---

Quote:

I concur that the ISC CCX is overvalued (though it is powerful) but to make up for it, I also think the ISC CLX and CSX are undervalued. Compare an ISC CLX at 185 BPV to a Gorn HDX at 205 BPV.

---

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 09:22 pm: Edit

Mike, regarding your latest Fed XCA: I hate it.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 09:59 pm: Edit

Why?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 10:04 pm: Edit

MJC:

I'm not sure I follow your point in quoting the BPV for the Orion, Hydran, and Romulan Heavy Cruisers. It's not ever going to be the case that each race's top-of-the-line ship will exactly equal every other races top-of-the-line ship.

Presumably the Lyran CCX, designed during the GW and built during the ISC and Andro incursions, was the most powerful ship that could be built on that hull, with that level of technology. Presumably the Hydran X-cruisers were also the most powerful versions available. But it just so happened that with the given ship designs and X-tech, the Hydran versions were more powerful. The Lyrans didn't "choose" to deploy a less powerful X-cruiser than the Hydrans, the accidents of history just worked out that way.

Maybe the ISC XCA will be a 325 point ship while the Fed XCA will only be a 250 point one because of their different technologies, and assuming both are built as general purpose ships rather than combat-optimized designs. And if the BPVs are in fact representative of the relative combat power of the ships, that's fine. The fact that they are not well matched in a one-on-one duel doesn't really matter.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 10:38 pm: Edit

MJC:

This brings up the question of why these X2 cruisers are general purpose ships rather than combat optimized warships. I think part of the answer depends on what happens during the later X1 years, which are not yet well defined in SFU history, except in broad outline. Here's one possible take (though I obviously have no idea if it will be anything like the Steves' ultimate decision).

During the Y195 - Y200 time frame, all the races start building true (not XP) DNXs, based on lessons learned during the Andromedan wars and the fact that by Y195 X1 technology is well established. These ships have Battleship combat power (375-400 BPV) and are as expensive, but can be built in existing Dreadnought slipways.

A few years later, the X2 ships start appearing. After the devastation of the General War/ISC Pacification/Andromedan Invasion, all the races need general purpose ships for the many diverse missions involved with re-establishing their respective infrastructures. The races also still need warships because of their mutual suspicians and uncertainty about whether the Andros, despite being defeated in the Magellanic Cloud, might return from some other enclave. The races seperately come to the same conclusions. X2 tech is too new, risky, and experimental to be relied upon as the primary bulwark for the defense of the Federation/Empire/Hegemony/Holdfast/whatever. For that purpose, the now tried and proven DNXs will spearhead the effort, supplemented by smaller X-ships and surviving GW ships, some upgraded to XP capabilities. X2 ships would make excellent general purpose ships that still have sufficient combat power due to their advanced designs to usefully support the main battle fleets. And if there is some hidden flaw in this experimental technology, it will not prove fatal to the race, since the primary defense is still based on X1 tech.

A number of years pass. X2 has proved itself to be reliable and capable. The various races all start design studies of X2 combat optimized warships. Then the Xorks attack. These designs are quickly implemented. They have the approximate combat power of a DNX or a GW-era Battleship, and are about as expensive. But because they can be built in cruiser slipways, they can be produced much faster, an imperative if the Alpha Sector races hope to survive the Xork onslaught.

As I say, I have no idea if this will resemble official late X1/X2 history. But it provides a plausible story regarding why these X2 ultra-cruisers don't appear until a couple of decades after the first X2 prototypes.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 10:57 pm: Edit

What is X2?

Compared to X1 this ship changes some weapon charts. Change the ship SSD to say PH-1 instead of PH-5 or PH-6 and there is no way for a player to know that this isn’t some new X1 ship with a few less phasers. This is the ship that races would have built if X2 never existed. From this ship you could create a mold and stamp out an entire SSD book in a weekend.

That’s not my vision of X2.

The X2 ship is a next generation design. It is built on a from scratch new hull. It should be different! It should feel different! Each race should develop in slightly different directions. It should require new tactical challenges and offer new opportunities.

X2 should not be a lackadaisical upgrade of existing designs. X1R will give us more of the same. X2 must be dramatically different, but balanced with previous generations. This won’t be an easy task, but if BMW can do it, we can do it better.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 12:39 am: Edit

Here's my take on what X2 is.


X1
Advanced warships for the General War.

X1R
Both heavier warships for the Andro War and cheaper "peace ships" for the trade wars period.

X2
Highly Advanced Warships for the Andro War ( designed during the Andro War but not built until only remanant units were encountered ) whilst still reataining cost savings of minimalistic designs coupled with high technology.

X2R
highly Advanced very heavy warships for the Xork invasion.


From this, I ask the question.
Why build a weak warship if you've got the technology to build an uberschiff?
Specifically why build and 8Ph-5 XCA when you know you can build a 12Ph-5 XCA for 10% more credits?

