Conjectural X seltorians should be inlcuded. Don't worry about Andro Threat File as it just includes Andro stuff, and X1R has no Andro stuff.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 05:44 pm: Edit

I haven't been active in K2. If anyone here has and can summarize where they seem to be headed I'd like to keep our stuff roughly compatible. I'm particularly interested in any attempts to create Andro Base Buster Scouts.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 06:00 pm: Edit

Division Control Ship.

CA-hull with no hvy weapons+6 PFs+12 superiority Fighters+2 Special Sensors.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 06:52 pm: Edit

For partial refits, some obvious choices come to mind. My question, though, is how much of this is conjectural and how much historical? A Fed X-NCL would seem likely, and possibly some form of X-BC's for most everyone. A few X-carriers or PFT's would go down nicely, too.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 07:24 pm: Edit

Guys, start thinking about what X1 ships should be released after Y186. What class is missing? What is needed? What classes should we avoid at all costs?

Here is a list of some non-module-X1 ships already published. Do we want to reprint these? Will they need any changes or should we just include them in the MSC? Are there other published designs that I have missed?

Fed DGX CL16
Kzi CCX R3
Kzi CMXD SL92
Neo NCX-RH ??
Kli D5XD CL16
Ori CRX R3
WYN CAX R3
WYN OCRX R3
WYN DDX R3

A quick note is though while it makes sense to build ships like the GSCX the Andro RTN wasn’t discovered until very late. Can’t check the date right now.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 07:28 pm: Edit

If I may be so bold as to suggest what the general guide line for the XP refit be:

Replace batteries with X-Battery.

Replace all APR with AWR (where practical).

Increase Phaser Capacitor to double but phasers remain non-X (i.e. cannot rapid pulse).

Replace Torpedoes with X-Versions

Replace Drone racks with X-versions

Replace Computers to give XP ships X-EW, and other basic X-bennifits (like X ship tac intel)
=====================
Does not change:

HET bonus

Warp or Impulse

Shields

Cloak

Movement presidence

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

I may have missed some things but this seems logical to me. It creates ships that can compete with X-ships but not as x-ships. Should make for an interesting dynamic mixing the three eras.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 08:46 pm: Edit

I like Loren's list.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 08:49 pm: Edit

X1 Carrier Escorts.

GSXs for all races.

X1 Mualer for the Roms ( because it'll be fun ).

X1 DNs.

X1 CCs, CCHs and BCHs.

X1 CVAs.

X1 Freighters ( with a very late YIS ).

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 09:08 pm: Edit

Tos,

I wouldn't mind seeing those ships reprinted in a module. In addition, I would like to see a true light x-cruiser for the Feds (not a NCL conversion) with a drone bomabardment variant. Also, I tend to think that CL based scouts would be obvious variant for most races, once the economic situation allows.

Edited to move part of post to XP thread

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 09:50 pm: Edit

Hrm, Loren's list would allow an existing SSD to be used with no changes to the ship itself (just tables for X-weapons), with the one exception of the X-drone racks. Maybe keep the existing acks, but allow them to carry and launch X-drones?

Then it's just a matter of listing refit costs for ships that recieved the XP-refit.

I'd like to see a modular CLX (or equivalent) for races, filling a role similar to the HDW in X-fleets. While X-ships do have a lot fo capabilities built-n (e.g. counting as minesweepers), they don't have the mine racks or barracks or what have you that may be needed.

No XDNs or XBCHs. No GSXs beyond the Feds.

X-strike carriers and escorts, yes.

And yes to all historical X-ships from CL that haven't been published in a module.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 09:58 pm: Edit

Tos,

I'm with Loren. Upgrade heavy weapons before phasers.

