Alan,

You can post a Link. But only a board moderator can post a file itself. Us peons cant do it at all.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 06:40 am: Edit

Alan, email me your files if you like, and I will post them for you.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 06:59 am: Edit

Alan Trevor's Tholian HDX:

(R7.???) Advanced Heavy Destroyer (HDX): The Tholians turned to their war cruiser to bridge the gap between their small DDX and their excellent but difficult to produce CCX. But the CW proved unsuitable for conversion to X-technology. And while the superior structural integrity of the slightly larger CWH made it suitable for the conversion, the Tholians believed that building this ship would slow CCX production. They therefore designed a new Heavy Destroyer from the ground up. The ship was developed from lessons learned during the design study for the proposed but unbuilt CWHX, and from a careful analysis of the facilities the Tholians used to convert SC4 ships to X-technology. For a number of years the HDX was the largest and most powerful X-ship the Tholians could build from scratch which would not reduce CCX production rates. It was also the Tholians' first X-ship that was not a conversion of an older design. The HDX performed the same roles in the Tholian fleet that war cruiser-based X-light cruisers performed in other races' fleets. It was designed with an unusually large tractor array for a destroyer because it was envisioned from the beginning that the ship would also form the basis for an Advanced PF Tender.

The HDX is not nimble and cannot pinwheel.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 07:09 am: Edit

Interesting design. I like the oblique phaser barrage effect. Makes sense for a scoot and shoot design.

*Note: It needs to have the ADB Web policy Copyright added to it.

By Chris Bonaiuto (Epyon) on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 12:39 pm: Edit

Brodie,

Yes I really want to try the C9X out, but there is one small problem...no one to play. Grrr...I've been to Mike's site, he has a lot of SSDs I wanna try out, but I run into the same problem...no one to play SFB with.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 12:49 pm: Edit

I have, somewhere, a very old SSD I made of an X improved Tholian DN. I always thought of it more as a BCH, anyway. I'll have to find it, though it'll take some cleaning up.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 03:21 am: Edit

Robert Cole has provided me with urls for the two variants I have for the HPX.

(R7.???) Tholian Advanced Heavy Phaser Destroyer (HPX): The Tholians built at least two and possibly three of their Heavy Destroyers with all phaser armament for use behind webs. These ships had the phaser firepower of an X-Cruiser but no heavy weapons. They were stationed at bases the Tholians regarded as being particularly vulnerable. Though not intended to operate alone, these ships did see some offensive use supporting webcaster equipped fleets.

The ship is not nimble and cannot pinwheel.


(R7.???) Tholian Advanced PF Tender (PFTX) : The Tholians also used their Heavy Destroyer as the basis for an Advanced PF Tender. The ship also provided Heavy Scout support for the Tholians. While it had one fewer Special Sensor than did the SCX, it had more power to employ the sensors. The PFTX was also more survivable than the SCX due to slightly superior shields and substantially superior internal structure.

This ship is not nimble and cannot pinwheel.


Comments:

1. The obvious inspiration for the HPX is the CPA, the Tholian Heavy Phaser Cruiser that replaces the four disruptors with four additional phaser-1s and is intended for base defense. Ships such as the CPA and HPX are particularly useful against Seltorians since they combine an excellent phaser battery with lots of power to counter web breakers.

2. I am even less sure about the BPV for the Tholian PFTX than I am for the HDX/HPX. I am not aware of any official PFTX so I compared it to the Tholian SCX. The SCX has a point value of 170/110. It actually has one more Special Sensor and one more phaser-1 than does the PFTX, and it is nimble. But the PFTX has more power for the Spec Sensors, is more survivable, and (obviously) carries a PF flotilla. I guessed 180/120 initially but if this ship were to be accepted and assigned an official point value, it would not surprise me in the least if those numbers turned out to be way off.

3. I didn't draw up a photon version, though that could easily be created by changing the front hemisphere disruptors to front arc photons, and changing the APR to AWR. But though I like the fact that the Tholians deploy both photon and disruptor versions of many of their ships, I don't see a need for every possible candidate to have a photon version.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 09:28 am: Edit

There are a few artistic things I don't like about the PFTX:
It doesn't seem to have sufficient repair capability and what it does have isn't adjacent to the tractors that are repair capable. I’ve always felt that wings were good places to mount PFs.

