Archive through August 16, 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 16, 2004
RBN: We all have varied tastes. Your is as legit as any. I respect that.
All I can say it that I tried to weave a tapestry for X2 but often felt the individual threads were being scrutinized with out looking at the rest. Then against it could be the limitations of communicating a complex idea over a public BBS. It can be hard and then add that my proposal is fully complete and I don't have a site where I post all my X2 stuff. Well, I'm sure I'm a bit of a pain sometimes.
I've really got to get my site up and running.
I've liked the idea of the XCC being the fleet flagship. As to box counts making cruiser look like DNs.
You have to remeber what a box is. (Other than weapons) A box is a representation of a ships capability.
I know i've said it before but it bears repeating.
Take a finite area set aside for scientific research. Upgrade the equipment in the lab. (The boost in efficiency from PC's of 20 years ago is a perfect example). With the improved equipment then the SSD changes.
Representing (either/or/or both) more capabilty and durability. The nacelles have been armored enough to reduce the power lost from a glancing phaser blast.
Ken, I agree with you.
Let the MC 1 XCC be the flagship.
The MC 2/3 XCL is the workhorse cruiser.
And the MC 1/2 XDD is the support/utility ships, and also sent to areas not important enough for a cruiser.
Now that the X2 discussion is starting to heat up again, I suggest everyone take a look at Vorlon's X2 archive where a lot of ideas from the last 2 years are stored.
Mike, you make great points.
In attempting to overcome the power curve issue I'm not intending to introduce "wierd rules" (or at least I don't think they're wierd rules). I'm working on new rules, certainly, and they are designed to shift power around and to "bank" abilities and so forth. I know that's difficult to demonstrate when I haven't bothered to post any rules suggestions. Again, working on it . . .
At any rate the common ground is that Loren doesn't have an issue with the main X2 cruiser ending up MC1 and I'm not going to freak out if it ends up MC1.25. I think MC1.25 won't feel right and Loren thinks MC1 won't bring us anything new. No big deal when you think about it.
I've posted links for two working versions of my XCA SSD under the "Integrated Proposals." They still need more polishing but they're what I have so far. Also I posted some excerpts from my stuff under "X2 Timeline" to give an idea of where I'm going.
As Jeff suggests, for those who aren't familiar with John T's work check out his X2 webpage. Mike also has an excellent SFB webpage (but where do you keep your X2 stuff?).
I have a webpage started but it's really primitive and right now I'm just using it to provide webspace for SSDs and other things.
I still like Mike's SSDs best. Nice and advanced but still look like Feds and Klingons and nothing over the top.
I think we agree on a lot more than we disagree on. Let me know if there's anything on here that differs from the concensus.
Fleet flagship - rare (if not unique), MC 1 or 1.25.
When the empire wants to show its strength, this is what they send.
Workhorse cruiser - uncommon, MC 2/3.
When the flagship is somewhere else, this ship will do.
Some proposals call this an XCL, some call it an XCM.
Workhorse destroyer - common, MC 1/2,
In fleets, a support vessel.
On patrol, sent to areas not important enough for a cruiser.
Also a good source of varients.
Frigate - common, MC 1/3.
Mostly for backwater areas and police patrols.
But a deathtrap if it sees front line action.
Generally.
One minorthing to add it on workhorse Cruiser the MC should be either 2/3 (light cruiser) if the XCC is MC1 or it should be MC 1 if the XCC is MC1.25.
There will be room down the line for a XCL. I suggest that this class be filled in when the Xorks come.
Loren, let me try another angle:
I don't think that MC1.25 is the solution that we NEED. I don't think the problems that you are addressing with MC1.25 (i.e. power curve) are insurmountable without MC1.25.
Now I realize that MC1.25 would definitely be "new" but I also suggest that if we're going to do MC1.25 then the cruiser that uses it needs to be correspondingly bigger. Otherwise how does MC1.25 represent something "better" for X2? See what I mean? Without it being bigger you have a CB-sized "advanced" ship that has a worse movement cost than its "less advanced" ancestors.
