutland. The Germans attempted to take advantage of the fact that the British fleet was largely divided between three different anchorages, Rosyth, Cromarty, and Scapa Flow. Their plan was to mass the entire High Seas Fleet against one of the three portions of the Grand Fleet and obliterate it. When British intelligence revealed that the High Seas fleet had sailed, the entire Grand Fleet sailed to link up and intercept and crush the Germans with their superior numbers. Both sides had started their respective operations with the intent of achieving a decisive victory. That it didn't turn out that way was the result of a combination of tactical errors, missed communications, weather, and just plain old fashioned luck. And several individual engagements in the battle were in fact fought at very close range.

You tend to take a lot of criticism on this board, and some of it is probably unfair. But you also tend to draw some of it on yourself, with unsupported (and sometimes unsupportable) statements delivered as fact. Your Battle of Jutland statements are, I think, an example of this.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 06:45 am: Edit

I guess I mixed up 6 RN cruisers with six total...it's been a long time.


Still I don't think people will want to spend money on a game where either one ship has the power ( phasers are so light on the energy that even with 30 warp engine boxes on an MC1 ship it'll happen ) to run like crazy and pull down enemy shields ( slowly but surely ) or both sides have said type of ship and the game drags on and on as the ships try to peel back each others shields using only their Ph-5s.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 08:27 am: Edit

No. I'm not talking about XP(artial). The difference between a DW and a CW is only about 30 points depending on the race..Lyran DW is around 90 (pre-refit), and the CW is around 120.

I think it's pretty much inescapable that a destroyer with 2-3 phasers that partially ignore shields, upgraded defenses, limited scout abilities (unblindable), and a superior power curve (if less power than is being proposed) will have a BPV that is higher than a general war cruiser.

Even at 150, it would be a match for a ship a category larger (and would weigh in as much as your average DDX).

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 05:40 pm: Edit

The problem with leaky shields is that it turns the whole game into a crapshoot.

If the first ten hits (not internals, but hits) can take out a couple weapons, that system is too powerful and too radically different to balance.

The only real directives that we have been given are that the ships play well against GW and X1 ships. That means that if a XCA is rated for 300 BPV, then it should have a 50/50 chance against two 150 BPV GW ships.

Counting on a leaky shields rule to make the balance work is to make the game nothing but a dice rolling contest. Not fun.