Mike, you hit on a point Ive been thinking about. Most DN class ships are the biggest they could build too. So there is very few DN's that would be available for XP.

And with X-ships, why build more? A good X-ship has the power and greater flexability than a DN and has much less crew. This is a time when casualties are mounting and manning ships is a concern.

Building Dreadnaughts is maddness in the Y190's with the presence of X-ships and XP.

Except if you are building them as Carriers, which is what most DN are being built as. Then that is a whole different story. I have said before that I believe a DNxp should be possible if it is added to the base hull. Most carriers are built on the base DN hull. In order to opperate fighters with Megax Pax and X-drones (though limited in supply) the Carrier should be XP. So, yes, I see a CVAxp. This would be a near impossible ship to maintain but is power projection vs. cost level is clearly worth it.

And it goes that a SCSxp would not fly either for the same reasons the DNHxp wouldn't. THey are too overstuffed.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 12:55 pm: Edit

Loren:

I'm not sure I follow your logic. If an SCSxp is too overstuffed, why isn't a CVAxp overstuffed? There's also a play balance problem with the path you're heading down.

Mega-X (sorry, that "Megax" just sounds funny to me) packs and X-drones for fighters will, barring RADICAL redefinition in capabilities, further increase the drone-using races' already existing fighter superiority over plasma races and Tholians. Without an SCSxp, how do they cope against a CVAxp?

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 01:05 pm: Edit

Also, don't forget... most of the CVAs were converted to SCSs. As economies suffered it was easier to bring in a DN / CVA for conversion than build a new DN.⁴²

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 01:19 pm: Edit

Allen: It is incomplete if anything.

A CVA, indeed, might be overstuffed but if fighters are to be improved we need something to land them on and CVA's are the logical unit since survivability is paramount. But a CVA basically has a huge open space and lots of cargo for fighter supplies. Added quarters for pilots are needed but that isn't that much. I did mention it is probably a stretch.

A SCS has all this and repair facilities and usually more weapons to boot. Those ships are the next step up from a CVA.

The question you should ask is why a CVA isn't overstuffed when a DNH is. That is a much thinner line. I'm not sure I could argue the difference enough to make a real difference in those who want a DNHxp.

Megax Pax was what SVC wrote after reading my proposal. It isn't an official name as the idea isn't official yet either. Mega-X pack is fine.

As far as the Plasma boys go, well, the subject of what they would get hasn't been discussed yet. Obviously they would need something.

My proposed Megax pax would include some (a couple points) shielding. That will help all fighters.

Improved PF's are yet another subject worth working out.

Unfortunately, XP is in deep trouble of becoming inconsequential, IMO. These subjects need attention after XP for ships is dealt with.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 01:36 pm: Edit

Loren:

Actually, I'm not recommending improved PFs. With the shield upgrades (which they would all have by this time) a PF flotilla is still very viable against a fighter squadron with Mega-X packs. But if the fighters are flying off a CVAxp and the PFs off an SCS(unimproved) the balance of the "whole package" is shifted.

Regarding shields - I presume you are proposing them for all Mega-x packs, so plasma race/Tholians will benefit from them as will drone races. But drone races already have firepower superiority and they are (proposed) getting a pair of drones upgraded to X-drones as well. Note that for the plasma races, the torps on the pack are D-torps, not F-torps. Upgrading the F-torp to an L-torp on fighters themselves, but ONLY if the fighter is carrying a Mega-X pack, might work. But you're still only upgrading 6 torps per squadron (since plasma fighters generally fight in mixed squadrons) versus 22 drones. And the weapon upgrade for the Tholians is...?

Not saying a limited X-drone capability for fighters won't work, but we have to be careful. Allowing SCSxp might help balance the situation.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 03:23 pm: Edit

Alan: I've got it. How about expanded PF squadrons. Instead of six including a Leader and Scout, it becomes six Plus a leader and scout. Require but a single rule and a year. Add two more mech links and the balance is restored (mega-x is going to add easilly that much BPV if not more).

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 03:35 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Add two more mech links and the balance is restored (mega-x is going to add easilly that much BPV if not more).

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 03:36 pm: Edit

Loren

I suggested oversized PF flotillas on the K2 thread a while ago in response to the Oversized fighter squadrons on Patrol Carriers and Interdiction Carriers from J2. It generated little or no response so I concluded nobody was interested in the idea. I do note that this would still require modifications to the SCS, just in a different direction than XP. And if the modifications cut into the SCS' own inherent combat power by replacing weapons or power systems, the net change might not be worth it.

Still, maybe we can look at oversized PF flotillas again, in light of XP. One possibility would be to put them not on SCSs but on CWPxp ships, i.e. war cruiser-based XP-tenders. The balance between SCS and CVAxp would shift in these conditions but the overall racial balance might remain relatively stable, The drone-using races benefit more from the CVAxp and mega-x packs even if plasma/Tholians also get them due to their superior fighters. But the plasma/Tholians might benefit more from the CWPxp even if drone users also get them. At least worth considering, I think.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 03:40 pm: Edit

Andro RTN busters, either Division Control X-ships or Strike X-PFTs. Should these be in X1R or K2? YIS=196.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 03:49 pm: Edit

PFT-X in X1R? Yes. I like 'em, and it seems most others do too.

\edit - Just noticed the "Strike" in Tos' question... As Alan said (will say?), if you mean the CA-base armed PFTs I designs, OF COURSE! However, my agreement above was with standard CW / DD X-PFTs. \edit

DCS-X in X1R? No. These ships are more stuffed with things than even an SCS (being smaller but having the same number of attrition units). Besides, a standard DCS (not the NCA versions, though they are pretty good too) are good enough for SatBase and BATS busting on their own (and they need to be in K2, if there is going to be a K2, as a "core unit").⁴²

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 03:53 pm: Edit

Tos:

Except for the Lyrans, Strike PFTs as I understand the term (a heavy cruiser-based PFT with CA firepower but no special sensors - analogy is to Strike Carriers) don't exist yet. Assuming Strike PFTs are eventually accepted as a standard ship type, I would say it depends on the publishing schedule and also on how much else (true DNX, Fast PFT or PFT with Oversized flotillas) is accepted for those modules. I tkink it's too early to answer your question.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 04:26 pm: Edit

Feds, no need.

The others need not be XP.

Strike X-Tendrs and DC-X as new builds sounds interesting.

I think Oversized PF squadrons are a good solution IF there is a mega-X pack and only during the Y190+. AND IF the 7th and 8th PF MUST be a leader and scout.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 04:34 pm: Edit

I also think that the Leader (maybe) and Scout (definitely) should have an increased EPV, since they have to support more standard PFs. This wouldn't require an SSD change, just a rule that you pay a 10 point surcharge for the leader (if necessary) and a 20 point surcharge for the scout if they are supporting an oversized squadron. The scout at least has to be able to lend EW to two additional PFs if the concept is to work. This should require upgrades to the Special Sensors, even if those upgrades are not reflected in the SSD.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 05:31 pm: Edit

I don't think they would need such balancing since the oversized squadron concept itself is a balancing tool in favor of the PF and PFT. No need to cut back its value.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 05:35 pm: Edit

Oversized PF Flotillas is a really bad idea. Oversize fighter squadrons are essentially the only way to counter the PFs and if you make FLotillas bigger then you need bigger fighter squadrons.....

It gets into a nasty circle. Just say no.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 06:05 pm: Edit

Is there any need for X-Ground Bases? X-DefSats? X-Mines? or any other fixed defenses?

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 06:37 pm: Edit

Imho, there isn't any need for X-tech defsats or mines. A case could be made for X-Ground Bases simply because eventually there will be ground based X-Battlestations and X-Starbases built on important planets.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 07:58 pm: Edit

Tos: At this point I wouldn't think so. Perhaps an X-Sector Control Base.

It might be interesting to have 12 point T-bombs.

Crazy idea #526: Large mine that four impulses after being laid transports three t-bombs, evenly spaced into three of the surounding hexes. The Large mine then goes inert (no explosive war head). Nassssty.


CFant: I just wanted to make sure you haven't missed the whole point of the proposal. The over sized PF squadron would be to counter Fighter squadron equipped with Mega-X Packs (a proposal to allow fighters access to x-tech without curcomventiong the rule that the Stinger-X is the only ever X-Fighter).

If the Mega-X pack does not fly then there would be no need for the 8 PF squadron.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 08:18 pm: Edit

Does anyone know the history of the E3X found in SFT33? I don't have that SSD or R-section and it would help to know if this is a valid design that needs to be included in X1R or just a goof. How would the E3X differ from an E4X conversion?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 08:23 pm: Edit

Ask SPP. He knows everything!

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 09:36 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

KLINGON E3X: Only one ship in this class was constructed as a test bed for new technologies. Having already invested heavily in the construction of four battleships, and being desperate for new ships to hold the front lines against the burgeoning strength of the Alliance fleets, the Klingon High Command did not want to tie up a larger hull in initial trials of the newly developed technology.

The E3 used was one of the last ever constructed, named the Phoenix. The ship more than demonstrated the viability of the new technologies, but was clearly too small to effectively use them in frontline combat. Once the test sequence was complete, the ship was turned over to the ISF, there being no way to recover the technology from it.

The Phoenix proved to be a useful, albeit expensive, unit in operations inside the Empire. More than one marauding Orion raiding a convoy was surprised by the ship’s firepower (frequently concealed by dummy panels until it was time to strike). Unfortunately, the small size of the ship usually resulted in extensive (and expensive) repairs being needed after such encounters.

The ship was relegated to mothballs in Y186 when the General War ended and the ISC and Andromedan invasions were not yet on the Empire's horizon. It reamined in mothballs until Y210, when it was sent othe breaker's yard.

Based on a siggestion by Richard Eitzen. History and design by Steven P Petrick.

Other data: Spare Shuttle 1, YIS Y180, Docking Points 2, Explosion Strength 9, Command Rating 5, Notes Y1.

---

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 09:42 pm: Edit

So its historical but retired by the time of X1R. Great.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 10:55 pm: Edit

Loren, Mega-fighters, with X drones or not, are are just about as expensive as a PF. BUt there are 12 of them to a squadron.

I think a squadron of F-18CM comes in at 216 before drones, and around 300 after drones.

A Flotilla of STH PFs comes in at around 288 that is close enough in BPV to have no problems. And PFs are still much more survivable than fighters, no matter the BPV.

Just say no.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 11:08 pm: Edit

Well, I'm not going to just say no but I'll consider carefully what you've said.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 11:22 pm: Edit

Can y'all run through the list of X1 rules we are considering adding? I don't need XP rules now nor in this topic.

Examples:
X-Drone Bombardmet Drones
Mega-X-Packs
X-Crew Quality