Archive through August 15, 2004
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
The "X" Files:
OLD X2 FOLDER:
Major X2 tech changes...:
Archive through August 15, 2004
John,
Thanks for your expanded answer. Little details have a number of other little details connected to them.
It would be far better IMHO to raise the bar on size classes than introduce SC2 X2. The HDWs set a precedent for advanced hulls being a lower SC than they `should' be. What if in X2 SCs looked like this:
SC2: MC1.5+ (can't be built)
SC3: MC0.75-1.25
SC4: MC0.33-0.67
Then an XCA is 1.25, an XCL is 0.75, an XDD is 0.67, and an XFF is 0.5. XPOL maybe are 0.33.
This needn't be a (legally problematic) `nod' to movie stuff -- it mirrors the growth in wet navy ships in the early 20th century (leading to treaties to stop the mad escalation...).
This also gives a minor bonus in that the 0.67 MC ships only pay 2.5 HK and the 1.25 MC ships only pay 4.
Thanasis
Using the SC changes you propose gives us ships that are functionslly XDNLs, which has been my objection all along.
You're effectively changing Size Class defintions so you can slip some form of DN into X-tech without calling it a "DN".
Again, we're changing rules and causing potential player confusion when we have a simple solution in front of us, which is assigning the MC 1.25 unit a SC of 3.
I have a definite problem with a MC 1.25 unit given a SC of 3. I'm a traditionalist and I like my definitions clean and orderly.
It also appears that SVC would have a problem with a MC 1.25 unit given X2-technology.
If there are going to be 1.25 X2 units, call them "cruisers". It's the simplest answer. I'd just prefer not to go there.
I'm of several minds about the 1.25 cost cruiser.
1: For 25 years a heavy cruier or its various analogs have been MC 1. Certainly anything bigger than that, up to the CX and various late-war BCH's, have all been that. Moving away from that in toto is a tough sell for alot of players, methinks.
2: In contrast with the above, when you get right down to it, "cruiser" is just a name; it doens't mean much. The Tholian D has a MC of 1, and indeed is more like a BC than a DN; but a DN it is. The D7 is called a battle-cruiser, but it really isn't; unrefited, it isn't much better than most CL's. A DNL has 45 points of warp and a MC of 1.25; a CX has 42 points of warp and a MC of 1, with the same command rating as a DN. Seems like the later you get, the more the line between cruiser and DN starts to blur.
3: One of the serious problems we've had all along with X2 is balancing power. Too much excess, and you've got a problem because your power curve is too high. Too low, and alot of players just won't be satisfied because they expect X2 to be better than X1. Also, if we increase the damage capabilities of X2 ships by giving them better phasers and better heavies, the whole 'eggshells with sledgehammers' phenomena becomes even more pronounced than with X1. So, you gotta ask; is it better for the game from a playability aspect to have big box-count cruisers carry a MC 1.25 cost to avoid having too high a power curve? Or is tradition so important (and I'm not saying it isn't) that MC 1.25 for a cruiser is just plain unnacceptable no matter what?
My feeling is that having cruiser suddenly acquire a MC of 1.25 may not be a bad thing. Sure, its different; but really, is that so bad? There are already odd move costs out there; the Tholian D is an example. Having a 1.25 cruiser would certainly solve some sticky design problems. First, it'd put controls on the ships power curve if you have bigger engines (and the majority do seem to favor this approach, even if the engines the want aren't that much bigger; then again, with most CX's carrying 42 points, it doesn't take much to reach or surpass the 45 of a true DN) which would keep it from moving along at high speed and still powering up its new and improved phasers and heavies. It also lets us avoid any new and complex rules like 1.5 power engine boxes, or other stuff we've been tossing around to give the ships more power without making the engines bigger.
I guess I could go either way, but the potential advantages of a 1.25 MC cruiser to the play balance of X2 may be enough to warrant giving it a serious look and not immediately dismissing the idea as "DN's in disguise". The 1st generation CX's can already whip a DN in straight up combat half the time, and have the same command ratings. Making them more expenisive to move may not be such a bad thing. I'm not saying it's a definate, but simply that we shouldn't dismiss the idea if our only objection is purely tradition based. Me personally, I'd rather have the 1.25 for any cruiser bigger or better than a CX than have the super CX running around ruining the game
I'm with John on this. I see a MC 1.25 Crusier as a way to slip around SVCs, No SC2 X-tech ships.
