Archive through April 22, 2004
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
The "X" Files:
Integrated Proposals:
Archive through April 22, 2004
Mike:
You say that photon torpedos for any X2 Tholians who retained that weapon would still function according to the X1 rules. You also say that you intend for each disruptor race to have a different X2 disruptor based on racial flavor. Actually, I would just as soon see the Tholians ditch the disruptor and photon both at the X2 level and make their ships phaser-boats with highly advanced webcasters.
Actually, I would still limit true webcasters to cruisers only and give the destroyers snares and a heavy weapon based on the webfist, but which couldn't create cast web.
If that doesn't fly, I would still just as soon see both photons and disruptors limited to the X1 technology with any weapons upgrades limited to phasers and webcasters. The disruptor and photon are kind of stop-gap weapons for the Tholians. Web technology is what makes them unique, and only Tholian phasers can fire through web.
(Actually, there's a proposal that the X2 Tholian disruptor could also fire through web, that would be their disruptor-tech improvement. I don't much like this because it just "feels" wrong. I can't explain it any better than saying it offends me esthetically somehow.)
I don't think that would make a lot of tactical sense for the Tholians. Tholians opperate in web mostly. They don't hunt the enemy if they don't have to. Remember their creed "Lets you and him fight."
Take a Base assault for instance (something you must conduct if youare actually going to attack the Tholians and the Tholians are going to prepare for little else): The Tholians will be behind web a lot. They will want to deter you from entering that web and every one knows the biggest deterent in the game is a short ranged Photon. But then there is the turn inbetween (lessened by the fast load photon). This is what disruptors are good for. In web Tholians don't need to maintain high speed so the photon isn't hard to load.
In all, I believe the Photon would be considered to be far too valuable to drop from their ship designs. Further, if we make a Web Caster that is anywhere near that Crunch level the Tholians will get out of hand.
No, I think they will keep both, with the disruptor being the primary weapon backed up by the Web Caster (which should become more previlant). Then there would be Photon versions for bases and in mixed fleets. The disruptors do the main fighting and the Photon ships pounces on ships caught in cast web and delivers the coup de gras.
For tholians I would like to see them go back to and advanced Particle Cannon.
That might be interesting. They certainly have obtained working examples from the Selts.
=====================
Re Advanced WC:
Here is another way of looking at the Web Caster as a primary weapon. If the web caster can be made to be as crunchy as the photon and it is a weapon that can be produced by the Tholians themselves, would not the Tholians produce as many as they can? Consider then a Cruiser with four of these and how unfun it would be to go against a fleet with a dozen of them. Even if they weren't improved at all it would be too much.
A Fist only version doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. If the system is capable of being copied to that extent why wouldn't it be carried on through to the full product? They have working samples and all the parts for the fist. How much more could it take to go all the way? Maybe there is something that stops them from going further but that sounds like hand wavium to me. (Had wavium being something I think is a last resort to save something very valuable).
I once stated that the Web Caster as priamry weapon was a good idea. I even supported the Web Fist only version but on further consideration this is how I feel.
I haven't really worked on any 2X tholians yet. I just wanted to get the basic "new" stuff down, and hammer out some Feds and Klingons to play with. A lot of really nifty ideas have been floating around, including some of the stuff Loren mentioned, and also the advanced Particle Cannon. If they retain disruptors, they won't necessarily be the same as anyone elses. Shooting through webs is a possibility, perhaps with some sort of penalty. They'll need much more attention than I have given, that's for sure.
Mike, different Disruptors, sure most definately. Shooting them through web is pretty powerful, however might could work. How about transposing the phaser penalty from a negative shift in damage to a negative shift on the die roll. You calculate the two the same way (so you only have to calcultat the shift once for all waepons) but one applies to dameage and the other applies to the die roll (for disruptors). Keeps it simple and keeps Tholians from being able to snip at long range through web.
I must warn however, that the powers that be may say that if such a thing is possible it would be risky to put it out there. Ifthe other races ever found a way to fire through web...
OTOH, phasers can, other races have phasers and no one ever figured out how to fire those through web.
Loren:
I have to disagree strenuously with your analysis. I usually play the Tholians in campaigns and have conducted many base defenses. I am quite happy as the Tholians to fight a base defense with no heavy weapons at all. The phaser-1 is far superior to any ship mounted direct fire heavy weapon for base defense precisely because it can fire through web. With all due respect, I believe your notion of Tholian base defense is way off.
Regarding the Particle Cannon for X2 - I would rather see the Tholians retain the disruptor and photon at X1 levels than go to the Particle Cannon. By the time X2 becomes available, NO THOLIAN IN THIS GALAXY WOULD HAVE USED SUCH A WEAPON IN APPROXIMATELY 100 YEARS. I'm sorry about the shouting, but this is a critical point. It makes sense for the Tholians to produce webcasters as fast as they can (but according to currently available published material that may be as little as two per year) because it has unique and powerful capabilities. Just what is it about the Particle Cannon that's so special that the Tholians would waste the time and resources to set up production lines to produce it? It simply isn't that much better than the Disruptor, which the Tholians already produce in quantity. Setting up the production facilities to produce Particle Cannon is a major diversion of resources to develop a weapon with which no living Tholian is familiar except in a theoretical sense (perhaps a few retirees who came over with the 312th used the weapon prior to their arrival in this galaxy).
If X2 Tholians retain a non-webcaster heavy weapon (which production rates suggest is likely unless the webfist-only version can be built much faster than the full webcaster) the disruptor should be primary, perhaps supplemented by the photon torpedo.
I apologize for the agitated tone of this posting and apologize even more to anyone who took offense at my posting. That wasn't my intent. But I've played way to many Tholian base defenses, under a variety of different strategic campaign rules, to buy into the notion that the Tholians need (or even want) heavy weapons for base defense. They need webs and phasers.
They do need some kind of heavy weapon for operating in open space, a capability they have had, at least nominally, since the 312th showed up. (Such operations can only take place very near Tholian bases due to severe logistics constraints, of course.) There is room for debate about what heavy weapon best satisfies that requirement. Given the general disapproval for my suggestions of webcaster cruisers and webfist-only destroyers, I suggest that the requirement can best be met by the continuing use of disruptors and photons that the Tholians are already familiar with, but that the R&D effort for the Tholians should concentrate on bringing their phasers to phaser-x (whether that means Mike Raper's phasers, phaser-5s, or something else) capabilities and improving to the extent possible their webcaster and snare capabilities.
Again, I apologize to anyone offended by the somewhat intemperate tone of this posting.
No problem. You sound like you know alot more about the Tholians than I do, and I would defer to your experience. A phaser/web-caster only Tholian sounds kind of cool.
Alan:
Quote:If X2 Tholians retain a non-webcaster heavy weapon (which production rates suggest is likely unless the webfist-only version can be built much faster than the full webcaster) the disruptor should be primary, perhaps supplemented by the photon torpedo.
This is what I'm saying. I agree that Tholians do well by having lots of phasers in a base defense. But most Tholians ships are not designed to strickly be base defense ship. So, they do need heavy weapons. When the enemy comes a callin' and sticks his nose into your web the photon is a better stick to wack him with. The disruptor has its value best in open space but is useful everywhere as well.
Any new weapon must in turn be better than these weapons if it is to replace them. TO build a weapon to take over BOTH roles would be to create a weapon that is too powerful IMO.
Allan, I don't see where we are in disagreement. I generally agree with your entire post. I too accel at Tholian play, even though I'm a bit rusty of late. I love Feds and Klingons but I just seem to win more battles in Tholians and Hydrans. Beats me as to why.
However, I think the THolians do need something unique. I had proposed a sort of stick web fist once. Instead of just striking the ship it sticks to it too and slows it down. Sort of a mid-level weapon between the Cast Web and the damaging Web Fist.
There are other ideas too. They need something unique that isn't about just offensive striking power. They are and remain a defensive race.
Loren:
After reading your last post I agree that the area of disagreement between us is much less than I had thought.
I would still disagree with your statement that "Any new weapon must in turn be better than both these weapons to if it is to replace them." Let me try to lay out my position a little more coherently and see what you think.
1) Tholian X2 disruptors and photons would not necessarily have to be better than their X1 counterparts. They might be the same, with Tholian tech improvements concentrating on phasers and webcasters. I see it as entirely plausible for the Klingons, Lyrans, and Kzinti to each make (different) improvements in their X2 disruptors but that Tholian disruptor technology remains at X1 levels because of the Tholian R&D emphasis.
2) Setting up a production facility for Particle Cannons will require expenditure of resources and time just to build the factories/production lines before any actual weapons production begins. Moreover, although they used it in the past, by the time of the X2 timeframe the Particle Cannon is an unfamiliar weapon for the Tholians. Webcaster production would run into the same objections, but webcaster capabilities are sufficiently useful that they outweigh the objections. I don't believe the same could be said for the Particle Cannon, however.
3) Unlimited webcaster production could quickly get out of hand, because in many ways it is "too good" if it is not restricted either by the Seltorians or by limited availability. While the webfist-only version would be useful as a direct fire weapon, it is the flexibility of the webcaster, either webfist or creating cast web depending on the tactical situation, that would allow excessive numbers to be unbalancing.
4) One possibility to meet Tholian requirements would be for the Tholians to gradually migrate their heavy weapon production to webcaster/webfist only. Hypothetically, suppose that the really difficult elements of webcaster production are associated with the long range casting capability (since snare production can create cast webs adjacent to the ship and snare production is unrestricted after (I think) Y184). The Tholians might be able to mass produce a webfist only version. There is still the "resources necessary to set up the production facilities" argument which I think is a huge argument against the Particle Cannon. One possible answer for the case of webfist mass production might be that there is sufficient commonality with webcaster production such that migrating disruptor production to webfist production would allow a slight increase in true webcaster production, say from two per year to three per year. Thus the Tholians, by doing this, get a minor increase in their ability to produce webcasters (but not enough to skew FFU balance) and an excellent heavy weapon. Deployment of these weapons might in some sense mimic plasma race deployment of different size torpedos. The XFF as pure phaser boat, the XDD with two webfists, the XCL with a webcaster and two webfists, and the XCC with two webcasters and two webfists. Obviously this would require careful examination to ensure nothing unbalancing was being introduced, but it migh bt viable.
5) The other possibility would be to retain disruptors and photons at the X1 level and compensate for this with tech improvements to phasers and webcasters. Webcaster improvements might include longer range, the ability to hold more power, totally new capabilities, or some combination of the above. Even for ships without webcasters, the Tholians might be viable against their counterparts, despite inferior heavy weapons, if they were superior in other respects. For example, Archeo-Tholian ships have traditionally been among the best shielded for their class in the entire Alpha Sector. Suppose a Klingon XDD with X2 disruptors, phasers and drones, met a Tholian XDD with only X1 disruptors but with better phaser firepower, snares, and better shields. (This is actually not unlike a duel between an F5K with fast drones and a Tholian DD with snare refit.) The resulting fight might be both balanced and quite interesting.
That, at any rate, is the direction I would like to see the Tholians going in for X2. What do you think?
OK, no X2 Roms thread:
Grand Eagle
I'm not sure if "Grand" is what I'm keeping and it says Imperial Eagle on the SSD. I'm using Grand for now to differentiate from Mikes and others. I actually posted this more than a year ago but I'm posting it again for the new comers and since it was brought up.
The following is some of the rules for this ship as it was developed independently from the Empire by a Reman House as a "come back" design. Like I said in another thread, it probably would never have been built if not for its independence and timeliness (produced before the Fleet units could be).
=====================================
Armor: SOme were concerned that Powered Armor posed copyright problems. I really disagree since powered armor has been a sci-fi thing since the beginning of sci-fi. HOWEVER, a new way of looking at it provided a fresh way of making it work (think Armor Integrity Field) and should quell the concerns of copyright violations some have. Additionally, it fits with other proposals for X2 (e.g. ASIF). This Reman House did not have access to the work done by the Romulan Fleet designers and so had to come up with their own creation.
(XD4.12) eXternal Armor Reintegration and Metallurgical Optimization Repair system (XARMOR):
Some Second Generation Romulan ships (New Eagle designs) use special technology similar to a cross between an SIF and Matter Reformation Processing that maintains the integrity of their ships armor while it takes damage. If the armor is damaged while un-protected it will be permanently destroyed like normal armor. Mark such damage with a full “X”. Protected armor is energized with one point of power in the shield line of the EAF. (Write the power for shields then a “/” then the power for the XARMOR.)
XARMOR operates as normal armor but can be repaired using the shield repair rules (D9.2). IT must be energized during the repair process (i.e. the turn that repair occurs). Armor that is damaged while energized is marked with a dot or single slash.
XARMOR is not compatible with ASIF of other X2 ship designs.
====================
WARP
====================
X2 Warp (XTW):
The Inline Plasma Accentuation Chamber Coil (IPACC) works a bit like a turbo charger and was the subject of study by all races for more than a dozen years before its introduction on main line fleet units (actually Feds first then concurrently the Klingons and Fed Allies. Shortly after the rest of the Coalition races began studying it. Hydrans started it last but had the advantage of studying work already accomplished by the Federation provided to them through treaty). It allowed engines to produce greater power without becoming physically larger units. This was one of the key inventions that allowed Second Generation ships to become reality. It is a modular system that is easy to repair given there is the appropriate parts available. X-Turbo Warp (XTW) is the shaded boxes on a second generation X-ships warp engines. Normally, the ship operates with the XTW off but activates them when there is a need such as during a battle. XTW in off mode cannot be hit by internal damage except as a replacement for Excess Damage hits.
Function: XTW boxes provide warp power as normal warp boxes do. For each box to operate there must be one normal warp box undamaged.
Taking Damage: XTW (shaded) boxes may be the first warp hit taken in a volley but for each XTW box hit the next warp hit on that engine must be a normal warp hit. Alternatively, a player can elect not to hit XTW at all.
Repair: XTW boxes are easier to repair and cost half as much to repair. However, a repaired XTW box cannot function without an accompanying normal warp box. Also note a particular XTW box cannot be hit if not functioning (see above). This is a design limitation as well. XTW cannot provide power greater than +50% to any particular engine design (though in some circumstances it can provide a 100% increase due to damage up to 50% of the main engine.)
Availability: XTW boxes may be voluntarily turned on or off during Energy Allocation. Simply make a note of it. XTW is available at WS1. XTW is not available to a ship that is surprised.
Activation: All XTW boxes in each engine count as one unit but separate from normal warp units for purposes of activation and can be activated during EA the turn after that warp engine is activated.
BTW: Regarding batteries, 3 point or 4 point...whatever the rest of the galaxy uses is fine.
No comments???
Well, I read it, and it looks interesting. A few questions, though:
How much does it cost to power xarmor?
The turbo warp rule says first that it can't be damaged except as a replacement hit for excess damage. But later it says you can take hit on it in place of normal warp. Which is correct?
Overall, it's interesting. It would need to be fleshed out a bit before play, though. Any idea about a 2X cloak at all?
1) 1 point of power marked on the shield line of the EAF after a slash ( / ). I would like to point out that this only allows the armor boxes damaged while powered to be repaired. The process would be power by one point during EA (covers all boxes). Any armor damaged on that turn can be repaired like shields (i.e. via two points of energy and using 2 places of dam con. so with 6 energy and all six places of shield repair dam con (yes used in place of shield repairs and not in addition to) you could repair three powered XARMOR boxes the next turn.
2) Turbo Warp: The no hit rule applies to non-active turbo warp boxes, i.e. if not producing power they can't be damaged. Similar to Klingon boom impulse. If active they are hit one a 1:1 basis with normal warp boxes but you are free to avoid hitting them at all though there wouldn't be much point to it. Best to take a few hits on them first as you can repair those easier.
Example (this process is lagit under the rule): A TW equipped ship takes three left warp engin hits. The first can be a TW box but the second must be a normal warp box (1:1 rule). The third can be a TW as well. The following turn the ship can repair both these as the cost is low enough to allow them to be repaired in a single turn. Since there is enough real warp to match exsisting TW boxes there is no need to repair the real warp box that was damaged.
Caution: This can be tempting to use but it can eat up your CDR very fast.
Example two (one wouldn't do this): The engin has 16 normal warp and 8 TW boxes. If you took 9 left warp engine hits and hit all normal warp you would loose ten power because the nineth hit wouldn't leave enough normal warp to cover the 1:1 rule for opperating TW boxes (one TW box would go inactive the next EA).
X2 cloak: Hmmm, well on this design the X1 cloak would be installed because of the back ground. The Reman House didn't have access to the Governments secrete X2 projects and so had to develope this ship on its own. Later, after the main line X2 ships hit open space there would likely be an upgrade. That upgrade has not yet been devloped by me.
I hope this answers your questions.
Any more? 
Okay I'm rehashing old ground here so please forgive me, but I've been thinking about the BPV thing again (as noted in another thread). I just want to get a sample of what people around here think when it comes to X2. Not to say anyone's right or wrong; just to get a "gut check" on what they think X2 should be.
As for me, I'm thinking the "main cruiser" (which I call XCA) should be around 250 if not less. I start with the CA since this is the game's benchmark ship. BPV 250 is a reduction from earlier posts I've made. My reasoning assumes that X1 is the principle combat-optimized X-tech. If we have a CX that is 250 then it is reasonable to have an XCA around there too. For gaming purposes this gives us a reason to keep the X1 ships, and makes the X1 products worthwhile for ADB. X1 ships are more combat oriented and therefore suited to surge operations in the X2 era. The XCA would then be more generalized in terms of multi-mission capabilities.
The economic value of the ship drives its BPV up (and yes I know there are BPV and economic BPV; bear with me). An XCA's pure combat BPV would likely be less than the CX's. In other words, although the XCA may not be equal in pure combat power than the CX, it is more capable than the CX. It can do more which makes it more valuable than the CX in a post-war environment (thus raising the BPV and providing for F&E "Trade Wars" expansions). All the same a given combat system in X2 is generally more powerful than its X1 kin, or at least more capable than its X1 kin. Therefore if an X2-cruiser is eventually designed to be more combat-oriented than the XCA, its BPV will be higher than a CX. This would be your XCB/XBC (whatever designation we choose).
If we strip away the "multi-mission" stuff from the XCA and are left with the combat-oriented stuff I'd say the XCA's BPV is around or less than that of a GW-BCH. Note I'm talking about BPV here, not numbers of phasers or heavies. Because I think the X2 weapons will generally be more powerful (as expressed in BPV), the end result is the XCA will have fewer weapons (in actual numbers) than a CX or even a GW-BCH. On the SSD that translates to an XCA that looks more like a GW-CC/CB. It's the X2 technology that makes the ship more powerful, not the number of systems/weapons (and power management becomes more interesting). "Force multipliers" (those non-combat capabilities that complement and enhance combat capabilities) will play vital roles as well, things like electronic warfare, boarding actions, high maneuverability, internal defenses, and improved command and control, to name a few.
As a result of X2's expanded capabilities, I can see X2-destroyers taking the role of light cruisers because they'll have the power of the older cruiser classes. Likewise X2-frigates will be able to take on more roles because they'll be more powerful. This is why I've posted a paradigm of three basic X2 classes, with minor variants. Economically it makes sense. Since X2 ships are generally more powerful and capable than their wartime counterparts, and certainly more powerful and capable than their pre-war counterparts, you don't need to build a wide variety of different ship classes. Since the technology is more powerful on a box-for-box basis you can keep the same hull-forms and sizes you've always had (keeping the ships very recognizable to the gamers) and still have more powerful ships (giving gamers new ships). This simplifies shipyards, and it simplifies operations and logistics. This all results in cost savings for the respective empires. To me that keeps in line with the general idea that economics and maneuver will play far more important roles than attrition and mass in the Trade War period. This also means that you can put more rules, scenarios, and even the "Trade Wars" campaigns into the basic X2 module because you won't need as many R-section descriptions.
So my thinking is: XCA (225-250±), XDD (150-175±), and XFF (100-125±). Note also that keeping it simple for early-X2 gives us room to introduce more powerful classes and war classes that "fill the gaps" that wartime calls for. For gamers this means more ships to play with. For ADB this means expansion products.
Sorry for writing a novel here but I wanted to give you guys an idea of where I'm going. I've posted most of this before in one form or another and the major difference now is the BPV ranges. Those will likely change again.
Where do you think X2 BPV should shoot for, at least for the Y205 period? What I'm looking for is where you think the basic ranges should be and what your basic philosophy is behind them.
I don't think you can go as low as 225-250.
I think a modest increase (250-225) would be in order.
Note that this is the high end of CX BPVs.
John, did you mean (250-275)?
Yeah. Thanks.
Sounds great to me. I do want to see a XCL though, something that clocks in around 190-210.
I don't really see the whole X2 is new tech and X1 is super combat idea as holding water and the reason is X1R.
And some other R modules post XP.
With XP, the Admirals can build cheaper more effective Hotwarp vessels with XP advantages but GW weapons to fill the roll of the post Andro Period "ship of peace" ideal if the X1R ships don't already fill that role.
X2 should be a completely new generation and a completely new generation should be such a technological leap forward that the ships are dramatically different.
Consider the jump better the YCA and the CA or the CARa+ and the CX.
| Ship | YCA | CA | | CARa+ | CX |
| Phasers | 6Ph-2 | 6Ph-1 | | 8Ph-1+2Ph-3 | 12X1Ph-1 |
| Photons | 2 Y Photons | 4 GW Photons | | 4 GW Photons | 4 X1 Photons |
| Drones | Nil | Nil | | 1 G-rack | 2 GX-racks |
If the XCA is a generational leap forward then the XCA should be able to at the very least go toe to toe with the best CCX, the 315 BPV ISC CCX.
