| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 04:43 pm: Edit |
And here's the kicker... me too.
| By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 04:53 pm: Edit |
The apocolypse is here folks.
| By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 05:16 pm: Edit |
More F+E Input.
During the Andromedan War, the ISC has the undamaged territory (and as such the Andro's stomp on them hard whenever possible).
As such, they would field the greatest variety and numbers of X-ships.
These X-ships should do the most to stop the Andros. As such, they are the ones that should definately have DCS-Xs and ACS-Xs to get as many attrition units into battle with one ship (that can get away when threatened). Nix any 'standard' CV hull for them. Multiple Squadrons of PF/Ftrs would be what they need.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 08:49 pm: Edit |
"re: WYN. Are you serious, additional Aux-Ships for them?"
The only propsed Aux for the WYN is the AxBCX, converting a ship they already have to X-tech.
The rest of the Aux ships are General Aux ships, not WYN. The refit of these freighters would allow them the ability to function at full non-X strategic speed.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 09:21 pm: Edit |
I wonder what a BCHX looks like.
If we take a Fed CX, make the 360° Ph-1 pair into 4Ph-1s, add in 2 X1 B-racks on the engineering hull, add one more BTTY and put four extra boxes on the #2 & 6 sheilds, have we made a BCGX (or simply a CCHX) and if so, is it just too powerful for the hull to handle!?!
| By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 09:36 pm: Edit |
MJC,
Off the top my head you would have to add 2 rear hull, 2 shuttle, 2 batteries, 3 AWR, 2 Gx-racks and 1 tran. The extra phasers the BCG had over the CC were two FH PH-1s. These could be subsumed into the X conversion. For the most part this is the only reason the prohibition against BCGXs didn't make to much sense to me. The other BCHs were printed later and tended to be more powerful, which is why I can go along with the prohibition.
| By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 02:57 am: Edit |
X-ships don't actually have more phasers than their base hull as a general rule. Some do (eg. Klingon FX), some don't (eg. Klingon DX).
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 06:21 am: Edit |
Oops.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 08:03 am: Edit |
Well, maybe. Most do, though, and those that don't trade out P3's or P2's for P1's. For a BCX, I'd have to say it was a new design alltogether, not a build up of an older design. For a Fed BCX, as a thought experiment, I'd use the same saucer as the CX. In the aft hull, start with a BC hull and bring the 360 P1 group up to four, ditching the pair of 360 P3's. Then put two option mounts in the aft hull. That way you can have the BCJ, BCF, or BCG configuration depending on what the mission is. For something as rare as a BCX, I'd think some degree of flexibility would be nice. Bump the shields of a BC by about 30%, pack on the 20 point warp engines, and there you go.
| By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 12:40 pm: Edit |
re: DNX / BCHX / etc
Has anyone really thought if these are even possible or necessary?
1) Consider the Timeline (on the Website), during the Andro War, it states that warship production was at an all time high (and implying, losses were at an all-time high). In F+E terms that means you must be buying the most efficient hulls with the money you have. DN hulls are not the way to go, as they cost 125% of what their factors are (thus a 12 factor DN costs 16 EPs). The point of all this, is with the limited money each race will have, (remember all races loses large areas to Andromedan occupation), they won't have the money for DN-hulls.
2) Has anyone considered what a DNX would look like?
Lets consider the Lyran DN (it has lots of pairs of equipment.)
2*2 FA-Disruptors ->2*3 FA-Disruptors
1*2 FX-Disruptors -> 1*3 FX-Disruptors
2 FA+L, 2 FA+R P-1s -> 3 P-1s each.
2 FA, 2 360-deg P-1s -> 4 P-1 FA, 2 360 P-1
Side Phasers -> 3 P-1 LS/RS
4 ESGs -> 4 ESGs w/ no cooldown
3*15 pt Warps -> 3*20pt Warps
Net, 9 Disr, 18 P-1s (which can all centerline their target) 60 Warp.
Compared to a BB, it is very similar in firepower. So consider them like BBs in their production. In F+E Terms, it'll take YEARS to complete a DNX. Make them conjectural so you can play some scenarios with them (the Darwin scenario in Mod X is one). If it takes years to complete a ship, it won't get completed if the races need ##s of ships to keep their empires together.
3) Lets some unique ships be made but were failed attempts or limited production vessels. Like a Gorn DNC-X (a CCX with it's rear bubble cut off, and a DNC's rear X-Bubble added). But it breaks down on like 2-6 or shock. Then the Gorns just didn't even try a DNX. Kzinti CVS-X/BCHX would be a limited production ship, just technobabble that it cost must more to create the warp field for the lengthened hull of the BCH compared to the BC. (IE a F+E surcharge of producing such a large ship).
4) Ban obvious trys to get a DNX an easy way. The Lyran CCX couldn't be converted because of limitations in the X-hull (could you image a normal CA->DNX?? Unbalancing to say the least).