Answer: Because a treaty says you have limits on how powerful your new advanced technology ships (X2) can be.

New Question.
Why put the limits on your highly advanced technology ships that are weaker than your advanced technology ships.

If the firepower limit of these X2 ships was negatiated at a particular level then I know exactly where the negatiated level would be at. Specifically exactly at the level of the most powerful advanced technology ( X1 ) ship.
If the negotiations allow higher then everyone at the table will know that everybody else at the table is planning on building uberships in secret and if they negatiate lower than the level of the best X1 ship then everybody ( except perhaps the people with the most powerful X1 vessels ) will assume that the people who are alreadythe most powerful ship possessors are trying to hog tie everybody else so they can reinstitute an invasion of the rest of the galaxy.

Couple this with the Orion pirates unboubted not being at the table and yet having a 300 BPV CX cruisers and you'll see that the negatiated point would be in the 300-330 BPV range.


The minimum level of the firepower of the XCA would be equal to he most powerul CCX or the Orion CX depending on where the negatiations go.

No Admiral will agree to having weaker but cheaper highly advanced ships than the Advanced ships of other races...As soon as a war breaks out they are on the loosing side because they agreed to a bad bargain treaty...If they have the XCAs and their new CCHXs and DNXs all running around being equal to the enemy CCXs then they know when they throw up a road-bloak against the oncomming advance that they can indeed make a fist of stopping said advance.

The treat will set the Offensive potential of the ships at the ISCs CCX...it's pretty clear cut rom where I'm standing.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 01:08 am: Edit

MJC:

You invoke "the Admirals" a lot. But Admirals are not Gods. They are subject to constraints placed on them by senior political leadership (witness the numerous citations in SFU history where the famously parsimonious Gorn Legislature prevented the Gorn military from doing things that would have been militarily advantageous) and even more they are subject to the constraints of the laws of physics. No doubt other races would like to be able to field ships as powerful as ISC ships. But if the technology just doesn't exist to do that, no ammount of disagreement by the Admirals will change that fact. Some technology in the SFU seems to transfer relatively easily, and some not at all. The top-of-the-line ships available to each race will never be exactly equal in combat power because of this technology difference, even if the races are roughly equal technologically in broad terms.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 02:32 am: Edit

I know the Admirals are not Gods, they probably don't even think of themselves as "God's" but still, the Negotiators will go to the Admirals and say, are their any deal breakers and the Admirals will say YES.

1) If they are resticted such that " frontline" warships ( XCAs ) cant tackle an Orion CX then it's probably better to let an unrestricted arms race continue and let the richer man win...at least then the Priates will have to work for a living.

2) If one other race has the ship right on the limit ( particularly if it is now a relatively cheap X1 ship ) and all the other races have ships that are below or well below then the ONE race has an advantage shall bee seen as the race that everybody must "gang up on" and eliminate as soon as a provication presents it'self.


As to the technological avalibility.
I see X1 as being the early GW R&D comming into service hurridly in wartime to provide a combat edge.
I see X2 as the late, GW, ISC passifcation and Andro War; R&D comming to fruition.
If the research of the Anti-Andro and anti-ISC ended in Y202 and X2 arrives in Y205, then it's plain to see that the R&D was done for the purpose of building uberships, even if the actual construction of the ships was done in a period of ecconomic depression and thus were highly scaled back uberships.

How scaled back one might ask?
Enough to be equal with their own best X1 ships or their enemies' best X1 ships.
Hence a target of 300-330 BPV.


As to technological advancement ask yourself this question.
Is the structual stress placed on the frame of an XCA by a single Ph-5 shot greater than the stress of a single Ph-1 shot on a CX?

If it is greater then yes the CX could have fewer phasers mounted on her hull...but would it truely be 1.5 times as much stress.

If it's the same amount of stress then theoretically we can mount 12Ph-5s on a CX...but I know you want more.
Did the Advanced technology of X2 also make the hull more able to handle stress generated by Phaser fire.

Note carefully that modern ships can be built ( far more expensively ) but somewhat faster through weight saved by making the cross section of stuctural members smaller where they intersect with other structial members ( and therefore gain inertial from those structural members ) and these wight savings have been availible in US registered shipping ever since the American Bureau of Shipping provided a Finite Elemiment Analisys programme in the CD-ROM of their cassification regulatations.
I suspect that if the XCA designers really wanted they could mount 15Ph-5s on an XCA without entering in what is generally refered to as "shock" and indeed would be about as stressful to the frame mounting 8Ph-5s on a CAR.

Having a 300-330 BPV XCA isn't a question of having the technology, it's a question of finding a legitimate reason to tie ships down to any range of scores at all other than "fully maxed out".

The reason can only as far as I can see be; THE TREATY and from that it stands to reason that the treaty has got to make sense and be beleivable.

At what point would the new technology cruisers be allowed to opperate, certainly not at a point lower than the best X1 ships, or else everyone will come to the conclusion that the guy who thunk that one up was the guy who thinks he's got the strongest X1 production and is planning on invading the rest of the galactic powers by diverting his X2 development funds towards X1 construction.