That means that the XCA must lie in the 300-330 BPV range, if not more.
Following on from the the XFF would be around the 130 BPV mark and be a good match for a D7K or an NCLa+.
The XDD would be a central role ship in the force and thus would sit at having the ability to keep up with CCHs and BCH and so like the DDX before would sit at around 170 BPV ( maybe 180 ) and probably would have refits pushing it up to be on par with a CX at latter stages.
As much as I can see it would be fun for an XCA to be at the same BPV as 2 CAs ( for the Feds ) I just can't see X2 ships as being anything other than uberships.
Some people want X2 ships to be uberschiffs and some people want anything but.
BUT those who want something other than uberschiffs will have somewhere else to go but those who do; either have to settle for X2 or R5 and I think that's a little unfair.
Powerful cruisers that fly like cruisers and fight like DNHs should be a part of the game especially in the latter years ( Y205-225 ) and to just abitarily take away from one sector of the gamming community because SOME OF US are tired of every mech we meet being a 100 ton clan-mech does not we should impose upon players whose only product of recoarse will be X2, somekind of limitation based on what well feel would be the historically correct mantra.
The Admirals don't know that there will be no second general war.
The Admirals do not know that there will be no remanant Andro or worse whatever forced them to leave their own galaxy.
The Admirals do not know if or if not the Orions are working on X2 or even if the ISC are working on X2 and must design ships ( and to a lesser extent build ships ) with those battles in mind.
XCAs simply must be able to go toe to toe with the ISC CCX and should in truth be designed to take it out without difficulty!
Sure, but if the tech to do that doesn't exist...
Also I am of the opinion that the ISC CCX is over BPVed.
MJC,
"XCAs simply must be able to go toe to toe with the ISC CCX and should in truth be designed to take it out without difficulty!"
Okay, why?
John, I can see the XCA being in the 250-275 range (and that had been my position for awhile now) and I won't cry if it works out that way. Right now I'm just trying to work out ways to bring the BPV down. That won't be easy so I'm keeping an open mind.
Also I need to modify my statement of "my reasoning assumes that X1 is the principle combat-optimized X-tech" to "my reasoning assumes that X1 is the current (as of Y205) combat-optimized X-tech." I do bear in mind that X2 will at some point supercede the earlier generations and will need heavier and war hulls, but for Y205 GW/X1/X2 will have to "play nice" together.
You can't bring it down below the 250-275 range.
The buying public is going to expect X2 to be noticably better than X1, end of story.
To do a good, different X2, you have to expect another round of at least some general improvements and the synergy from those will almost assuredly drove the XCA BPV over 300.
Quote:Okay, why?
And
Quote:The Admirals don't know that there will be no second general war.
The Admirals do not know that there will be no remanant Andro or worse whatever forced them to leave their own galaxy.
The Admirals do not know if or if not the Orions are working on X2 or even if the ISC are working on X2 and must design ships ( and to a lesser extent build ships ) with those battles in mind.
• The Admirals would assume that the X2 ISC cruiser would be atleast as well gunned if not better than CCX.
• If the ISC make a comeback even if only armed with their CCXs, then the best X2 cruisers need to be on a level that can handle that.
How many CAs are built by Feds during the period Y150-200!?!
How many GSCs???
The differance between the two shows that most ships built for starfleet were warships that just happened to be awefully good at doing science and diplomacy rather than "peace-ships"...other races will follow suite depending on their racial dogma.
X2 should not be "X1R2 the new refits", it should be "X2 the new generation".
Quote:I do bear in mind that X2 will at some point supercede the earlier generations and will need heavier and war hulls, but for Y205 GW/X1/X2 will have to "play nice" together.
What do you mean by place nice?
An XFF fights a D7K on an even battle???
Or a DXD fights a XCA.
I don't mind if you need a DDX and a CX to fight an XCA and it's just a slight improvement over the CX to get their it's a fairly solid improvement...Admittedly I would rather see the XCA+ fight a DDX and CX but I really don't the Admirals would resist sqweezing every iota of combat effectiveness unless they were limited.
Now if a treaty were enacted then maybe they'ld pag their shi[ps at some point...BUT if they peg it anywhere, they'ld sure as hell peg it being able to make the ISC CCX stop in it's tracks.
