Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through March 17, 2004	25		03/17 12:46pm
	Archive through March 18, 2004	25		03/18 02:42pm
	Archive through March 21, 2004	25		03/21 12:57pm
	Archive through March 25, 2004	25		03/25 02:46am
	Archive through April 08, 2004	25		04/08 12:26pm
	Archive through September 24, 2004	25		09/24 02:08am
	Archive through September 24, 2004	25		09/24 08:24pm
	Archive through October 08, 2004	25		10/08 05:19pm
	Archive through December 04, 2004	25		12/04 11:56am
	Archive through July 14, 2005	25		07/14 02:38am
	Archive through July 17, 2005	25		07/17 12:06pm
	Archive through November 30, 2005	25		12/01 12:30am
	Archive through December 02, 2005	25		12/02 08:38pm
	Archive through December 22, 2006	25		12/23 02:51pm

Tos,

Okay, I understand. I still don't think I agree with you about the relative importance of getting SSDs posted, however.

I'm going to try something a little different. A lot of us think there should be CVXs and PFTXs, even if there are no (non-Hydran) X-fighters or PFXs. I'm going to try to put together a more comprehensive post on the role of attrition units in the X-tech era. It won't include specific SSDs, though it will include some thoughts on what types of units the various races might deploy.

I'll try to get this posted before Christmas (though no promises on that) and after other posters on this board have commented on it perhaps it, along with the SSDs that you and others post, could form a part of the overall attempt to get SVC to "grok" X1R.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 07:08 pm: Edit

Orman,

Your ship has a NCA box-count. In fact, it has more. If you allow the weapons options as phasers, It has the same number of everything as a NCA except for two less hull and two more lab.

Then you add 6 NWO boxes.

Shouldn't its MC be higher? If not, shouldn't its box count be lower?

I'm concerned that it appears seriously overbuilt for a CLX, over-systemed and mildly undergunned for a NCAX.

Suggest:
Cutting 2 Lab, 2 hull, All NWO, change weapon options to P-1 (and upgrade the block to 4xP-1), move Shuttle and drone racks to saucer and drop the aft hull entirely.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 08:04 pm: Edit

Alan, I too would like to see PFX class ships. I didn't include them much in the list because the list is all ready more than can be produced and I thought they would be equally welcome in K2. That shouldn't stop you from posting your ideas.

As for posting SSDs, that's just busy work to keep the masses busy over Christmas break, but don't tell anyone.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 01:54 pm: Edit

Thing is, A PFT is a natural RTN hunter. The "andro War" focus of X1R says we may need heavy PFTs at the very least.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 02:51 pm: Edit

Heavy PFT's... why not. Sounds fun. There's probably several available hulls that would only require conversion.

RTN Hunting require numbers of ships. Converting ships to carry PF's is a way to increase offensive potential of individual ships, whether casual carriers or full PFT's. I figure since XP can be applied to NCA's then conversion to PFT from NCA's makes the most sense.

First take a CW, convert it to an NCA while also adding XP (or not) then convert to PFT. This takes nothing from overall production.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 03:14 pm: Edit

"Heavy PFT". Isn't that a Lyran BCH?

Oh, missing the Special Sensors.

Time for a L-SBC? (Scout BC?)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 03:45 pm: Edit

I've always wanted to see the eight unit Flotilla. Perhaps X-Warp can handle the stress of carrying eight PF's?

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 04:32 pm: Edit

Well with the CVX the Feds already have their RTN base buster. 6F111M's is more than enough additional firepower to handle almost all situations.

I do agree that a PTX would be useful for most races. But it really needs to be limited to a CL/CW hull IMO. Otherwise why would anyone ever build a CX?

*Note PTX for a X PFT since a PFX could be misconstrued as an X PF.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 10:20 pm: Edit

I am trying to stay away from 1st generation x-carriers for all or most races in X1R; such X-CVS ships. I don't think there is room for the carriers, escorts, and support ship (X-FCRs).

I think a few races might make an X version of the PFT. Examples of X-PFT; Klingons based on the D5X; Romulans based on the SPX; Kzinti CMX; Gorn HDX.

Federation has the GVX with F-111s (I would like to see an ACX because it would have 12 F-18s and 6 A-20Fs, but that is just my preference; not a requirement [self plug: I made SSD for an ACX which uses the twin side tunnel deck rear hull and a modified GSX saucer; escorts: 2xFBE-X]).

Am alternative is an SC3 CLX or SC4 HDWX with the special bridge (I think that is an idea Loren came up with for X2).

Battle scouts are on the auto reject list. An X1 ship with a special bridge isn't a scout that can lend EW so my thought is such a ship would not be considered a battle scout.

The special bridge would allow a ship to follow the RTN. The rest of the squadron could be standard X-ships. think this is a viable addition and in some cases alternative to X-PFTs, X-scouts, and X-survey cruisers, which are all specialized and expensive ships.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 11:31 pm: Edit

We are still working on getting X1R published, XK & XJ are further down the list.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 11:41 pm: Edit

Well, as I mentioned earlier there is three major areas to focus an X-Design on. Two are for combat. CVX's would work fine against the ISC but there is NO time to develope them and since they would require escorts it defeats the RTC stratigy because of the escorts. PFTX are perfect because they require no escort. They are a single unit that blossoms into a squadron. Perfect for RTN hunting.

For a CVX to be of most use you need a design that require no escorts. A heavy F111 carrier might fit the bill.