Quote:In contrast with the above, when you get right down to it, "cruiser" is just a name; it doens't mean much."
I disagree.
It means a lot. The MY Fed CA is the standard of comparison for the entire game. It's like saying the cornerstone to a building is just another brick in the wall.
No. Compare a CX to an YCA. Same MC, same size class. Don't even try to tell me they are anywhere near the same. I would much rather have a cruiser with a move cost of 1.25 than have to worry about a move cost one ship running around with 48 or 50 warp. I am concerned about power curve, and having an X2 that will sell; and unfortunately, people are going to want X2 to be better than X1. If an odd move cost will accomplish this, that's okay. If someone has a better idea and can keep the move cost at 1 while still having a playable and suitably "better" X2, then that works, too. My point is not to completely dismiss the idea "just because". If you can have a DN with a move cost of 1, I don't see why you can't have a cruiser with a move cost of 1.25.
Mike,
No they aren't the same. Their BPVs are both derived from a comparison to the Fed MY CA
If people want X2 to be better than X1, fine.
Sloshing the definition of a cruiser is not a requirement.
As a matter of fact, I think we've done pretty good without it these last two years.
Thanasis,
I think I understand what John is saying. The size class has tied to it warp power, shield, internals, MC, turn mode and probably other things. So if the SC/MC and establihed relationships that have been worked out through years of play testing is changed game play problems will occur until all the other details are rebalanced.
John,
Within the X2 SC3 and SC4 ships has a carrier and its fighters been discussed?
Joe,
We've has *some* discussion on just about everything. We've primarily focused on what an X2 fighter might look like.
I don't think we've done a lot with carriers.
There is an "X2 Attrition Units" topic in here somehwhere. Feel free to post and play with ideas on it.
Jrc: ADB didn't have a problem with SC4 MC2/3 HDWs -- that precedent was what made me think along these lines.
John, CFant, et al.: My initial reaction to Loren's idea was similar to `no stealth XDNLs'. But I twisted my brain about a bit and realized that there's another way to see it. Rather than saying we're upscaling our XCA to DNL size, just think of it as saying we're penalizing our XCA by making its movement cost higher. It doesn't get more warp, more weapons, more anything by virtue of being MC1.25 -- it just moves slower. And it's not a SC2 ship -- only 4 T-bombs, for example. It just costs more so we don't have MC1 ships with 60 warp or whatever...
Isn't X2 supposed to be a bit weird? I'd hate something like a MC1.25 cruiser in GW era, but X2 somehow seems different.
I will disagree with Loren on that till the end of my days.
It does not compute, no matter how much it gets twisted.
Thanasis,
I am aware of the HDW, in fact I really like the modular style of the ship. It represents a magntitude less in overall combat power than a X2 cruiser. My quess is the MC is due to the over stuffed hull (mass).The DDX goes the other way. A ship that has the hull similar to a NCL with a MC of 1/2. My impression is that the X1 one ships within there class approximate the power of a larger vessel at a lower MC.
I am curious when X2 will strat being developed.
For the record I favor:
MC=1.25 XCC SC3
MC=1.00 XCM SC3
The why is too complicated for my tired brain but I can assure you it has nothing to do with trying to get around some arbitrary SC2 limitation. MC=1.25 fits my idea of what the power curve and durability for X2 should be.
If we assume that an XCA has no less warp and no less combat capability then a CX. Then we assume that the CX is a warship and the XCA is supposed to be more multi-mission capable. To simulate our hypothetical XCA take an CX, double the hull (including any cargo or NWO), double the labs, add 50% more shuttles and transporters. That’s a lot of boxes. Since the CX is already at the top of the box count for MC=1 why shouldn’t adding all those things increase the MC? But the most important reason for me is I don’t want to build ships that can go max speed and overload every weapon every turn.
Personally, I don't like the idea of MC 1.25 cruisers, even for X2. If it's MC 1.25, it's a DNL.
This is what I have in mind when I think of an X2 flagship.
Roughly the same number of boxes as a BCH, fewer but more powerful weapons, a couple of new gizmos, and for the Feds, as much scientific capability as a GSC.
