Ships don't get anything like command controled mines or chain detonators. That's going to far IMO.

Fighters bigger? Well, this t-bomb is bigger. Notice the two modules combination is quick to assemble and does 12 points. Or transport them separately to gain greater coverage and gain a better chance of scoring a hit.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 01:33 pm: Edit

Now what about things like "dummy" modules? Are these mines intended for the whole fleet or just mine warfare units?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 02:03 pm: Edit

Dummy modules would work exactly as before. A dummy module for a regular t-bomb would work in all cases given you cannot tell what type of mine is out there and if scutinized by a MS or MSS it would be reveiled as a T-bomb and not a modular type but then at that point what is the difference?

This would be the X2 replacement for T-bombs. Since they are 2/3 the size you would equipe ships with 50% more of them. A ship that normally gets 4 T-bombs would get six M-modules. You could by a T-bomb and that would take two slots.

With each module exploding for 6 damage this device becomes a defensive weapon and is a stronger defense than t-bombs because you get more. It does cost a bit more for a full complement but you are getting more capability. If you combine ALL your modules into Transportable 2 modules units for offensive operations (12 damage) then you actually have less units available.

It provides much flexability in that you can defend better (cloak hunt better having more units available) or you can combine then for other tactics, even use up most or all your modules for that one big bang (if you can pull it off).

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 11:14 pm: Edit

Hmmmmm, I'm beginning to like it. I like mine warfare anyway. Now would a T-bomb still be a 10pt weapon or would it increase in X2 to be viable? After all a 2-module ("space") mine yields 12pts where a 2-space T-bomb yields 10pts.

I suggest that there is no change to T-bombs; that what is left of the stockpile is distributed to the fleet when X2 comes out and are phased out in favor of modular mines.

$0.02

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 11:32 pm: Edit

Well I had thought about an idea.

What if we say that sometime during the late X1 period the idea was tossed around several desiugn offices to provide actual dummy t-bombs instead of just using garbage for that prupose?
Then a different idea was put forward, that the dummy T-bombs could be armed with anti-matter like a probe armed as an antimatter bomb.

Thus the T-bombs work like regular T-bombs and the Dummies work like regular dummies unless you power them up with upto 4 points of warp power in which case they would be become T-bombs with an explosion strength of 8.
Thus you have the choice, use the low energy dummy/t-bomb stunt or the high energy everythings-a-T-bomb stunt.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 10:44 am: Edit

T-Bombs and NSM's remain the same. It is the circomstances of the era that provide the use for such a unit. Also, the ships being designed with more advanced handling facilities allows them to handly more separate units.

It really needs to be X2, IMO.

After a time non-X2 could get them. All the while all of the previous types would still be in use and available.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 10:56 am: Edit

I'ld like to see a better use of existing rules rather than build new T-bomb systems from whole cloth, like launching T-bombs from the probe launcher or chain/command detonation of T-bombs ( it could be a function of the S-bridge and limited to a number of t-bombs equal to the number of control boxes on the ship if it needed limits ).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 12:11 pm: Edit

Note that if we apply the self-destruct blast range rules to a 6-point TB, it would be a single-hex explosion.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 12:49 pm: Edit

That would still be a nice drone smasher. If you stack your drones you're asking for trouble.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 07:54 pm: Edit

What I have always gone for is to creat things that add tactics to the game. With these mines it is hard to tell if you are doing the right thing or not. Each ability will work well in some situation and poorly in other. And that is the point and my particular vision for X2. Frankly, I want to see X2 require more advanced thinking as well as more advanced ships and tech.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 09:19 pm: Edit

What about a Lyran T-bomb that raises a one used ESG ( one point of power in the internal cap' ) and a matching NSM with a five point internal non-rechargable cap...all we have to do is organise a way to work the Radius ( probably preset before launch but could be set by command-control at instant of raising )?

Might be fun to give one race a special T-bomb rather than every race having an X2 T-bomb.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 09:50 pm: Edit

Well, if its used then what good is it?

Kiddin'

SVC has already bombed that one, even for X2 I think?

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 11:41 pm: Edit

Besides as I recall only Romulans can have NSMs.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 11:50 pm: Edit

Well, large mines and NSM are about the same thing. They both remain unchanged.

Minelayers can purchase large mines.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 01:18 am: Edit

I could see an ESG Captor mine, but not a TB.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 04:19 am: Edit

Unfortunately there would need to be T-bombs or else the only worthwhile Lyran would be the X2 Minesweeper.

IIRC Orions can buy an NSM as well without needing a mine sweeper ( layer ).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 11:37 am: Edit

Just don't put any other captor mines close to it!

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 12:10 pm: Edit

Actually, mines are perfectly safe when it's a stationary ESG. The bad stuff happens when the ESG moves or a unit moves into the ESG hex. It's an oddity of the ESG rules.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 02:29 pm: Edit

I thought continuing this here would be apporpiate as changing the definition of "CA" to include a MC 1.25 ship is a big change.

Setting the stage: Loren wrote:

John: I understand and I don't but I accept I'm unable to convince the majority.

It's like this. I do want to see some level of a nod to Star Trek. The next classes of Enterprise are considerably larger than 1701 and 1701A. These are still considered cruisers although most certainly they would be on the level of DN in size. They are two engine units but I do not see 1701B or 1701B being MC1. Just no way.