For the phaser upgrade to confer rapid-pulse, you'd need X-aegis on the ships and I do NOT want to go there.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 10:07 pm: Edit

SVC: I was about a week away from making a large submission in regards to X1R (similar to my SSJ proposal (in size and format)). Should I send the entire thing to Tos or should I submit it to you?⁴²

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 10:21 pm: Edit

I have to get something down to one page for review. I hope they are OK with 4 point on a double sided ledger page. I won't stop you from submitting it to SVC but I know I'd like to see it so we can incorporate the best parts into the group proposal.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 10:26 pm: Edit

John, right! Keep X-Aegis out of XP.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 10:27 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Guys, start thinking about what X1 ships should be released after Y186. What class is missing? What is needed? What classes should we avoid at all costs?

Here is a list of some non-module-X1 ships already published. Do we want to reprint these? Will they need any changes or should we just include them in the MSC? Are there other published designs that I have missed?

Fed DGX CL16
Kzi CCX R3
Kzi CMXD SL92
Neo NCX-RH ??
Kli D5XD CL16
Ori CRX R3
WYN CAX R3
WYN OCRX R3
WYN DDX R3

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 11:24 pm: Edit

Rules changes for X1R.

• Explict rules to show how many BPV are generated when you swap out two type VIII drones from three type VII...this will make determining how many BPV are free to buy special warhead more clear.

• A Change to F3.31-3/4/5 & F3.52 to at least 40 hexes...it's silly what fed X-ships can do to starbase at range 36-40.
45 hexes would probably be a good idea.

• A table of the new BPVs of the X ships in CLs, at least...probably a reprint of the SSDs too.


On my personal list of things to put in X1R.
• Rules for X1G-racks to fire type IX drones as though they were E-racks ( even if this requires a new list of BPVs for published ships ).
Possibly a higher rate of RoF for X1E-racks as well.

• Rules for what BPVs and what capabilities X1 ships have when they don't have AN AWEFULLY GOOD crew and thus rules for after a certain point past the YIS such that X1 ships can have both POOR and OUTSTANDING CREWS.

• An Experimental group of X1 ships that use the Ph-5 as a heavy weapon ( even with no rapid pulse and 2 point caps ), I think these ships will be benefitial for the History that most of us are looking for...and fun to play.

• XP rules would be cool.
I personally don't want to see XP ships change the SSDs as that would create thousands of new SSDs for the game.
3 point BTTYs.
The ability to capitalise on a negative shift.
X1 movement presidence.
X1 Drone launch ability ( even if only to R35 ) would be reasonable as would X1 Fighters on XP ships.

In a lot of ways though I want XP ships to be the poor cousin of X1 ships and not just by weapon densities. Accelleration rates and 6 points of EW are a good way of keeping the GW ships as second string vessels and benchwarmers.
....Give a BCG the ability to generate 8 EW and limited X-Aegis and the ability to capitalise on a negative shift and 3 point BTTYs and you've got a ship that can make life hell for a CX and trounce on DDXs without changing the SSDs (On fixed maps)...so lets keep the XP changes to a few select changes.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 11:26 pm: Edit

On the subject of DNXs and BCHXs.

Even if they are only conjectual, they will go a LONG WAY to helping pin point the BPVs of XCCs and XCAs when X2 gets done...I say do the DNXs even if they are and always remain conjectual.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 11:47 pm: Edit

Cousin Robert: Just send Tos a memo about what you have to cover. And Email me a reminder (after GAMA show) about your file. Some of it was really good.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:16 am: Edit

I also wouldn't mind a YIS for X1 ships to be formed in groups larger than six X1 vessels ( even if well into the X2 period ) and a YIS for X1 vessels to have more than 2 X1 vessels in a GW Fleet ( even if in incrimental stages ( 3 ships then 5 then all 10 ).


Why have massive command ratings if you're not really going to use it!?!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:25 am: Edit

One of the big reasons I see for implementing an XP program is that such a REFIT could be done where any refit can be done and would NOT take up build slots at a ship yard.

Refits are done a Starbases. Off the top of my head I can't think of where else. Major planets?

XP refits should probably have to be done at X-SB's.

Thoughts?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 01:24 am: Edit

How do people feel about CHEAP BUILD X1 SHIPS?