Of course carriers would still be useful for defense against both the ISC and Andros but in that case you don't need an X-Carrier. A normal carrier will field the fighters just as well. Fighters will never be capable of handling X-Drones, although the races spent millions of credits trying to figure out how. [See CL31 Pg. 65 (XR7.0)]

===========

Yes, I proposed Special Bridge for X2. X1-Ships don't need Special Bridge for RTN hunting since they operate as scouts for tactical intel already. Special Bridge was designed to give X2 ships some of the other scout functions.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 11:44 pm: Edit

The thing is Tos, PFTX's might be the main stay of RTN hunting. If this is the case they most certainly belong in X1R. I don't EVER see a need for XK and XJ cause that's just way overboard, IMO.

Now, I DON'T see more than a single design for a PFT and X-Carriers just don't make sense except for one and maybe two for the Federation.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, December 24, 2006 - 12:59 am: Edit

Loren,

Which scout function allows tracing of the RTN? If it is function 29 (tac Intel) then an X-ship moght be able to. If it is function 27 (gathering science information) then a standard X-ship can't detect and follow the RTN.

Perhaps an X1R special bridge could only do functions 27 and 29 and wouldn't gain the full special bridge capabilities until X2.

Tos I don't see an X version of either J or K. If fact no one has wrtten in J3 or K2 in the straw poll. If there are going to be PFTs converted to full X (std PFs) and a few x-carriers it will have to be in X1R (perhaps a CL could later add a few ships).

For the Feds I would like to see an SC3 5/6 MC CSX (5 photons, 10xPH-1s, and 2xGX racks (If Loren agrees a special bridge).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, December 24, 2006 - 03:16 am: Edit

I'll look it up later unless someone else beats me to it but X-Ship were specifically capable in the rules of RTN hunting.

TO find the relevent rule you have to look in the X-ship rules which state that X-ships are considered scouts for tactical inteligence gathering (and have no sensor to blind!). The X-ship rules do not specify a scout function as it is an X-ship function.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, December 24, 2006 - 05:24 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I've always wanted to see the eight unit Flotilla. Perhaps X-Warp can handle the stress of carrying eight PF's?

---

---

Quote:

Yes, I proposed Special Bridge for X2. X1-Ships don't need Special Bridge for RTN hunting since they operate as scouts for tactical intel already. Special Bridge was designed to give X2 ships some of the other scout functions.

---

---

Quote:

Tos I don't see an X version of either J or K. If fact no one has wrtten in J3 or K2 in the straw poll. If there are going to be PFTs converted to full X (std PFs) and a few x-carriers it will have to be in X1R (perhaps a CL could later add a few ships).

---

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, December 24, 2006 - 11:43 am: Edit

There is a lot of material here. We are beyond 125 identified ships already, all of which will have supporters somewhere in the community. The question for ADB is do they print an SSD book with 120 pages, pare things down to fewer pages, scatter SSDs across J3, K2 and CL or scale things up with some obvious variants and print two X modules? Not my call. The time period of Y186-Y202 is certainly ripe for development and could support several modules.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, December 24, 2006 - 12:07 pm: Edit

Loren,

The rule I believe you are referring to is (XD17.121, which I read before I posted above. That rule states an "X-ship counts as a scout for tactical intelligence purposes".

However in Module C2, (R10.1B) it states "Survey ships discovered the first of these bases in Y195 (SH166: Return of the Darwin), and by Y198 the network has been heavily disrupted as survey cruiser and scouts hunted down the bases for the cruisers (including the late-war super-heavy cruisers and X-cruisers) to destroy."

In (SG26.0) Base Busters: Are locating a route a scout or survey ship followed the traces.

It doesn't seem clear to me that having scout tactical intelligence abilities allows an X-ship to follow the RTN traces. I am not trying to be argumentative and I could be incorrect; I just want to be clear on this issue. I appreciate your thoughts and comments.

By Tim Longacre (Timl) on Sunday, December 24, 2006 - 12:30 pm: Edit

I believe that scouts and survey ships, due to their special sensor channels, still have advantages over X-ships in regards to base hunting. The whole process of hunting Andro bases involves searching for something that is trying to "blend in". What gives them (the bases) away are the after effects of the heavy travel of Andro ships to and from them.
As far as TacIntel goes, that only allows you to identify things you are capable of seeing, while, for the most part, Andro SatBases might be considered hidden (or placed specifically to be hidden). In this regard, X-ships can positively say that it is an Andro unit and what it is as well as any normal scout or survey ship.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, December 24, 2006 - 01:12 pm: Edit

C3A Andromedan Threat File: My little understanding of threat files is this product would include only Andro ships. If the module was modified to follow the R9 format then historical LPW to intelligence failure Andro ships could be included.

Tos made a good point that C3A ties in well with X1R. So include ships from Alpha and Omega sector races that are responses to these suspected Andro ships. This could accomplish the goal of having two modules covering time period of Y186-Y202, both with X-tech ships.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, December 24, 2006 - 01:39 pm: Edit

JRC: Interesting points. I suppose it is not conclusive then that X-ships can track RTN nodes. Perhaps that is a question for SVC.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, February 05, 2007 - 07:32 pm: Edit

Tos: sift this file for anything usable and copy it into the new X1R file. Feel free to recruit help. I don't expect to have the luxury of doing so.

Topic closed. See the X1R topic.