In other words, to justify MC1.25 the ship itself will have to look like it needs MC1.25 (i.e. physically bigger). This is where I get nervous about the "dreadnought in disguise" and I begin to question whether or not such a ship is still SC3.
Does that make better sense? I posted this because I was wondering if I was really explaining myself very well.
It's a blurry line, right where I think it should be. The races are trying to build a DN replacement with out it being a DN. They can do this because the X2 engines put out enough power and add saucer warp and your power curve is right there. Now build a ship that really puts it to work but don't make a DN.
As such you get a ship a little bigger than a BCH but smaller than a DN.
I would point out that DNL's are toned down DN's. They come from a DN heritage. The XCC would come from a BCH heritage. That's how both can occupy the same ground of Move Cost and be different size classes.
I do not think this must lead to a XDNL. That is a whole other class and one we can avoid.
But I understand what you are trying to say. I just don't think it must be that way the same way it doesn't have to be my way. SVC will likely choose his own way anyway. Which way will that way be? There is no way of knowing!
A ship with MC 1.25 but the internal structure of a cruiser is a hobbled ship.
Unless the rest of the ship gets beefed up, not just the engines, it's not going to work out.
Most of the proposals on Vorlon's page come out about the same size, box-for-box, as a cruiser.
What would be added to the ship to make it "bigger"?
My design is not on Vorlons site. It is larger in part because of some new systems. It's shuttle bay is six boxes and has two Drogue Bays. The forward hull is +2 hull and the aft has some cargo(2) for extended range. Both hulls have NWO pairs.
Weapon are similar to the BC but with new types (10xPH5 + 2xPH6 and four photons).
Each race would probably send one XCC tothe LMC to oversee operations there.
I have a few designs on Johns site. A batch of Roms as well as a Fed and Orion. Most of it I'm pretty satisfied with.
This isn't exactly the place for it, but my own vision for an XCC wouldn't require a higher move cost. It's basically this:
R2.?? Federation XCC
This would be the very top of the line ship. The XCA this is based on, for example, would have six Phaser-5's in the saucer, and a pair of 360 Phaser-6's in the aft hull. It also has some NWO.
But, the XCC here has only the same warp as a CX, and less overall weapons. It just has better ones. Specifically:
- X "heavy" photons with a base 10 damage. They are also much more flexible; the decision to use proxies or standards can be made at the point of firing, rather than during EA. In addition, the warheads are "dial a warhead"...that is, a proxi is five points; six to 10 points are standards, and 11 to 20 are overloads. This lets you tweak your output to your available power.
- Phaser-5. Can fire as a phaser 5 for one point (I know I'm in the minority, but I'm sorry...making it cost more to fire just bugs the •••• out of me. It goes completely against my "better but not bigger" idea, because all it would be is a phaser-1 that you shove more power into to get more damage. Photons are one thing; phasers, no.) or as a pair of P-6's in rapid-pulse mode. Would include X-aegis for the P-6's if desired.
- Regenerating shields. Pay the cost, and each will regenerate five boxes of damage per turn. This has been tested a couple of times and seems okay so far. Definately makes them more durable. Repair and reinforcment are the same as X1.
- Labs get a bonus of 1 for seeking weapon ID and information gathering.
- S-bridge uses listed functions. Can use any function once per turn at no cost, provided the ship has at least one functional lab box.
- GXX racks have two magazines for faster reloading.
That's pretty much it. This isnt' the place to debate the thing; the point of the post is to show that while I beleive its okay to discuss a 1.25 move cost for a SC3 ship, I don't favor the idea myself. I think the ship I posted is a pretty fair balance between better and bigger. It would be the X2 queen of the fleet, and only a few would be made; like maybe four.
Loren,
What is a drogue bay or how is it different that the drogues in J2?
Quote: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)
I suspect you'll find the objective to be powercurve related...50 warp engine boxes (slightly more than the XCA's 48 ) on an MC 1.25 puts you back in line with 40 warp engine boxes on an MC 1 vessel which is the CX we all know and love.
Quote: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.
