So a stone fish is just a Raladd Stingray drone!?!

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 12:27 am: Edit

I suppose you could say that since a RALAD is an ADD submunition. Also see (FD10.432) You can put a single space 3ADD MW ahead of 2 spaces of explosives on a VIII X drone. It also says other combinations are possible. So it appears you could put 3 type IXs in the forward postion. I haven't though about what other nasty but legal combos there are.

If!! availablity is changed from limited to restricted (as part of an X upgrade for some types or combinations) then these specialty drones become a greater threat. I am not suggesting availability be changed. I am hightlighting how drone threats from currently available types could increase.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 01:09 am: Edit

Well, I would agree that a DDX-E should keep her original GX-racks if only to capitalise on the 1 type VIII double space MW drone she can have in each rack and the ability that will have to quieten scatter packs...although GX-racks have a bunch of other valuable uses.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 11:35 pm: Edit

I have suggested a CMX over in the XP topic but the idea for that shio should probably be here. here is a link http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/x1/joecarlson/Fed-CMX_v1.GIF

It is intended to fit between a DDX and CX. I also made a escort version.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 05:38 am: Edit

I think you went overboard with the drone racks, the Fed CX, DDX and FFX; all have 2 GX-racks and so why should the CMX be any different, it's replacing 2 G-racks for four 180° Ph-1s on the CX so I would look to having 2 GX-racks and make the pairs of RS & LS Ph-1s into trios and see where that takes the ship.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 02:52 pm: Edit

MJC,

It is designed to be different than the CX, DDX, and FFX. The saucer is based off a DD so I do not think 2 more phasers will fit in the saucer. It is a small SC3 ship. The ship was designed for independant patrols. Perhaps going to 3 PH-1s and 3 GX racks in the rear hull would be an alternate version.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 05:13 am: Edit

The DDX had three trios of X1Ph-1s so I think you can a pair of X1Ph-1s and two trios of X1Ph-1s stuffed into the DDX saucer.

Making the FH X1Ph-1s into a trio to reduce the G-racks to 3 would be another angle of attack although I seem to think that the supply and logistics differances would make it less likely to reach production.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 05:46 am: Edit

Ick, three nacells.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 08:10 am: Edit

Okay, just my opinion about the ship, but here's my thoughts:

• If its an escort, I have no gripe with four drones. But, you should ditch two of the photons to compensate.
• Why does an escort (or a normal CM, for that matter) need barracks and cargo? That is almost exclusively reserved for ground assault ships; not escorts or ships of the line. Scrap both, change the saucer battery to a bank of two, and change the barracks to batteries.
• Change the cargo to AUX; you need it for a SC3 x-ship.
• If it's an x-ship, it needs better shields and a second free HET box.
• Loose the notation about the left/right phasers firing down the rear of the ship; the phasers are LS/RS, and can already do that.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 09:35 am: Edit

(R2.RC20) ADVANCED DESTROYER ESCORT (DEX): Proposed as the GVX Field Marshall Colin Powell was nearing the final design phase, it was decided that a dedicated escort was not needed in lieu of the existing X-Technology.

The design followed the DE standard, replacing Photons with Drone Racks. However, because it was intended to escort the GVX additional systems were added to support F-111 fighters as opposed to the traditional bay-launched F-18 / -14 / -15 / etc. See (R2.R5) for notes on cargo storage.

- Ship design by Robert Cole

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 10:04 am: Edit

Thanks all for your comments. The CMX is not a true carrier escort it was the second version I made after the escort version.

This is the escort: http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/x1/joecarlson/Fed-CLEX_v2.GIF

This one also has 2 barrack boxes. I used CEL instead of CL so as to not confuse this with the orginal CL. Also it has 3 photons like a HDW escort version would.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 10:15 am: Edit

I will redo both ships to add the suggested systems and balance the design.

Christopher besides not liking 3 warp nacelles what would you like to see in an escort ship?

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 11:21 am: Edit

Cargo is standard on many Fed escorts. It lets them stay on station longer. (More drones carried spare fighters etc. The rule is R2.R5.

Considering an X Escort will have to be on station at least as long as a non X escort it would make sense to have Cargo.

Barracks I could do without.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 01:27 pm: Edit

This is the updated CMX:
http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/x1/joecarlson/Fed-CMX_V6.GIF

This ship could lead small squadrons of X ships or accompany a X carrier (if they come into existance) group to provide aditional firepower. It could also do independant patrols.

The 10 box engines are an attempt to create a 30 warp CL which is about 1/3 more than a NCL. Other engine configuration could be done (2-12 box and 1-8 box). This could be a futher development of the NDD beyong the DDX.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 06:27 pm: Edit

I like it.

The only change I would make would be to remove 2 of the 4 drone racks. With 4 racks, it's a Klingon ship with photons.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 08:44 pm: Edit

Jeff,

How about 3 drone racks? I kind of think of it as a small strike cruiser.

What should the YIS be? For a name how about USS Canberra.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 09:23 pm: Edit

With 2 more drones and an extra bearing Ph-1 through the improtant angles and more warp power can you tell me why it's the same BPV as the Fed DDX...I hope it's paper thin shields or something but you may want to reconsider the BPV.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 10:32 pm: Edit

MJC,

The BPV of a DDX is 155. It has 9 PH-1s and 4 Photon tubes. The CMX BPV is 170 and it has the same number of PH-1s and photons. The #1 shield is 32, 2 and 6 is 28, and 3,4,5 is 26.


The CX BPV is 225 and I guess-a-mated between them, probably on the low side. What would you suggest for BPV? Do you like the name?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 10:51 pm: Edit

Goto CL23 and turn to page 17 and look at the list in the bottom left hand corner.

Also the DDX obliques with 6 Ph-1s, 4 Photons and two GX-racks, whilst your CMX obliques with 7Ph-1s, 4 Photons and four GX-racks...it'll be more exspencive than 170, but I wouldn't put it at much past 200 but some might say itself is worth 225. Remember for "guestimation" purposes the CX is now 240.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 11:15 pm: Edit

MJC,

I do not have that CL yet. The information you provided explains quite well what I did not catch in your first post. Have any thoughts on the number of drone racks?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 11:47 pm: Edit

I commend you follow this link

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/X-shipCL23.pdf


And then either print off the PDF file or download it, which ever you'll find most handy.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 01:34 am: Edit

As the X rules are now X drones can't be carried by fighters. I would like to propose a limited option.

A X drone control pod could allow a few X drones to carrried by a fighter or heavy fighter squadron. The X-Pod could control 2 X drones. Only 2 pods per squadron. For plasma fighters it would be a X-Plasma control pod.

These pods could equip the F-111 squadron carried by the GVX or any converted CVHs or CVSs. This would not preclude use of the proposed X-megapack.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 01:48 am: Edit

As a supplement to MJC's post, go to the post I made in the XP thread in the January 10, 2003 archive. I combined X1's original material with what CL23 changed out of it, and posted a summary of what X1 is now.

To save space, I won't copy it here, but does anyone know how to create a link to another post from this message board?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 06:38 am: Edit

I had a wild idea concerning XP that probably shouldn't clutter the XP thread at the moment so I'll put it here.


The FD10 rules say that one should round percentages up if 0.5 or greater and down if 0.499 or less.

This creates a problem if XP ships use non X ship drone rates AND drones are themselves limited and restricted items.

If a Fed CLa+ or CARa+ or CC+ has an XP refit and keeps its rack at four spaces ( which doesn't change the SSD ) then it can have just 10% of 4 space of limited drones or 0.4 X drones.

Should we organise an XFD rule that says such ships can when buying type IX drones treat the drone spaces as doubled for the calculation of half space drones, thus such a ship will have 0.8 type IX drones rounding up to one type IX drone.

I think the ability to kill a drone at long range and then use the G-rack as an ADD-7 ( after the turn break ) will be very handy for XP ships and certainly better than having no ability to throw any X drones.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 07:06 pm: Edit

It's a valid point, but I think it's one of many of the finer details that can be hashed out at a later time, once we figure out what the big picture is.