Alan Trevor:

Someone is going to have a weaker X-DD, why not the Tholians? After all, their most aggressive neighbor (the Klingons) also have a weak DDX, and their other "enemy" neighbor (the Romulans) have serious problems with web in general. I don't have any problems with the Tholians having a weaker DDX / PFTX.

As for your DWX... maybe call it a HDX (Heavy Destroyer-X) to get away from the "War" designation... if you know what you want, email me. I'll be more than happy to work out an SSD for you.⁴²

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 01:03 pm: Edit

Alan, most people use MS Paint (or similar) to change SSDs.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 02:39 pm: Edit

If anyone uses some X tech on a DN, it'll probably be the Lyrans, since they could presumably do a trimaran conversion on their CX (and if they couldn't, other races will worry that they could and come up with conjectural designs).

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 02:46 pm: Edit

We could certainly create SSDs for BCHX and DNHX. Three problems.
1) Where do you stop? With R5 and R7 there are several variants of each base hull. Which one do you make the X SSD from?
2) Where do you publish them? My X1R list is up to 100 entries vying for 79 slots. Adding one BCHX and one DNHX for each race would place us way way over the top.
3) Many feel these units should be conjectural.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 02:57 pm: Edit

If non-conjectural BCHXs or DNXs are ever allowed, I believe they should be new-design rather than refits of existing designs. The published SFU history seems to me to strongly suggest that the GW-tech BCH and DN couldn't really accept X-conversion. If the designs are pure conjectural, that's not so much of a problem. But if a DNX or BCHX is ever designated as a real ship, it should require a from-scratch design to be compatible with X-tech. This would be less at odds with current SFU. YIS about Y200.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 03:29 pm: Edit

Start only with base + refits hull. Not the DNH not SCS and other variants. Main DNs and their main line carrier cousens.

Feds: DNGxp and CVAxp
Klingons:C8Kxp and C8Vxp (C9 too I guess)
etc.
Roms might only apply XP to Klingon hulls.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 03:33 pm: Edit

I still do not understand how an SCS cannot get X-Tech but a CVA could.⁴²

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 03:57 pm: Edit

After catching up on this subject, I have a few comments about this list:

1. The "decision" not to include the DNX is flawed. These will be a bigger sales hook than anything else on this list. (The BCHX thing is totally separate as BCHs are just big heavy crusiers.) There are plenty of other things to lose before these.
2. The "minor" races have far too many ships in this list. In any product like this they rate only 2 (maybe 4) SSDs; not 9 like the LDR have in the list. Remember they are minor races.
3. No need for the X-Aux Carriers. Aux's are slow/backup ships. A complete waste to use X tech on a ship which is slower strategically than a standard strike carrier.
4. Too much emphasis on PFTs. For example, the Gorns don't need 3 different designs.
5. The Federation don't need both a GVX and the CVHX. If you're going to give them a carrier, make it a real strike carrier capable of carrying a F-14DM squadron.
6. The "decision" not to include the DNX in flawed. (It needed repeating.)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 04:18 pm: Edit

1)There are lots of things that can be hooks for sales, but if they ultimately mess up the consitancy and standards of the SFU history then it's not worth it. Sale matter but the latter is more important in the long run (for long run sales). I would point out that Supp.2 was a drooled over product until it was played out (which was not long).

2)Don't have time to double check but are you counting XP ships in this? They don't (shouldn't) get SSD's but they need to be listed.

3) I tend to agree. While if conditions were nice and easy, I don't think anyone would get around to these. Stratigic and tactical pace is just too high for these anyway (I think).

4)3 designs? Have to look later.

5)I would think that a strike carrier would the the second to get XP and X. The GVX is a natural progression and very easy to implement.

6) Might be. Doesn't have to be. Might not be.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 04:22 pm: Edit

Only ships I would care to see in X1R...

Federation CVX. 12xF-14s
Federation DEX, to escort the CVX and GVX.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 04:28 pm: Edit

I don't know about the CVX carrying F-14DMs. The CVS carries F-18s and the CVB carries F-15s. A CVX should carry the best available fighters but the non-X case suggests the F-14 is not compatible with that hull. How about a CVX with 12 F-15DMs instead. A small step down from the F-14DM, but very small in most scenarios. And it provides better continuity.

Does the DEX still carry Gatling-Phasers?

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 04:31 pm: Edit

Alan.

The CVB could not carry F-14s because it was designed to carry F-18s and the F-14s would not fit in the same space. F-15s could squeeze in.

A purpose built carrier of F-14s is fine, as the bay would be designed to house them.

DEX.....sure, replace 1 LS/RS P1 with an X-Gat.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 04:31 pm: Edit

I meant F-15DM.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 04:35 pm: Edit

Federation DEX as designed by me.⁴²

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 05:01 pm: Edit

I like it, I'll take 12.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 06:09 pm: Edit

1. DNX, added to the list. I don’t make the decisions, I’m just the conduit.
2. The LDR upgrade everything they have due to their tenuous position in space. Races with more hulls can afford to upgrade only the ones that are best suited to X-tech.
3. Aux-X ships aren’t slow, they are the same speed as GW ships at less cost and an important part of the fleet.
4. Many PFTs could transfer to K2 if the Steves feel that is the better place. You are correct of course that the Gorns do not need 3 PFTs. What Gorn ships would you like to see?
5. Agreed. CVHX changed to field F-14D.
6. DEX added to the list.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 07:38 pm: Edit

Robert Cole,

What, no P-G's?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 07:50 pm: Edit

CFant: Kind of a small module, no?

I take it you mean that those are the ships you most want to see and the others can be what ever (with in reason).


John: One would think but then that unit is pretty rockin' with 9 Ph-1s.

Robert: It is so sad it will be relegated to escort duty. Slap a couple F-111's on it and send that sucker out a huntin' RTN.

Imagin that unit as a battle escort for a CX!

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 09:08 pm: Edit

What's the cargo for?

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 09:14 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Robert Cole,

What, no P-G's?

What's the cargo for?

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 02:38 am: Edit

NOTE carefully that the term DNX and DNHX should not be the same and we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If Fed DNG and a Fed DN+ both got "Xed up" they would be too very different vessels.

I for one would like a real but stock-standard DNX with no side ventures into DNHXs with the possible exception of the B10X.
Leave the DNHX debate for the DNHXP development team.


BCHX are a different matter, they should be provided even if only conjectual and even if only built on an "Xed up" CCH.

By Mark Norman (Mnorman) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 05:44 am: Edit

With DNX: maybe they should be based on the CCX, in the same way that the DNE is based on the CA.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 01:42 pm: Edit

Robert Cole:

Regarding your kind offer from 12:57 PM on 17 March - I'm working on an SSD for an HDX in MS Paint but as I'm not a very good graphic artist it doesn't look very good. If you have no objections, I'll email it to you when I finish (probably sometime this weekend). Regarding Starsabre's comment that minor races should have only 2 to 4 SSDs, I see the HDX and two variants as perhaps being 3 of the 4, with the NCLX as the 4th Tholian SSD in this product.

Proposed history (will have to be worded better if HDX is accepted for final product) - The HDX is a new-design Tholian X-Destroyer that borrows from lessons they learned in developing the CW and CWH. They needed somthing more powerful than the DDX that could be built faster than the CCX. The CWX proved unsuitable for X-conversion and while the CWH was suitable, it can't carry a webcaster and so is significantly weaker than the existing Tholian and Neo-Tholian X-cruisers (including the proposed NCLX). The Tholians performed design studies for a CWHX but were concerned that it would slow production of webcaster-equipped X-cruisers, so the design was put on the shelf and the improved X-Heavy destroyer was built instead.

The variants I'm working on are a "phaser-boat" version which would supplement PCXs for base defense of the most threatened bases, but would also be used in open space for heavy phaser support of webcaster-equipped fleets. Im also doing a PFTX version which would be more effective than a PCX or DDX-based PFTX but less effective than a CW-based PFTX. A photon torpedo variant would also be possible, but there are already photon versions of the CCX (the CPX) and the DDX (the DPX) and I thought the phaser-boat version would be interesting as "something different". The Tholians don't need a photon version of every ship that might possibly be capable of accepting one.

Let me know if you don't want to work on this, but otherwise I'll have the SSDs to you sometime this weekend.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 02:26 pm: Edit

re: LDR

Having looked at the LDR for a campaign I wrote with them I'm very familiar with them, I hope you guys aren't planning on lots of new designs for them (just conjectural stuff that the Lyrans got that they thought about and envied.)

By 195 the LDR Fleet looks like this:
BCS+MPV+MPA
CCX
NCC
NCV+2MPA, PFW, CWS (?, can't remember now), LTT
CWL+2CW
3DWX
SCX
about a dozen or so MP, MPM, MPS, MPV, MPA

The MP's are about as maxed out as you can be with a police ship (remember their original hull is a Pol). They have a whopping 4 P-2s, 2 P-Gs, 2 ESG, 1 Disr. If you go with the 'standard' X-ship upgrade of +50% phasers you are adding 2, even if you go with upgrading all of their P-2s to P-1s, that is a significant economic investment for them. On a hull that is a heavy frigate or DD, and takes damage like a Frigate.

From an F+E standpoint, they are lucky to have the X-Fleet that they have, they get ~1XTP a turn from their economy. It takes them saving 3 yrs to upgrade the CCX. You a proposing designs that would already strain their economy as it is stretched as it is. Their is a reason their 3 CWs aren't all NCA's, for balance, flavor, and the imposed limitations of their economy. Notice how all of their SC3 ships are almost unique? They don't have beans to experiment with.

re: WYN

Are you serious, additional Aux-Ships for them? Why, when their shipyards should/would be devoted to building the best Fish Ships available. The War of Return had just occured, forcing a majority of the mobile navy to go to Kzinti space. ALL of those ships would have to be replaced. They aren't going to be wasting X-Technology on Aux Ships.

Yes, I know that in X-1 their is a AuxCX (Small Aux Cruiser-X), lets leave that as their only Aux-X ship, snease at it with an X-ship and it is just so much tissue paper. The 'left-overs' after making enough for a Fish DDX was enough for a AxCX and not enough for a AxBCX and leave it at that.

(EDIT) I misquoted the time it would take to convert their CCH->CCX, it would be less, like 1 1/2 -> 2 yrs, as they can convert some EP->XTP.

It's still shows how 'slow' they would take to do things, instead of the Federation building to their hearts content.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 02:42 pm: Edit

I fully agree with Scott.