I suspect you'll find MC1 SC2 NCC-1701B vessels to have low consequences...I mean T-bombs can be layed in a duel to ignore SC2 and the XCA becomes immune to her own T-bombs...but that happens when a Destroyer fights a bunch of frigates.
Quote: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.
I'm not afraid of such monsters...if the BPV is right.
If we have an XCL at MC0.75, an XCM at 1 and an XCC at 1.25 then the XCM won't become the default XCL but I don't think we have room in an SSD book for all those ships for all the galactic powers races.
Quote: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.
Have you ever read JANES...do you know the difference bettween a Dreadnought and a Battleship in that book...a Battleships is a superdreadnought with uniform calibre of capital guns.
Call me a pragmatist but as technology advances so of the old definitions get messed up.
Personnally I see the X2 ships like this.
MC 0.75 to 1 = SC2
MC 0.5 to 0.66 = SC3
MC 0.33 down = SC 4
This gives us Cruisers at SC 2, Destroyers at SC 3 and Frigates at SC 4...all nice and simple for the new galactic order.
And there are no XDNs.
Quote: 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.
Did you check crew units and BPs???
A 48 Warp ships isn't all that fantastic...I know I've playtested it once and saw it go down to a CX & DDX and that XCA had 12Ph-5s!
Once you start paying for 1.5 per Phaser ( which gives you as many free shots as the CX had from your XCA's 3 point caps ) and arm your 24 point Photons ( which are 50% more energy consuming than 16 point Photons ) and you start having trouble making X1 battle speeds and that's before you start paying for an ASIF or S-bridge.
Sure at WS-III your first turn battle speed might be up a bit but it doesn't stay that way for long.
Quote: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
48 warp sounds like it can go with max speed and full overloads, but look at that, your 18 power goes into regular Photons to give you full overloads and the rest goes into EW for 8 and you 6 short, and you haven't yet begun to pay for the S-Bridge or ASIF...sure it could front load a bit and the non warp engine boxes will pay for more than HK, but in the end you could move like hell and fight like crazy at the start of the battle but after a while you BTTYs and Phaser Caps will need refreshing and then your XCA's just a regular slob like everybody else unable to finf the power for everything it needs.
Quote: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?
That's the hope...only we are looking to building more functiopn vessels that can handle space exploration ( from frigates on up ) such that they an aid in the repair ( through trade and commece ) of the damaged ecconomies of the post Andro period...Thus we don't want full blooded warships like X1 was; Offensively the XCA shouldn't be that much better than the CX and most designs are slightly weaker at very short range.
Is a Klingon XD7 ( a DX with ) with 12Ph-1s but only four Disruptors ( even with the cool stuff X2 Disruptors have ) more combat capable than a DX???
Quote: or would you rather have a cruiser running around with 18 spare warp after moving at top speed?
The CX already has 10.
After you pay an extra point of HK ( for the S-Bridge ) and who knows what for the ASIF, the extra handful of points will be little more than a memory.
Quote: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.
I think the line has to be drawn at having the offsensive power of the CX on the XCA as a minimum starting point ( and with a naturally higher defensive power it'll be a more expensive ship ).
Quote:Frigate - common, MC 1/3.
Mostly for backwater areas and police patrols.
But a deathtrap if it sees front line action.
Probably not.
With 30 Shield Boxes all round and a pair of 24 point Photons a trio of Ph-5s, 2 more hull boxes than a FFX and an extra AWR over the FX and an ASIF; the Fed XFF is probabaly able to smite an NCLa+ and it's not considered an deathtrap.
Quote:There will be room down the line for a XCL. I suggest that this class be filled in when the Xorks come.
You could have:-
MC 1 => XCC / XCA
MC 0.75 => XCM
MC 0.66 => XCL
And with the 0.5 MC XDD being the workhorse of the X2 era few if any races would have two of the above cruiser types.
Mike, I'm really starting to like that X2 style of yours. More and more. Could you Raperize my SSDs (ship portion)?
A question, are X1 warp engines just slightly more stabilized hot-warp engines? In other words, for X2 would the need to stabilize the engines for long-haul cruising lead to (for example) 18-box cruiser engines (like Mike has) rather than the 20-box cruiser engines (like X1 and others have)?