The peace deal will by like going to a nude beach with a bunch of people who know each other a bit.
No one will want to get naked first!
What will happen?
Either everybody leaves or everybody dicides to go swimming in their respective swimwear.
That way if anybody is sneaky and wants to take a few embarrising photographs of anybody, that person's pics won't be horrendously embarrassising.

So too the X2 ships will sit at having the ability to repulse the best enemy X1 ships, so that nobody gets egg on their face by buying into a bad deal.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 08:03 am: Edit

Tos,

Those are fair points, and are no doubt going to be echoed by others. The problem I find in making things really different though is that, in general:

• Different tends to equal more powerful
• Get too different, and you loose the flavor of the race, i.e., your Fed is no longer a Fed

1. Similar phaser layout (6 heavy phasers covering the FH, LS and RS arcs, two defensive phasers covering 360)
2. Basic "Fed" feel; lots of lab and hull, decent power that is sorely taxed by heavy weapons, and poor maneuverability.
3. Basic "Fed" fighting style; get close and smash someone with your photons, using shields and hull as protection until you do.
4. More well-rounded than most ships in other fleets.

1. Heavy photons instead of normal ones
2. Phaser upgrades across the board
3. S-bridge
4. Regenerating Shields
5. NWO
6. X2 labs, probes and shuttles
7. X2 "fast rack" drone racks
8. Overload capacitors (possibly...gotta play with that idea first)

By Charles E. Leiserson, Jr. (Bester) on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 10:55 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Am I wrong about that, folks? Do we want X2 Feds to play differently than pre-X2 ones? And if so, how much different should they be? Might need to answer this question later, after others post their XCA's. Anyone else ready to put one up?

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 10:59 am: Edit

lol, I still have that one, somewhere. If you really want it, I'll send it to you.

By Charles E. Leiserson, Jr. (Bester) on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 11:17 am: Edit

Heh. Actually, that'd be great. If it's alright with you, I'd like to use it in my campaign. Maybe as a Fed from an alternate universe or something.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 05:07 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I guess there's the rub. I'd really like to see a Fed that's completely different from GW and X1, but plays the same. Same with the other races. I'm not quite sure how to do this, or if it's actually possible.

---

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 05:37 pm: Edit

Mike, I am with you all the way man

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 08:26 pm: Edit

Tos, those are different. Sleek designs. Interesting use of warp engines too. I'm not sanguine to the three-engine thing but I understand you're looking for "different." Guess that's the traditionalist in me. ASIF or anything like that?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 10:02 pm: Edit

I planned an ASIF, but didn't sweat the details. These were more of a directional concept, like the automakers make to gage interest. The objective was to take every design feature of the CX and discard it. I received mixed commentary, as was expected.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 01:43 am: Edit

Oh yeah I think I remember you posting something about that.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 12:29 pm: Edit

Heres my somewhat serious Fed XCC.

I might do some overhauling of the idea for a Fed XCA.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 12:31 pm: Edit

I forgot I had even done the ship.

Gettin old an senile here.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 01:23 pm: Edit

Kenneth, do you intend that the XCA and XCC are different ships? I ask because I consider them to be one and the same in X2 and I'm just clarifying your terms.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 01:54 pm: Edit

Okay, since the XCA I posted the other day was moderately well received, here it is again with one or two minor changes, along with a more complete Fed X2 Fleet, DN included:

R2.?? Federation XDN

R2.?? Federation XFF

R2.?? Federation XDD

R2.?? Federation XCA

Except for the DN, most are fairly modest X2 designs. While they may look somewhat dull, they basically have very similiar abilities to those designs other people are posting. I think we're starting to close in on our Fed XCA, at long last.

The DN is based on a comment that CFant made; that he didn't mind XDN's, as long as they truly were DN's and not just DN-like ships disguised as CC's. Well, here you go...a true X2 DN. Woof.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 03:02 pm: Edit

HA HA! Instead of the lollipop XDD you have the Dove Bar XDD! I also think we might be closing in on an X2-"main" cruiser (as far as us posters are concerned) but I'd still like to see MJC's X2-cruiser SSD. I think it's only fair.

XDN: "WOOF" indeed!

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 08:29 pm: Edit

Yes I consider the XCC and XCA seperate classes with a bit more spread than what is typical for most races in the GW/X1 era. Most likey I would tone the XCC down a bit to make it an XCA. And boost the XCC just a little bit more. When I originally did the SSD I said I wasn't competely happy with it, but would settle for a quick and somewhat dirty effort.

Loking at Mikes XCA it's more like what I would envision an XCL compared to an XCA. (With a 3/4 MC compared to an XCW with a 2/3 MC.)

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 09:23 pm: Edit

If you want to dare to be different take an XCA, replace 2xPH-360 with Flag, call it an XCC. More control, LESS weapons.