[MJC-post mode on]
Loren, I guess I'll toss in my 2 cents as well. Starting at John's digest post and working down:
First, the ST nod thing: we just can't do it. We can't do the movie or Franchise thing. I know mod fans would like to see such things, but this is a simulation of a fictional universe. In this case the game mechanics, compared to the current stuff, are kind of irrelevant so giving the fans a MC1.25 cruiser really doesn't give us anything new. When a mod fan looks at X2 they're not really going to see "Galaxy class" or "Excelsior class" or anything of the sort, nor should they. SVC would have a mountain of lawyers at his doorstep the next day. At any rate I'm not sure how having MC1.25 would "approximate" the mod stuff.
On a side note, I'm not sure when there would be a 1701B in SFB. The 1701A is a CX so we'd have to wait until its demise.
Much is being made of X2 being "new," and it should be but it seems like there is a trend to claim "well it's supposed to be new" to justify one's position (I've done it myself). I don't know how justifying that really is. I think the problem is it suggests the ends justifying the means.
Second, X2 cruisers being bigger like the ST trend: again we don't want a mountain of leeches . . . er, lawyers, at SVC's door. Also why particularly do the X2 cruisers HAVE to be bigger? That invites the slippery slope John warns of wherein we have dreadnoughts disguised as cruisers. I think in the end there will be room for larger cruisers in X2, for the Xork invasion and so forth. For that matter I think there's room for SC2 X2 ships, again during the Xork invasion type thing. As it is now many of us (dare I say most?) tend to agree that the classic heavy cruiser-sized cruiser (call it XCA, XCC, XCB, etc.) should become the standard-bearer for X2.
At this point let me come down off my high horse and declare that in no way do I consider myself some kind of X2 "big shot" or that my positions hold any more sway than anyone else's. I base my opinions of "majority positioning" on my analyses of the discussions and what I believe to be the Steves' positions. I know I could just as easily be wrong. Grain of salt.
Now I suggest that increasing the capabilities of systems and weapons and so forth gives the impression of "bigger." As you may recall, Loren, I emailed you some early treatments on some of my X2 stuff. You know the basic direction I'm going with this. "My" (in the end it's really SVC's) X2 produces ships that are recognizable as SFB but are also vastly expanded in what they can do. My ships are bigger (more capable) without being bigger (physically).
And Loren, I'm with you: They may take away my ST, but they can have my SFB when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Third, the power curve thing: I'm not sure how MC1.25 overcomes power curve issues. I know one of the big concerns is that X2 will give ships too much power. One of my solutions has always been to come up with ways to suck up that power by giving the ships new capabilities. Likewise you can modulate the design of power systems to build "normal-sized" engines and still give the ship power to play with. I hope to demonstrate that point with my X2 if I ever get it smoothed out enough to post here. For example, right now my ships have X1 sized warp engines, but the X2 batteries do things the X1 batteries can't, and right now I'm tweaking the AWRs to give 2pts of power. My ships don't need to fudge the MC to be balanced (or so I think).
You propose an XCC to command the fleet, supplemented by a XCA/XCM (you're still in flux on that?). As I recall you came up with the XCM to give some wiggle-room for future XCLs. I still don't understand the nature of calling your not-as-big cruiser a XCM when you might just as easily call it an XCL (or for that matter an XCA). You state your position of wanting to maintain the trend of bigger cruisers, so why not apply that to the XCM and just call it a XCL? This really doesn't negate anything you propose, it's just a suggestion.
John, I can agree that the EXCELSIOR is considered a cruiser. The designation "cruiser" (or "destroyer" or "dreadnought" and so forth) is not strictly based on the ship's size. It also has to do with the ship's mission, that is, what it's built to do. The EXCELSIOR is intended to fulfil the role of a heavy cruiser in Starfleet. As you say, the logic behind the "powers-that-be" have little interest in how a military organization does what it does (a lamentable after-effect of Roddenberry's departure, he served in the Air Force). This fact can lend credence to Loren's position. For example, even if we did have a SC2 cruiser in X2, so long as it performed the role of a cruiser you should call it a cruiser. Even so it doesn't demonstrate the need for a MC1.25 "main" cruiser.
Loren, another problem here with your proposal would be that if your XCC is designed to be a command platform, and has more firepower than the "workhorse" cruiser, and not many of them are to be built, it's fulfilling the role of a dreadnought in SFB. When you combine the MC1.25 thing, it really starts to look more like a dreadnought. Two question arise, why not go ahead and call it a dreadnought (light perhaps), and why is it SC3? I realize I'm rehashing John's argument here, but I'm presenting my thinking why his argument is sound in this case. Even taking into consideration Alan's point that "special" ships have overcome this tradition, your proposed ship doesn't "taste" like a SFB cruiser. It "tastes" like a SFB (light) dreadnought.