Keep in mind that my thinking on X1 is it's two things: "adolescent" experimental technology AND tech for war-class ships.
MJC, a "dreadnought" (real-world) is a major warship characterized by heavy armor and all-major-caliber gunnery. The term "battleship" comes from "line of battle ship," or ship of the line (going back to the age of sail). Before the HMS Dreadnought, battleships had several batteries of gunnery of varying calibers. The idea was to "cover all the bases." The Dreadnought revolutionized capital ships in that its all-large-gun array made it a decisive raider and "unapproachable" in battle. There were battleships before there were dreadnoughts. Dreadnought is a type of battleship (and a dreadnought cruiser is a battle cruiser).
As to 1701B, although I mentioned it I'm not sure that we can do it . . . Franchise and all. I know SFB has 1701A as a CX but I don't know if SVC came up with a special agreement for that or if it's a work-around ("1701A" vice "1701-A").
Just so [people realise I'm in the ( and it's a small group ) the double certain types of SSD boxes, group for the ASIF, so the ASIF costs are for me.
Federation.
XCA 5+14
XDD 3+6
XFF 2+4
Thus in order to power an ASIF from a Fed XCA's 48 warp engine boxes, the percentage of used power is quiter large and from an XFF's 20 warp engine boxes, the percentage is about the same.
This means that the 48 warp engine boxes on an MC1 cruiser is not all that much of problem, if the ship wants to run like hell, then it can't protect it'self from internals and if it wants to protect itself from internals then it can't run very fast.
Now maybe I'm in the INVENT STUFF TO CONSUME POWER camp but I seem to find it works for me...and if a ship really wants to move and protect her internals then she can allocate some BTTY and we all know where that leads.
I wonder if there would be ships that are revised X1 designs which start incorporating X2 tech before a full X2 ships appears? I gues it would be a second generation X1 ship. The assumption I am making is the X2 advances would be tried on X1 ships before full production. Perhaps the preproduction version on a X1 ship would be different than how they would be on a X2 ship, less advanced. Anyone have any thoughts or comments?
JRC: There is discussion on XP, so I believe that a partial refit of X2 technology could be possible..
MJC: What the heck is an ASIF?
PdBoddy, ASIF = Advanced Structural Integrity Field.
The problem that the ASIF is trying to solve is the "eggshells with sledgehammers" fighting style. In other words, as big as these weapons are, the first solid hit would cripple the ship. That's no good.
It was proposed early on to create a new gizmo that allows X2 ships to take more damage before they become crippled.
There are two ideas floating around:
1 - Power up the gizmo, and it allows all the hull boxes on the ship to take a second hit before they are destroyed
2 - Power up the gizmo, and each column on the DAC becomes armored. In other words, if you score damage, the first few points don't count, but instead knocks the armor off the A-column. If you go past the A-column, you hit the armor on the B-column instead of scoring damage.
Peter, an ASIF is an "Advanced Structural Integrity Field."
There's several takes on this: 1) it's an internal shield that soaks up internal damage after a shield collapses, 2) it's a DAC (Damage Allocation Chart) modifier that protects certain DAC columns. The end result is an ASIF slows down incoming damage after a shield collapses, and has the potential to mitigate the Mizia effect. There's a lot of discussion on this topic under the "X" Files. Look in major tech changes, hull box discussions, etc.
Ahh, that clears that up, thanks Blackbeard!
Hmmm, I think option 1 sounds better than 2. First benefit is that you don't need to have damage boxes on the DAC. Maybe make it a true "seventh" shield?
The first option (hull protection only) is that ships are still vulnerable getting their weapons stripped off.
The second option doesn't require boxes on the DAC; the boxes can go on the SSD.
Joseph: A drogue bay is a small specialized bay deticated to drogues. They are hit on shuttle and can only operate drogues.
I am unsure as to whether or not the bays will come with a basic drogue and have players accept that or trade it in for another type. In any case those two drogues would count as force points and not deduct from commanders options.
Here's a link on U.S. Navy hull classification symbols with some really good background information on the different ship types.