It seems light on hull.

The shields really bother me. Give it the lost shield box or take two away.

It seems odd that the PFT would lose a single APR.

I don’t like the looks of the shuttle bay layout.

This is an odd ship. Perhaps it would help me if I could envision a non-X version.

I'm sorry for nit-picking. No offense intended. There's just something bothering me about it and I can't figure out what.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 09:34 am: Edit

Doesn't bother me; I think it looks fine. The only question I'd have, and this is about all three, is whether or not they could retain an A turn mode and nimble status with all the stuff added on. Other than that, they look fine to me.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 10:26 am: Edit

I agree with Tos but think some stuff isn't so bad. However, I suggest switching out the sensors for phasers and replacing the forward phasers with sensors.


That is keep the group of three ph-1. The PFT only needs two spec sens anyway. Most PFTs only have two.

I also agree that the tractors should replace the side phasers in the wings, placing them next to the repair. Yes, it could use two more repair but I could make a case for the four that are there.

That leaves what to do about the boxes that used to be repair. Well, two could be cargo but then they don't use drones so don't need it really.

Oh I know, put back the rear two phasers and leave the forward tracs as tracs (but one mech link.) This gives the ship 8 tractors and could be refitted to carry a heavy squadron in the future and would provide protection for the other mech-links.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 10:54 am: Edit

Mike:

The ships are not nimble, though they are still Turn Mode A. Note the last sentence in the proposed Section R7 write-ups. I specifically removed nimble status because of their size. But given the Tholian capability to make very tightly turning ships (their Dreadnoughts are Turn Mode-C and the Neo Tholian Battleship is Turn Mode-D, i.e. it turns like a Fed or Gorn Heavy Cruiser I thought Turn Mode-A was still appropriate.

Tos:

Some non-X PFTs actually have more total boxes than do the frigates/destroyers they are based on. But part of my conception of this ship was that it was basically maxed out as part of the original design. There was no room to convert it to a PFT without pulling other systems off the destroyer versions. That, for example, is why it actually has fewer Phaser-1s than does the smaller SCX. Note that the original Tholian DD, plus the DDX and SCX only have 5 hull. I would have liked to keep the full power of the HDX for the Special Sensors but was also determined that unlike non-X PFTs it would have no additional boxes over the base HDX. I felt that removing one hull box was justified given the DDX precedent, but no more than one given that this is a larger ship (basically envisioned as being the largest possible ship that would still be SC4). In the event, I removed one APR and one battery from the HDX to provide room for the new systems/keep the box count the same.

Actually, I think 4 Repair is fairly common for SC4 PF Tenders. Even some larger PF Tenders only have 4 Rep boxes.

Regarding the shields: the standard Tholian DD has 27 boxes all around. This is more total shield boxes than many DDXs and many standard-tech heavy cruisers. Though most Tholian ships have substantial shield increases when they go-X, the DDX only goes from 27 each to 30 each because the original DD was so heavily over-shielded. Since this ship was conceived of as a maxed-out HDX that would play roughly the same role for the Tholians that a CWX would play for most races, I wanted some level of shield increase over the DDX. But even though Archeo-Tholian small hulls are very heavily shielded for their BPV, 36 all around struck me as excessive for any destroyer. I originally sent the ship to Robert Cole with 32 box shields in 4x8 blocks, but they looked kind of "chunky" so he rearranged them. I would prefer not to see the shields go back down to 30 or up to 36, but 33 might be better than 32.

Don't worry about "nit-picking", we all have different conceptions of what ships "ought to look like". I would like to see these ships accepted as official parts of the SFU, but I consider a necessary part of that process to be submitting them for review to others to see if they make sense. So pick away on things you think need to be addressed or improved.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 11:27 am: Edit

And now for something completely different...

Well, not completely different. It's still in the topic of "new design" X-ships that are not based on a GW-design hull but were X from the initial conception.

I always thought the Romulans would also be a good candidate for one of these ships. Their main-line X-Cruiser, the FHX, is based on the Firehawk-K Heavy Cruiser rather than their Novahawk Command Cruiser, so it only has CR9. This leaves the Romulans with only the older (and less powerful) KEX as a CR10 X-ship.

An NHX is proposed for X1R, I believe, and this would solve the problem. The situation would be similar to the Kzinti building both a CCX and a slightly weaker, slightly less expensive BCX.

But I think it might be more interesting to handwave that the FH-K was the maximum version of that hull that could be converted to X-tech (which is why the Novahawk wasn't chosen initially) and give the Romulans a new-design CCX. (I've already stated why I think we should have a few new-design X1 ships in my proposals for the HDX and variants.)

If the new-design CCX turns out to be just a Novahawk-X with a different outline and rearranged boxes it's probably not worth the effort and we should go with the NHX. I would like to see it be a bit better than (or at least functionally different from) an NHX. But I don't know what changes would be appropriate.

Any comments or ideas?

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 11:07 pm: Edit

Tos,

In your answer to Jay on 3-20 about making XP changes to SSD's I have a couple of additional questions. Are the XP refits governed by the ship mod rules SVC posted 4-2002 or are some mods to these rules being considered? Are the escort rules for carriers being revised? (Is this the right place for these questions?)

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 11:43 pm: Edit

I'm not aware of the ship mod rules posted 4-2002, the XP rules were developed independently through discussions with participants in these topics. The design philosophy around XP was to create modest improvement that would not require changing the SSD. Things like improving battery capacity or allowing a ship to generate more EW. It is not our intention to change any carrier escort requirements due to XP.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 12:07 am: Edit

JRC, where is that 4-2002 post you mention? It was my understanding that SVC disavowed any such system beyond ADB's doors.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 12:29 am: Edit

This under the other proposals file in the folder called Ship modification Rules. It says "These rules can be used by players in free campaigns to make minor modifications to ships". I hope I am not creating confusion with my original question.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 09:09 am: Edit

I've reviewed the ship modification rules (S7) Joseph mentioned. XP uses an entirely different system.

Using the S7 rules you can change boxes on the SSD and even add boxes. You can start with a single SSD and create 100 variants. Based on what you changed you calculate a BPV.

For XP this is an upgrade, there is no player choice. The XP rules result in a single upgrade to a single ship. This 1 for 1 arrangement allows an appropriate single BPV to be created and avoids abuses.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 09:28 am: Edit

XP, though considerably more powerful than most, is a refit like any other.

By John Pepper (Akula) on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 12:24 am: Edit

I was wondering if anyone had ever done any 3D artwork for X-ships yet. The reason I ask is that the artwork in the X module right now just doesn't seem different enought to reparsent the change in technology. I realize that ADB can't use any of the movie era or beyond stuff but it seems like there is at least some stuff that could be done to improve the realism.

I would also like to point out on the shiplist that I don't like the NCLX because it is too close in looks and design to the existing DDX.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 01:51 am: Edit

John, X1 ships look identical to their GW counter parts. This is actually part of the rule. Check out the Tactical Intelligence rules and you'll see what I mean.

Now, X2 designs will likely look entirely different from anything seen before.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 01:55 am: Edit

John,

X2 designs, MIGHT look entirely different from anything seen before.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 02:16 am: Edit

Likely usually means MIGHT.

Curious, you don't think they should? Or am I reading that wrong.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 05:15 am: Edit

No. Likely mean probably. Might means maybe but not neccessarily. I think that X2 should look like a progression of technology, but the ships should still have the classic look for the race. Like the difference between TOS and the The Motion Picture. Upgrades, but the look of the ship is still there.

Besides, I still don't like most of the ideas for X2 that have been put forward. Some, but not most of them. Which is why I try and stay out of here as much as possible. Just got drawn in again.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 11:10 am: Edit

Oh, then we actually agree. All I was saying is that X2 designs will not appear to be old designs at a distance the way X1 designs do.

Tac Intel should reveal them as a separate class. Like the difference between the Fed CC and the BCG. That's all I'm talking about.

I actually submitted art for the XCA and it is very similar to the BCG with some changes to the size, more warp built into the saucer, cargo doors on the belly etc. X2 should have it own energy signature as well.

JOHN: I should point out that X1 ship are indistinguishable from their GW counter parts as long as they do not do anything that only an X1 ship can do or the enemy reaches a fairly high level of Tac Intel where hi can discriminate the weapons differences.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 12:26 pm: Edit

I think John's talking from an aesthetic perspective. A revolution in tech seems to call for a revolution in appearance.

The problem is: with the legal constraints on SFB, what can you safely do?