Take a Fed CX, call it a CMX, remove 4Ph-1s and one G-rack, one third of the crew and half the BPs.
Or take a Klingon DX and remove 2 Disruptors and 2 wing Phasers, take out a third of the crew and half the BPs and call it a D6X.

These ships would serve really well in the Trade Wars Period.
Should such ships be in X1R.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 10:25 am: Edit

I've got to be the odd-man-out here. I think that allowing non-X ships to have X-batteries has the potential to cause enormous problems and wreck the BPV system in ways not easily compensated for. The X-mauler (either partial-X or full-X conversion), popular as it is with some people, is an obvious example. I believe a ship combining X-tech batteries with mauler-quantites of batteries is simply too different to be balanced by BPV adjustments.

Most heavy dreadnoughts have 8 batteries, the C-10 has 10 batteries. Allowing a "partial-X" conversion creates a ship with from 24 to 30 points of reserve power. No "true X-ship" currently published has more than 18 points of reserve power. Although not as severe as the X-mauler problem, this still has the potential to crock the BPV system. Any time a ship is too different from the prevailing designs,it risks creating a situation that can't be compensated for by simple BPV adjustments.

Consider the "old-rule" Andros, who didn't have any panel degradation or leakage. Ultimately, those ships were not fixable simply by raising the BPV. It proved necessary to re-write the PA panel rules. Or consider the Early Years ships. Their BPV are not really compatible with MY-era ships and simply lowering the EY BPV would'nt fix the problem. The real problem is that EY and MY ships are too different; they play a different game. These examples are more extreme than allowing X-batteries on hulls with lots of batteries (though an X-mauler might be as extreme) but I'm concerned that allowing X-batteries on ships with large numbers of batteries might create a similar problem.

I actually think that X-batteries is one of the more potentially dangerous partial-X conversions. I would just as soon see these batteries restricted to only full-X ships. But I realize I'm a voice crying in the wilderness here, so let me make an alternate suggestion. Allow partial-X conversions of batteries only on ships with a "small" number of batteries, but not on ships with a "large" number of batteries unless they undergo conversion to full-X technology. You might also allow ships that exceed the "small number of batteries" to reduce the number of batteries to qualify for X-batteries. Example: suppose the "small number" is 3. A BCH with 7 batteries might exchange those 7 batteries for 3 X-batteries in a partial conversion. This allows it a moderate reserve power improvement, at the cost of making its batteries more vulnerable to damage. But it avoids the risk of crocking the BPV system that giving the ship 21 points reserve power might risk.

(Insert technobabble as required - possible example: X-batteries are not simply more efficient versions of regular batteries. They actually store energy according to completely different physical principles and putting large numbers of these batteries on one hull (other than certain specialized cases such as X-tech bases) stresses the ship's power management capabilities beyond the ability of current technology (Andros excepted) to control.)

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 10:36 am: Edit

---

Quote:

think that allowing non-X ships to have X-batteries has the potential to cause enormous problems and wreck the BPV system in ways not easily compensated for.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 11:20 am: Edit

Alan: Mike is right, I might suggest a small fix though. Even though XP replaces the batteries perhaps it doesn't upgrade all the power conduits and ifrustructure. This limits the power drain and charging of the batteries to a degree. Though they hold three points the most you can charge or drain is two points per turn.

That would give them an entirely new dynamic.

I'll copy this to the XP thread.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 11:39 am: Edit

"I believe a ship combining X-tech batteries with mauler-quantites of batteries is simply too different to be balanced by BPV adjustments."

I doubt you would find many who believe differently. Maulers interact with batteries in a specific way (E8.321). They can't partially discharge a battery, nor can they partially discharge a group of batteries. Its all or nothing for them, basically a short circuit. Every attempt to hook a Mauler to a three point battery (and every race with Maulers •••• sure tried) fried the Mauler and the battery and destroyed the lab. Insert technobabble here but I'm pretty sure it had to do with a voltage mis-match that couldn't be fixed by the Galactics. The Andro's Mauler does work by using entirely alien technology to achieve a similar result.