Limit DNs & BCHs to have an XP upgrade only.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 01:09 pm: Edit |
They are listed as a controversial class in my brief. The Steves can make the decision.
| By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 01:47 pm: Edit |
Hey Tos, I want to make sure you don't feel like I'm slamming you with any of these posts.
Because I'm not trying to, just make a better product.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 04:01 pm: Edit |
I had several rebuttals ready to your last few posts, did some research, made some corrections, and determined that we weren’t far enough apart to even worry about it.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 09:01 pm: Edit |
Well, just for fun (and I still say these shouldn't exist) I did do a quick Fed BCX SSD, based on a CX saucer and BC aft hull. Took a bit of tweaking to get the aft hull right; taking out those P3's messes the symetry up a bit.
R2.?? Federation BXC Advanced Battlecruiser
I put in option mounts, because I figure there would be so few of these, you just wouldn't get any variants at all. The last "normal" BC built was what, number eight I think? So you figure there wouldn't be very many at all of these little babies. I know they stopped building BC's because of the success of the CX. But, if I had to pick a fixed weapon, though, I'd go with photons. The last BC's built were the New Jersey class, largely because of the great success they had on the Andros. Since XR1 would be a module full of ships built during that time, it makes sense (to me) that any BCX's built with fixed weapons would use photons, and follow that same design path and meet the same threat. I also converted half the lab in the saucer to AWR, to help with power problems. A BCX isn't in need of eight labs; it's in need of ass-kicking power, so give it all you can. Ah, well...it's for fun only. Enjoy.
| By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 09:35 pm: Edit |
Call it conjectural and add it to X1R. It's a pretty straightforward design. Does it have limited X-AEGIS? Shouldn't the racks be GX?
| By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 11:48 pm: Edit |
Don't know about the number of phasers increasing on most X ships; the quality does improve, but on a quick glance through Module X1 I get the impression that the total number of phasers drops on roughly as many hulls as it increased (compared to the final non-X version of the same hull). Happy to be proved wrong if anyone wants to go through and count them
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 12:01 am: Edit |
The Fed CB (the usual base hull for the CX) has 10 P-1s, as do most BCHs. The CX has 12.
What hulls *lost* P-1s when going to X-tech?
| By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 01:25 am: Edit |
I'm counting total phasers, not just P1. Take a modest volley of internals on a Kzin BCX and you'll feel it more than a BC will, for instance.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 07:04 am: Edit |
True, but the conversion from Kzin BC to Kzin BCX trades out paired P3's for single X-P1's, and also picks up two more drone racks...hardly a bad deal.
| By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 07:29 am: Edit |
Indeed, it is a superior ship. I'm only trying to say that "add a bunch more phasers when converting to X" is a case by case thing, not a general rule.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 10:55 am: Edit |
One more try.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 10:57 am: Edit |
SVC, SPP: This is Draft 0.3 of the X1R ship list.
The list of proposed rules can be found:
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/23/2695.html?1079731804#POST157701
Key:
1) The Ship Name needs to be perfected so counters can be made correctly.
2) Priority is from 1 (should be included) to 6 (should be excluded). The Sort is Race, then Priority, then ship name.
3) YIS is only estimated for a few ships.
4) Module represents the module the SSD was or could be published in. Many PFTX class ships and RTN hunters could potentially be published in K2, depending on the plans for K2.
5) One conjectural Mauler was included. Three old-Romulan XP ships were included as their XP refit includes a warp upgrade similar to the King Eagle (SSDs available upon request or look further up in this topic).
6) The Hydrans and Feds have a single full large X-carrier. The Hydrans would like a St-TX fighter.
7) X-Tug Pods aren’t included. I’m thinking that an XP Tug Pod is made to be compatible with X, XP and GW era tugs.
8) This list is neither complete nor final and will have to be trimmed to fit in the available SSD pages.
Class Notes:
RTN Hunters: The RTN was discovered in Y195 and heavily disrupted everywhere by Y198. To accomplish this each race will need one or more RTN hunters somewhere between a Fed GNV and a Kzinti SSCS. Includes Assault PFTs, Assault Carriers and DCS, all with special sensors. Precursors include heavy scouts, drone bombardment and PFTs; some of which could be published in K2 if desired.
Controversial Classes: DNX, BCHX, PFX, Carrier Escorts, Maulers.
Pro: Some players want them printed, even if conjectural.
Cons: Likely conjectural. Most players don’t want these. Too powerful, too many variants, too many pages, too rare, bad for the timeline, bad for the Andros, bad for OpUnity. Partial X (XP) refits for these controversial classes should suffice.
Controversial Class: POLX
Likely the police would make due with hand-me-down General War era ships just as they did with previous National Guard ships. I can’t see them getting X-tech.
