Jeff,

Quote from Tos 3-29 "XP refits {described elsewhere} were incorporated {sometime after Y188 TBD} on new construction ships. Once the idea had proved successful designers turned their attention to update the existing fleet with improved technology without incurring the cost of building and maintaining the notoriously fickle X-engines. "

(R0.00) applies here also. "For the following 20 years" only a few X ships are converted per year, GW ships are the bulk of most fleets, including new construction. This applies to the years between Y186 and Y205. Perhaps this section of X1 will be changed. If not X ship construction is limited then what are these new constuctions?

XP is just technology that is applied via cost vs benefit analysis to a class of ships. Some refits will be good and others won't.

If you want XP to mean only refit that fine. Still the above question remains what are these new ships? I know this could be answered by SVC with a few words; No XP new construction. If he does not limit it that way why should we? New XP construction does take away new X ship designs for X1R. (X0.0) says X ships are only converted from existing designs . The 2 ideas XP and X can work. together rather than it either/or.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 07:11 am: Edit

---

Quote:

That's not the "no brainer" you think it is...care to replace a AAA cell with a with a D cell???...com-mon it's the same ampage and the same voltage, what's the hassle!?!
Replacing BTTYs with X-BTTYs might requiring pulling out all the major power lines in the vessel as well as upgrading the resistors on the low voltage electronics...you just can't say for sure.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 08:44 am: Edit

Yes and no.

Not everybody in the U.S.N. is a welder.
Not every welder in the navy can weld aluminium.
Not every Aluminium welder in the navy can weld aluminium pressure vessels.

Net result, there aren't many aluminium pressure vessels in the USN other than those mounted in aircraft...hence (amoungst other reasons) aircraft are very expensive in comparison to ships.


To some extent the upgraded systems on the M1 were implimented with an original design that held room for further upgrades...is it reasonalble to say that a Y130 Fed CA is still opperating on "refit slots" in Y198???...I'm not entirely convinced.
The F-111 is no longer flown by the US simply because it can not hold any further upgrades...upgrades that are needed for full intergration with other units.


I'm not entirely convinced that upgrading to XP tech is like changing a light bulb, I'm not even convinced it's a mungrel of job like changing a tank track...I tend to think it takes even more work than that and probably a lot of very specialised skills and equipment, which are so specialised and so costly to hold that they DO retard X ship construction.
At some point all EP will be XEP and at that point I think the XP refit will seriously swing in action and only be a trick before then if at all.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 08:56 am: Edit

MJC;

Uhhh - no.

The F-111 is no longer flown by USAF because it was judged to not be cost effective. In my opinion, that judgement was flawed because it was based on mistaken assumptions (but I'm prejudiced, see below*). But whether it was flawed or not, not being cost effective is very different from not being able to take further upgrades. The Vark was in fact in the middle of an upgrade program to its electronics when the decision to boneyard it was made.

*Former F-111 Navigator/Weapon System Officer/Electronic Warfare Officer. Wing EWO for 27th Fighter Wing at time the decision was made.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 08:59 am: Edit

MJC;

Actually, I agree with some of what you are saying about XP technology. But the example you cite doesn't support it very well.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 10:47 am: Edit

Sigh. You just won't let this go, will you? There is no historical precendent in SFB that refits replace new construction. There is no real world precedent, either. Think about what you're saying. You are suggesting that the powers that be will voluntarily give up on producing new top of the line ships with the latest technology so that they can refit old ships instead; ships that will not even have the same strategic speed as the new ones will. That isn't going to happen.

In WWII, the US refitted many of our old WWI destroyers, primarly as minesweepers. They were refitted and repaired as needed, but new construction of modern destroyers (particularly destroyer escorts) was not slowed or halted in any way by these refits, because it did not make sense to do so. A common refit example was radar; minesweepers got it because, in addition to sweeping (which many did damned little of in the first stages of the war) they did ASW duty, and were in the picket line in formations. They needed that radar to hold station in bad weather or at night. These refits took comparitively short time. Hell, sometimes they were even done by tenders, which were set up as semi-permanent floating repair bases in secure areas.

The point is this: any refit that delays or obstructs construction of new and significantly better ships isn't going to be tolerated. If they can take place without such interference, great; but if forced to choose between refitting an old ship with only partial technology and building a new one, a new one is going to be built every time.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 11:48 am: Edit

MJC: Hundreds of planets in each Empire each with a hundred million to a few billion inhabitants. Welders are in good supply.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:44 pm: Edit

Mike,

Perhaps I do not understand so of the rules or etiquette that is followed here. It was not my intention to irritate you with. So all please accept my appology. I will let it go.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:51 pm: Edit

Not you, Joseph! I was referring to MJC. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Thanks Mike.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 01:32 pm: Edit

I think this debate niely *frames* what XP is.

By definition XP must be something that does not impede new ship construction.

XP cannot and should not be anything more than a refit.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:28 pm: Edit

Agreed. In fact, to have it be more would be something other than "The XP refit" that the original proposal was and always was. We put a lot of effort into hashing out what it should be and to make it more than a refit is to toss out all the previous work done.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 03:00 pm: Edit

Agreed. When refitting competes for new construction dollars, it's a whole different concept. XP refits should be nice and simple.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 03:26 pm: Edit

"By definition XP must be something that does not impede new ship construction."

Seems to be a good definition that even I can understand. In fact the USCG is learning a hard lesson on this. They were given $500 Mil per year to fund a fleet replacement program called Deep Water. They have sent some of the Deep Water money on fixing the existing stuff and now need more money to fund the replacement project.

Question: What is the new construction between Y186 and Y205 mentioned in (R0.00)? Also I will stop trying to expand or change what all of you agreed XP should be.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 03:35 pm: Edit

I'm not trying to antagonize or insult anyone here, and if anyone takes it that way, I apologize. But I do want to point out that as far as I can tell, the Steves have not come to any conclusion as to what, if anything, XP is.

So it is possible that ultimately XP will be something very different from what "everyone has agreed on". With that in mind, I think it is useful to continue to be open to new ideas about XP really is. If Joseph (or anyone else) posts some new concept for XP, they should be ready for criticism from people who have already examined the concept at length. But they should not be discouraged from posting those new ideas.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 03:41 pm: Edit

Actually, no one really agreed yet on it. I think the only real agreement was that it ought to be something fairly simple that wouldn't require reprinting SSD's just so you could have one with an XP refit.

Joe, if you have other ideas feel free to post. This isn't all decided yet. I think that John, Loren, and myself (and others, I'm sure) just feel that if an XP refit interferes with new construction, it's too much. In any case, if you have a proposed XP refit, feel free to post it and explain why you think it'll work, and let everyone go from there.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 04:19 pm: Edit

Alan and Mike,

Thanks. I expect criticism. It helps define and improve ideas especially for me since I am new.

This is an interesting topic.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 05:47 pm: Edit

Mike (and anyone else who's interested);

I think there should be room for XP ships with new SSDs, so long as there is a legitimate purpose. That doesn't mean all XP ships should have new SSDs, but some might. Let me suggest a rationale for an XP ship which will require a new SSD (and will use X-tech warp engines to boot) and then examine what seem to me to be legitimate and illegitimate criticisms of the ship.

We already know that X-squadrons can operate at higher strategic speeds and at longer ranges from their bases than conventional ships. It follows that there will likely be cases of X-ships being crippled while a long way from home and that conventional Repair Cruisers will not be able to adequately support them because the Repair Cruisers are too slow and lack the range. This suggests the need for a Repair Cruiser that can keep up with X-squadrons and fix the ships (maybe well enough to continue operations, or maybe just well enough to get home) after combat.

One possibility would be an XP-conversion of a Repair Cruiser that has X-ship engines and perhaps a few other X-ship trappings (such as the ability to accelerate by +15 or x3 rather than +10 or x2) but standard weapons and shields. (Their might also be changes to the repair boxes themselves but these wouldn't necessarily be reflected in the SSD.)

Argument for the ship - Giving the ship full X-conversion increases the cost relative to the XP-conversion and does so in ways that are irrelevant to the ship's primary mission. The ship doesn't need X-weapons because it will avoid fighting, using its speed and the other (uncrippled) X-ships to keep the enemy away. It will lag behind the X-squadron and repair crippled ships after the enemy is driven off/destroyed.

Legitimate Argument against the ship - Just because the ship isn't intended for combat doesn't mean it won't have combat forced on it. Its speed may protect it against most threats, but not against an enemy X-ship, Light Dreadnought, or Fast Cruiser that has evaded the X-squadron in an attempt to pick off the Repair Cruiser following behind. Or the ship may be attacked by an enemy while it is in the process of repairing a crippled X-ship and will be able to save itself only at the cost of abandoning the cripple. Even with full X-conversion the ship won't stand up to a Light Dreadnought or an X-Cruiser. But it might be able to fight off an X-Destroyer or a Fast Cruiser. Yes, full X-conversion increases the cost in ways that are ancillary to the primary mission. But with X-tech engines the ship is already quite expensive and full X-conversion does improve its survivability. And that is enough to justify making the ship full-X.

What I consider an Illegitimate Argument against the ship - We've already decided that XP ships can't have X-tech warp engines, and besides, it will require a new SSD.

I'm not arguing here whether the XP-Repair Cruiser should exist or not. What I am arguing is that the question should be decided by determining whether the ship fills a legitimate need; and if it does, the matter should be settled by weighing the merits of the first two arguments. The third argument shouldn't come into it.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 05:49 pm: Edit

P.S.

This discussion, if it is to continue, probably should move to the XP thread. It's diverged quite a bit from "X2 Timeline".

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 05:50 pm: Edit

Alan,

That's fine, and I agree...if nothing else, it provides ADB with material for a new module. But, the "generic" XP refit should be something you can slap on any ship you want, for a cost. You can pretty much re-invent every ship in the game that way, which makes it usefull for those that want it, and unimposing on those that don't.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 05:54 pm: Edit

Mike;

Short answer - I think we are in general agreement with one qualification that I will explore in my long answer.

Long answer - It's time for me to go home so I will post it later tonight.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 08:11 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

One possibility would be an XP-conversion of a Repair Cruiser that has X-ship engines and perhaps a few other X-ship trappings (such as the ability to accelerate by +15 or x3 rather than +10 or x2) but standard weapons and shields. (Their might also be changes to the repair boxes themselves but these wouldn't necessarily be reflected in the SSD.)

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 09:38 pm: Edit

M.R.:

Why won't I just let this go because you're tired of debating whether XP refits require XEP!?!

Why should I capitulate to you. You are not SVC and you're not even SPP.

IF THEY say refits have NEVER impeded new construction and therefore XP will not reduce new X ship construction then I'll drop this....but you ain't them.

---

Quote:

MJC: Hundreds of planets in each Empire each with a hundred million to a few billion inhabitants. Welders are in good supply.

---

---

Quote:

This suggests the need for a Repair Cruiser that can keep up with X-squadrons and fix the ships (maybe well enough to continue operations, or maybe just well enough to get home) after combat.

---

---

Quote:

But, the "generic" XP refit should be something you can slap on any ship you want, for a cost. You can pretty much re-invent every ship in the game that way, which makes it usefull for those that want it, and unimposing on those that don't.

---

---

Quote:

Here is my take on XP. It should be a set of rules for modification and a list of ships that were modified with their BPV (in their own MSC). XP should not generate new SSDs (there is just too many repeats then). These rules would be in Module X1R and the SSDs in that module would be new X-ships.

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 10:02 pm: Edit

MJC;

G7.28 states that when a ship disengages by acceleration all tractor beams generated by it or attached to it are automatically broken. The rule makes no distinction between friendly and enemy tractors. Though the rule doesn't say so explicitly, I have always assumed based on this that ordinary ships cannot maintain tractors at high warp speeds. I presume special ships like tugs have unique capabilities in this area not reflected directly on the SSD. Based on the above, I suspect (though I might well be wrong) that the X-Cruiser would have to tow the cripple back at tactical warp speeds and if it went to high warp speeds, the tractor would break.

Towing the crippled ship back to a dock at tactical warp speeds could take a looong time...

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 11:21 pm: Edit

Yeah it is implied...but then a PFT by that logic would have to travel at all times at tactical speeds...unless mechlinks are somehow different.

I would say that if a crippled X ship disengaged and latter met up with the uncrippled X ship and then they moved to strategic speeds with a slower accelleration that that would not be counted as disengagement as such. But y understanding of stratic movement is fairly limited.