I can accept the sloshing since it occurs as a unique part of X2 which is an era unto itself. A transition to a new way and new organization of government, interstellar relations, technology and ship design.

I would NEVER NEVER want to design a GW or X1 ship at MC 1+ and try and call it a cruiser. X2 marks a change in the way things handled.

Creating a larger class of cruiser gives a nod to the trend that Star Trek created and will be what new players that are fans of TNG will expect. Dare I say they might be turned off if this is not done?

I love the SFU and it's independent history but I'd rather it not totally blow off Star Trek entirely. I love them both (SFB a bit more. I'll live if Star Trek dies but take my SFB and...well, you just forget about that!)

==================
Thanasis: To add to what I state above it also has much to do with the power curve Id like to see on the large XCC (In my proposal there is a XCC class which is a fleet flag and the largest X ship and rare. The next class is still a cruiser but more along the line of a CA internally (with X2 systems). I call that the XCA or XCM.)

There are those who oppose this classification out line but I think that is holding on to the past too much. I don't see the harm is mixing some things up. Reclassifying units to a degree happens. The Galaxy of Y205 is totally different from the Galaxy of Y168. There is no going back. Too much has happened.

Few see things my way. Thats OK. X2 call still be great without doing it my way. It should be done by concensus proposal and Steve Coles way.


Reminder: Any nod to Trek is litigously dangerous. The ADB does not have any rights to movie continuity. Contracturally, they must blow off movie-Trek.

Now, for sake of argument, we'll work with movie continuity anyway.

Yes, a new class is larger. But its position inside the fleet structure is unknown, unknowable and if anything is ever set in official continuity, the thinking would likely be done by someone with less militaty experience than me (a lifelong civilian).

Assuming that the Excelsior class is considered a "cruiser" is unfounded to say the least.

Your stated fleet structure has XCM's working the MC=1 CA role with a few MC=1.25 "XCC's" doing fleet-command.

That's identical to the way MY was set up, but the uncommon command ships were slightly larger (by .25) and called "dreadnoughts".

I have a hard time seeing your proposal in terms other than trying to create a XDNL and getting around the "no X-tech on SC2" restriction by calling it a cruiser. (I know you're not actually trying to be than munchkin, but the result is the same)

The way I see it, SC3 stops at MC=1. Anything larger is SC2.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 04:16 pm: Edit

John Trauger;

In partial defense of Loren's idea, there are a few cases where ships do have movement costs that are normally associated with other size classes. The original Tholian Dreadnought is SC2 but it has a movement cost of 1. And the various Heavy War Destroyers have movement costs of 2/3 but are SC4.

That's not to say that I agree with Loren's proposal for an XCC (I haven't made up my mind about it, actually). But there is precedent for ships overlapping movement costs from a different SC.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 04:38 pm: Edit

Alan,

I am aware of those exceptions.

The Tolian D-hull doesn't really enter into this as it is a ship with a potentially too-big size class for its MC.

Heavy War Destroyers are a different matter. The overlap is undeniable, but the consequences of the overlap aren't severe either.

The reason why we don't have X-tech on SC2 is because we don't want to create that much of a monster. Even if Loren's XCC is not itself a monster, it could easily act as a "crack in the dam" for a MC 1.25 "XBCH" that *is* a true XDNL and therefore a genuine mosnter.

It also relocates the advanced CA designs to the MC=1.25 hull, more or less turning the CM into a CL in all but name. Nobody's going to believe a MC=1 XBCH is going to be the bes you can do in a cruiser. They will want a MC=1.25 version.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 04:54 pm: Edit

Have any of though about a size of ship between SC3 and SC2, a SC2.5 that has a MC of 1.25?

The DDX is a SC4 and the similar NCL is a SC3. Since X2 is supposedly to be different introducing a 1/2 size concept might resolve this and fit with storyline.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 04:58 pm: Edit

Joe,

That doesn't address my concerns about creating a de-facto XDNL.

More to the point, if we have to fudge the rules to the point of creating a SC2.5, it's easier to simply make a MC 1.25 object SC3 and be done with it.

Always keep KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) in mind when dealing with SFB rules. (Selectively voilate it, but always keep it in mind).

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 05:54 pm: Edit

John,

Could you expand on:

"More to the point, if we have to fudge the rules to the point of creating a SC2.5, it's easier to simply make a MC 1.25 object SC3 and be done with it."

I do not see how a half size idea makes things complex (detracts from playability) or fudges the rules (not that the idea is a good one). X2 is supposed to be new which means new rules. Based on the material you posted from P6 a X2 cruiser might be samller than the GW CA and CX.

Thanks for posting the the X2 and Xp material CL23 changes. What is P6 and is it out of print?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 06:35 pm: Edit

Joe,

Throughout the thirty-plus year history of SFB, size classes have been whole numbers. Now we're talking about wedging a special size class inbetween 2 and 3 to accomodate Loren's CCX.

Once you create SC 2.5 the next quiestion is whether SC 2.5 hulls get X-tech. Presumably the answer is "yes" or why create the SC? Then we start asking about other details. What's the shield cost? What's life support? Will it set off mines set for SC2? SC3? I'm sure there are other questions along the same lines. We'd have to go through the rules looking for issues and exceptions to answer.

It's not a difficult thing but it is a lot of little questions. Why even go there when we have something existing that does the job?