Controversial Class: HDWX
While these ships allow flexibility their same flexibility allows them to be abused. There is a reason most drone ships have so few shuttles to convert to scatter packs and carriers require escorts, these ships violate these limiting factors. Drogues, Remote Control, heavy fighters and mega fighters made the abuses much worse. They are also too overstuffed to be candidates for full X-tech.
| Race | Ship | Priority | YIS | Module | Notes |
| Fed | DGX | 1 | 182 | CL16 | 2 Phot; 4 Drone |
| Fed | GVX | 1 | 182 | CL26 | F-111 Scout Carrier; allowed to carry A-20 as GVAX |
| Fed | Tug-X | 1 | - | - | |
| Fed | NCLX | 2 | - | - | |
| Fed | CVHX | 3 | 196 | K2 | Assault Carrier Scout; 12xF-14 or 12xF-15 |
| Fed | DLX | 3 | - | - | 2xPl-L; 2xPhot; 2xDrone DDX |
| Fed | DXD | 3 | - | - | DB Scout |
| Fed | FFSX | 3 | - | - | |
| Fed | DEX | 4 | - | - | Carrier Escort |
| Fed | DNX | 4 | - | - | |
| Fed | BCHX | 5 | - | - | |
| General | Aux-CVAX | 1 | - | - | Fast Aux or X-Aux |
| General | Aux-CVLX | 1 | - | - | Fast Aux or X-Aux |
| General | Aux-PFTX | 1 | - | - | Fast Aux or X-Aux |
| General | Aux-SCSX | 1 | - | - | Fast Aux or X-Aux |
| General | F-N | 1 | - | - | Fast Freighter; could share SSD |
| General | F-N Pods | 1 | - | - | Pods |
| General | F-NQX | 1 | - | - | Q-ship |
| General | F-NX | 1 | - | - | X-Freighter |
| General | FRDX | 1 | - | - | FRD |
| General | L-QX | 1 | - | - | Q-ship |
| General | MonX | 1 | - | - | Monitor |
| General | S-QX | 1 | - | - | Q-ship |
| Gorn | Tug-X | 1 | - | - | |
| Gorn | BDPX | 2 | - | K2 | PFT |
| Gorn | CMPX | 2 | 196 | K2 | Strike PFT RTN Hunter |
| Gorn | HDPX | 3 | - | K2 | Strike PFT |
| Gorn | DNX | 4 | - | - | |
| Gorn | BCHX | 5 | - | - | |
| Hydran | MTGX | 1 | - | - | Tug |
| Hydran | PFTX | 2 | - | K2 | PFT |
| Hydran | TARX | 2 | - | - | |
| Hydran | DCSX | 3 | 196 | K2 | DCS RTN Hunter |
| Hydran | LEX | 3 | - | - | Aegis or X-escorts; Needs St-TX |
| Hydran | DNX | 4 | - | - | |
| Hydran | BCHX | 5 | - | - | |
| ISC | FFX | 1 | - | - | |
| ISC | Tug-X | 1 | - | - | |
| ISC | CAX | 2 | - | - | 1xPPD; 2xPL-M; built to be cheaper |
| ISC | LTX | 2 | - | - | LTT |
| ISC | PFTX | 2 | 196 | K2 | Strike PFT RTN Hunter |
| ISC | CAPX | 3 | - | - | No PPD; 3xPL-M |
| ISC | NCAX | 3 | - | - | X-Engines speed up this overgrown MC=1 ships |
| ISC | NCSX | 3 | - | - | X-Engines speed up this overgrown MC=1 ships |
| ISC | DNX | 4 | - | - | |
| ISC | BCHX | 5 | - | - | |
| Klingon | D5XD | 1 | - | CL16 | DB Scout |
| Klingon | DXDA | 1 | 186 | - | Statis DXD |
| Klingon | T7X | 1 | - | - | Tug |
| Klingon | D5PX | 2 | - | K2 | PFT |
| Klingon | D5XDA | 2 | 187 | - | Stasis D5XD |
| Klingon | E3X | 2 | - | SFT33 | Unique and retired by Y186; needs counter |
| Klingon | FXD | 2 | 186 | - | DB Scout |
| Klingon | D5XS | 3 | 188 | - | Heavy Scout |
| Klingon | DWUX | 3 | 196 | K2 | DCS RTN Hunter |
| Klingon | FXL | 3 | - | - | FWL version of the FX |
| Klingon | DNX | 4 | - | - | |
| Klingon | BCHX | 5 | - | - | |
| Kzinti | CDX | 1 | - | CL26 | DB Scout; CMX hull |
| Kzinti | Tug-X | 1 | - | - | |
| Kzinti | MPFX | 2 | - | K2 | PFT |
| Kzinti | CMSX | 3 | - | - | DB |
| Kzinti | NDCX | 3 | 196 | K2 | DCS RTN Hunter |
| Kzinti | DNX | 4 | - | - | |
| Kzinti | BCHX | 5 | - | - | |
| LDR | CWSX | 1 | 192 | - | |
| LDR | CWX | 1 | 191 | - | |
| LDR | MPSX | 1 | 190 | - | |
| LDR | MPX | 1 | 189 | - | |
| LDR | MPVX | 2 | 191 | - | |
| LDR | PFWX | 2 | 193 | - | |