This gets into the traditionalist thing: dreadnoughts are SC2 and cruisers are SC3. MC1.25 platforms fall into the dreadnought paradigm and cruisers fall into the MC1 paradigm. As I've stated way back when, and as John recently stated, you run up against established SFB tradition. More importantly it's institutionalized tradition, that is the game is built around these paradigms. Your proposal runs the risk of mucking with that kernel. I think SVC might be tempted to utter his famous, "this way lies madness," though I do not propose to speak for him.
Like John, I know it's not your intention to "sneak" in a XDNL or some such creation, but I also agree that's the end result of the proposal. I think there will be room to "violate" SVC's prohibition on SC2 X-ships, but only for the dark days of the Xork invasion which I'm taken to understand makes the Andro invasion look like the Macy's Day Parade. My understanding is SVC declares that it's technologically impossible to put X-tech in SC2 hulls, but my hope is that he means it's fiscally impossible. If he means it's fiscally impossible then we have a door for the future when survival against the Xorks means pulling out all the stops. We'll see.
John, I don't understand what you meant when you stated, "nobody's going to believe a MC=1 XBCH is going to be the bes [sic] you can do in a cruiser. They will want a MC=1.25 version." Can you clarify that?
Joe, no offense but I've just got to stop you on the SC2.5 thing. I think that's just asking for chaos. Think of it this way: Why stop there? Why not SC2.25 and build Super Battle Cruisers? Why not SC1.5 and build Mobile Starbases? Etc. You propose a solution for something that isn't a problem. The problem isn't the SC restrictions, it's the definition of the ship. Plus again you're cracking the SFB kernel and that's where I think the chaos would come in. The core of the game wasn't designed to do something like that. We can come up with "new" and "different" things without retooling the game's core.
Thanasis (cool name), the SC to MC argument you raise in essence is the same as Loren's argument. Like John, my objections to it are thus the same. You're trying (though unintentionally) to build a SC3 XDNL with that. Besides when you break it down to the smaller ships (i.e. frigates on down), raising the bar on the MC is going to hurt those ships rather than help them. For example, if you build an XPOL, it's going to have to act like an XPOL, that is it's going to have limited resources (notably power) to perform limited missions. Combining your paradigm to the small power supply in that hull will be a detriment rather than a benefit.
Mike makes the point well when he says that it would be a tough sell for players to accept a MC1.25 "main" cruiser. Still as I understand Loren's position, the MC1.25 might not be the "main" cruiser. Can you clarify that, Loren?
Although I understand Mike's point about names, I believe that "cruiser" DOES mean something. It needs to mean something otherwise why bother to call it a cruiser (or dreadnought, or frigate, etc.)? Those ships he cited (Tholian D, Klingon D7) were named appropriately at the times they were created. They were built for the purposes expressed, it's just that as time moved on they fell into statuses that did not fit their titles. They became outdated. A CX is in essence an X1 heavy battle cruiser, even though it's called a command cruiser. Still a BCH is basically a war-CC. War classes typically transcend the paradigms because they are specially designed ships with limited production. They are special cases.
To digress: What does "cruiser" mean in SFB? What does "dreadnought" mean in SFB?
Now Mike suggests that we shouldn't dismiss the MC1.25 "main" cruiser out of hand, and he's correct. We should not dismiss it out of hand, but suggesting that this proposal gives us a "dreadnough in disguise" is not an out of hand argument. Such a thing has consequences down the road. We need to look at those potential consequences. This isn't simply me saying "I don't like it cuz it ain't traditional" (nor do I think you think I'm saying that). I think this has the potential to break the game. Should we continue to study the idea? Absolutely! It is, after all, thinking outside the box. X2 needs that. I'm just not sanguine to its implications.
All the same, I'm not sure how MC1.25 is the solution to power curve issues when there are other options that present less potential chaos. I agree that things like 1.5pt engine boxes invite trouble as well so I generally oppose such things.
Yes, X2 needs to be "better" than X1, but "better" doesn't necessarily have to translate into "more firepower" or "bigger." That's why I promote the idea of expanded capabilities and entirely new capabilities. Some of these capabilities can be "bought" (game-wise) with power, and power itself can be shifted from one "account" to another. To me MC1.25 seems more like an X1 solution than an X2 solution.
Thanasis, your 10:01pm post makes me wonder how this is "better" than pre-X2.
Tos, I do assume that an XCA will not have the firepower (offensive) of a CX and that it will be more multi-mission capable. Still those expanded capabilities do not necessarily translate into extra boxes (invisible or otherwise). The idea is that X2 is "more advanced" and I reason that means you can get more capability into the same-sized boxes. Offsets to that can be increased power requirements, higher BPV (an inherent limiting factor), very specific rules, specialized surrogates, etc.
Sorry to pile on, Loren. I know full well it's not your intention to sneak in an XDNL on us, but as stated before I think that would be the uninteded result of your proposal. Still you are trying to think outside the box and that has to be appreciated. I just can't agree with your proposal as it stands, and now you know why.
[MJC-post mode off]
Nice thoughful post. No offense taken. I have a lot to learn about SFB and why it is put together the way it is.
The one question I have concerns X1 verses X2 tech. Is X2 tech different from X1 tech in a similar fashion as X1 was from GW?
Joe, keep in mind that X2 doesn't yet exist. It did exist once in the old Commander's Edition (for lack of a better description a second-generation SFB) as "Supplement #2." SVC has declared Supp2 to be "disastrous" and wishes to avoid recreating it. Basically the problem then was X2 was nothing more than goosed up X1, and further compounded the problems that existed for X1. A couple years back there was a major project underway on this board to fix X1. The solutions appeared in Captain's Log #23, for which John T. posted a link.
At any rate there is a desire to make X2 "different" from X1 in that the solutions that make X1 "better" than pre-X should not be the same solutions for X2. X2 should come up with new solutions, though it can use X1 as a backbone.
Another problem is that the GW/ISC/Andro era ships fell into "cookie-cutterism," that is they all started to look alike due to the desire to maintain gaming balance. The problem is they all started to look alike. Racial flavor was fading. Pretty much all of us want to avoid that problem with X2. At the same time SVC has mandated that X2 will "play nice" and give pre-X2 ships of comparable BPV a 50/50 chance of victory (all other things being equal).
You're not the only one who has a lot to learn about SFB, it's a daily learning experience for me too. I'm no expert though I hope to become one.
RBN: So not true (regarding your first part) and I certainly didn't suggest doing Excelcior or the Galaxy class. Simply moving general cruiser size up as history move on is absolutly not a copyright violation. There is no way possible the Paramount could own increasing ship size. It is far too general of an idea.
If its not SC2 then it's not a DN (I once suggest the XCC might be but then it wasn't MC1.25 then. It is one or the other. SC3 with MC1.25 is what I like best). In the past MC1.25 has gone hand in hand with being SC2 but that does not have to continue through to X2. It can be a grey area. All it take is todecide it so. With X2 being so different.
I have always said that the XCC supplants the DN role as fleet flagship. It is also a protector/enforcer. Hence the weapondry. The races are going to be paranoid with every right to be. I believe that paranoia might enduce some to make preemtive strikes. The Kzinti might not be able to contain themselves. They Lyrans will be most secure but this may erode solidarity and give way to infighting. The Federation is going to need a ship to show the Roms and Klingons "Don't even think about it!" and inturn those two will need a unit to show back and say the same thing.
Treaty? Maybe but it is only so much paper in truth. If one can quickly concquer the other the paper has no weight. So the XCC is also a treaty enforcer.
I cannot see how making the XCC have a MC of 1.25 can be a game breaker. It balances its power curve nicely compared to the weapons proposed. It will not be more powerful than the largest ships already in service and certainly will beatable by an equal BPV of anything...GW and later. It think its a bit much to even ask X1 to be balanced with EY.
As to SC2 with X tech. X2 is different than X1. That may be possible even if the DNLX IS impossible. However, everyone gives up their DNs. No one CAN call this a DN else it be snached up and taken to Organia. It is called an XCC. The OTHER X2 cruiser, the smaller one, is an XCA or XCM. Get it? You CAN'T call it a DN, you are not allowed.
Now I ask you, counting power and damage out put is not the CCX a DN? (just lacking a bit of hull). I'll agree that perhaps my XCC could be toned down a little but I really think the class (and a new class IS what I'm proposing) needs to be the untimate expression of X2 in Y205-215.
Sorry if this resopnse is a little convoluted. I should mention that even though I like the MC1.25 thing I have excepted MC1. It doesn't fit well with my proposal (the XCM is MC1) but I flamed out of arguements having said all I could. I guess I got a bit mouthy with a response a bit ago. I apologise to all. I didn't put that very kindly. Really, I'm sorry for that.
Loren, if you got mouthy I didn't notice.
Bear in mind I've read most of your posts before (and others and so forth) and so I'm aware you're not intending to create a Galaxy class or Excelsior class (though several years ago I proposed exactly that before reality kicked me in the head) and I'm aware that you're okay with MC1 "main" cruiser and all that. I'm not suggesting you're going down a primrose path, but rather that your proposal doesn't "taste" right.
As to the CCX being a DN, I don't agree. As I've stated I think of the CCX as being a BCH with X-tech. This makes it a war class (which by the way I think of all existing X1 classes) and therefore a special case. You can argue that it could be called a DN, but only if you don't take into consideration the fact that it's a special case.
I think it would add something to the richness of SFU history if the DN wound up being outclassed by a CA by Y205.
Y130, the CA is the flagship, and had been for decades.
Y165, war is on the horizon, so the Galactics prepare. The Feds, however, decided to build the DN, but weren't looking at its wartime potential. Klingon spies, OTOH, find out about it, and convince the government to build the C9. Without a Treaty of Washington, but with a war brewing, everyone starts building them.
Eventually, the Klingons decide to build the B10, but it turns into the most expensive boondoggle in the SFU.
During the GW, the DN is king of the galaxy, and remains so for over 25 years.
Y185 - X-tech has proven to be a success on every new CA and DD that's been built with it. Each race decides to refit X-tech on any medium to big ship they can (the Partial X-refits, or XP), and this includes DNs.
However, every DN that is sent out with an Xp refit has a catastrophic failure. (Whether the Orgainians had a hand in this, or if the gizmos simply didn't work, is unknown). As each race's spy network pieces it together, they all figure out that Xp and DNs simply don't mix.
By Y205, the Wars are over. But as an uneasy peace settles over the quadrant, each race realizes it needs to rebuild its fleet. With a lot of GW surplus finding its way into Orion hands, and a need to reclaim rebellious territories, each race faced a decision: Build new DNs with 40 year old GW tech, or build new CAs with the latest technology? Thus, the X2 CA was born, and the DN was relegated to back waters and eventually the scrap heap.
Radiocyborg: Whew! Quite the post ;) (And I'm rather fond of my name, too -- outside of Greece, I almost never have to wonder if they maybe mean the other Thanasis...)
You raise a whole lot of interesting points. I'd like to pitch in my two centimes on the issue of what a cruiser is and isn't. A cruiser in SFU has almost nothing to do with what a cruiser was in Terran naval history. In the age of steam, a cruiser was a scout or raider; it was defined by its intended rôle and not by its size (they could be larger in displacement than battleships in the pre-Dreadnought era, and were often longer).
In SFU a cruiser is really a battleship. That is, the ships which make of the line of battle are called cruisers in SFU, not battleships. Whether this makes sense or not is irrelevant; it's canon. There is no precise wet-navy analogue for SFU DNs; the flagships of steam battle fleets were no different from any of the other ships -- although they were often exceptionally large ships of the line in the age of sail. I suppose DNs are first-rate SOLs, while CAs are third-raters, roughly speaking -- but they're all SOLs or BBs. (CCs, then, would be second-raters, maybe...)
My point is that a term like cruiser is not completely arbitrary, but is also pretty flexible, too. (At least we're not in Star Wars here, with DDs as capital ships...)
Unless I horribly have misunderstood something, the reason for no SC2 X-ships is a desire to keep über-munchkin ships out of the game. Ultimately, I don't think it really matters whether it's called a DN or not, or whether it's SC2 or not; what matters is that the ship isn't unbalancing. Breaking the MC1 barrier seems to strike many people here as threatening to balance, or getting on a slippery slope. I would like to think, though, that the Steves will be able to reign in any breakout of munchkinism here, so that even if there are MC1.25 X2 ships, XDN(L)s will not appear.
The increased MC feels right to me. Warships get bigger over time; this is a trend that has been going on with Terran wet navies for, oh, at least a millenium or so. And the XCA is (IIUC) meant to have the combat abilities of a CX but with increased noncombat capabilities. That sounds like it's going to be a bigger ship.
There is a possible way out of this, of course. A handwave can say that X2 engines are just more efficient and that a typical MC1 X2 hull will be more like 125 boxes than 100. But I think that this is more dangerous, IMHO, than keeping the traditional ratios of MC to number of boxes. If a munchkinized XCA appears (with all those labs and what-have-you ripped out and replaced with PH-XXIII and AWR) I would rather it be on a MC1.25 hull than a MC1 hull, though. If people are determined to make munchkin ships, they will -- and they will be worse if they can make them MC1.
The solution, in the end, is restraint -- and what MC the ships are really doesn't seem that important.
Okay, let's try a little exercise, here.
| CA | CX | DN | XCA | POC |
| Crew | 43 | 50 | 50 | 50 | D |
| BD | 5-6 | 5-6 | 3-6 | 5-6 | C |
| Shields | 1+1 | 1+1 | 1+3 | 1+1 | C |
| Life Spprt. | 1 | 1 | 1+1/2 | 1 | C |
| T-Bombs | 4 | 6 | 6 | 6 | C |
| Warp Pwr. | 30 | 42 | 45 | 48 | D |
| Imp. Pwr. | 4 | 4 | 6 | 4 | C |
| Sensor | 6 | 6 | 10 | 6 | C |
| Scanner | 6 | 6 | 10 | 6 | C |
| Dam Con | 6 | 7 | 9 | 7 | C |
| Ex. Dam | 6 | 6 | 12 | 6 | C |
| Move Cost | 1 | 1 | 1.5 | 1.25 | D |
Now, the chart here shows the major points of comparison between a cruiser and a DN, with the CX and an XCA tossed in. The XCA has some pretty common attributes; common in the sense that there hasn't been a huge argument over these numbers/costs.
The last column shows which the XCA is more like; the cruiser, or the DN. In 9 of 12 points, it is a cruiser. In only three ways could it be considered a DN; crew, warp power, and move cost. Crew isn't unusual, as the CX already has the same amount. But move cost and power are very DN like. But I ask; would you prefer to make the thing move at 1.25 to keep the power curve down, or would you rather have a cruiser running around with 18 spare warp after moving at top speed?
The lines between DN and CA are already blurred by the time the CX comes out. It has DN power, DN weapons, and DN crew without having DN expenses. An XCA that follows this trend and has even MORE of all those DN goodies, while still being able to move at a cost of 1 is more likely to break the game than making it pay to move a bit more.
The point: move cost alone does not make a DN. It takes more than that. I don't look at a possible move cost of 1.25 as trying to sneak in SC2 x-ships; I look at it as a way to tone down the XCA without resorting to a bunch of weird new rules designed solely to eat up excess power. If you want to KISS, then a slightly higher move cost is the way to go. If your only objection is "move cost of 1.25 equals a DN", that isn't enough. There are already ships out there that have odd move costs. Some large freighters, like the Large Operational Auxiliay (R1.45A) is a size class one ship with a move cost of 2. Does this one attribute arbitrarily make the Aux a BB? No...and making a bigger XCA that has to spend more to move won't be "sneaking in" XDN's, either.
Now, as it happens, I want to take X2 a different route with a "smaller but better and more efficient" approach; but that hasn't proved overly popular. My ideal XCA would be significantly more flexible than a CX but not so combat capable. In the same way some think players will balk at a move cost 1.25 cruiser, I think there are players who will not want there X2 cruiser to be weaker than a CX. This other approach is worth looking at.
Whoa, what's happing here? 
Mike Raper said:Now, as it happens, I want to take X2 a different route with a "smaller but better and more efficient" approach;
We can have both.
Will the XCC I propose be a bit uber? I'm not sure that's the word for it but perhaps a little. But it is intended to be an increadable ship. The best they could create. But the best is expensive and so they are limited to first one per theater, then two making the rounds as they are built, slowly.
The XCC, as awsome as it is, is not enough however. The Fleets also need numbers. So the XCA/XCM and XDD form these numbers. "Smaller but better and more efficient" fits these designs and these are produced at regular production rates.
So, Mike, we totally can have both! The XCC will not be the only ship in the era. Most games would be with the XCA/XCM and XDDs.
I see the XCC as the ship that will carry the flag...and plant it. The XCA/XCM as the ship that will build around it. And the XFF as the ship that populates and works in what is built. (Guys, you might recall that in my proposal the XFF is determined to be too small for front line battle in this era and so becomes a fast support vessel(all variant types); a mission at which it excels.)