| LDR | NCCX | 5 | 196 | - | Ended career as XP; could be published conjectural |
| LDR | NCVX | 5 | 196 | - | Ended career as XP; could be published conjectural |
| Lyran | SRPX | 1 | 196 | K2 | Survey Tug like CL26:PAL-PTT; double weight PFT-12 |
| Lyran | SRX | 1 | 188 | - | Survey Tug pre-Y195; PFT RTN Hunter post-Y195 |
| Lyran | Tug-X | 1 | 186 | - | |
| Lyran | BCX | 2 | - | - | |
| Lyran | FX | 2 | - | - | Cheap new construction; quickly converted to a DWX |
| Lyran | PFTX | 2 | - | K2 | DW Based PFT |
| Lyran | CWPX | 3 | - | K2 | CW Based PFT |
| Lyran | DNX | 4 | - | - | |
| Lyran | BCHX | 5 | - | - | |
| Neo-Tholian | NCLX | 1 | - | - | |
| Neo-Tholian | NDX | 4 | - | - | Could the Tholians ever build a NDD-RH? |
| Neo-Tholian | NFX | 4 | - | - | Could the Tholians ever build a NFF-RH? |
| Neo-Tholian | Rear Hull | 5 | - | - | |
| Orion | PFTX | 2 | - | K2 | PFT |
| Orion | DBRX | 3 | - | - | |
| Orion | CRX | 6 | - | R3 | |
| Rom | NHX | 1 | - | - | |
| Rom | SPHX | 1 | - | - | LTT |
| Rom | SUPX | 1 | - | - | CV; no special sensors |
| Rom | BHXP | 2 | 184 | - | Engines from a WE; not X-tech |
| Rom | SNXP | 2 | 185 | - | Engines from a BH; not X-tech |
| Rom | SPEX | 2 | 196 | K2 | Strike PFT RTN Hunter |
| Rom | SPFX | 3 | 186 | - | Conjectural Mauler |
| Rom | THX | 3 | 196 | K2 | Strike DCS RTN Hunter |
| Rom | WEXP | 3 | 183 | - | Engines from a KE; not X-tech |
| Rom | DNX | 4 | - | - | |
| Rom | BCHX | 5 | - | - | |
| Selt | CLX | 3 | - | - | |
| Selt | CX | 3 | - | - | |
| Selt | DDX | 3 | - | - | |
| Selt | FFX | 3 | - | - | |
| Selt | SCX | 3 | - | - | DD Based |
| Selt | BCHX | 5 | - | - | |
| Selt | DNX | 5 | - | - | |
| Tholian | PFTX | 2 | - | K2 | PFT; PCX based |
| Tholian | CANX | 3 | - | - | X-Engines speed up this overgrown MC=1 ships |
| Tholian | CPFTX | 3 | - | K2 | Based on CCX |
| Tholian | CSCX | 3 | - | - | CCX based Scout |
| Tholian | DNX | 4 | - | - | |
| Tholian | BCHX | 5 | - | - | |
| WYN | DSX | 1 | - | - | Scout |
| WYN | FX | 1 | - | - | |
| WYN | AxBCX | 2 | - | - | |
| WYN | PFTX | 2 | - | K2 | PFT; FFX based |
| WYN | LDX | 4 | - | - | Conjectural DWX for the WYN instead of the PBB |
| WYN | CAX | 6 | - | R3 | |
| WYN | DDX | 6 | - | R3 | |
| WYN | OCRX | 6 | - | R3 |
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 03:55 pm: Edit |
As new posts hit the board the link I posted no longer points to the right place. Try this one:
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/23/6843.html?1079812769#POST157787
| By Jay K Gustafson (Jay) on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 12:44 pm: Edit |
Where can I get playtest material for X2
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 12:57 pm: Edit |
Jay, trick question.
XP: Take any SSD and apply the changes mentioned in http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/23/6843.html?1079812769#POST157787
X1R: Uses the X1 rules for the ships posted above, including the revisions posted in CL23 and on this web site. Most SSDs don't exist so take your best guess.
X2: The rules are in flux but the largest single collection of playtest stuff can be found at: http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/x2.htm
Before undergoing your testing you should review these sources, identify what you want to test and then check back with us to make sure what you are planning on testing is current.
Finally, I believe some X2 SSDs were put onto SFBOL, but I'm not sure of the status of these.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |