I don't want to clutter the XP thread while the voting is going on so I'll post this idea here (we discussed XP a lot in this thread IIRC)

MAULERS: Many, including myself, are against maulers getting x-batteries as this is clearly WAY to killer and broaken.

However, I had this thought. Surely the races with maulers would have to be looking at them in some way. I figure that a good stop measure is that X-batteries are vulnerable to the Mauler in the same way live power is. But then I had this idea that might make for a compromise and an interesting unit.

Example: Falcon Mauler. Replace 10-12 batteries with 3 pt. X batteries BUT THESE ARE NOT CONNECTED TO THE MAULER WEAPON. Instead they may be used for any other purpose including recharging the Connected batteries during EA. This would reduce the single shot effectiveness of the ship but would give it multi-turn capabilities it never had before.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 05:59 pm: Edit

SVC has this mauler proposal from me:

maulers do to X-batteries what they do to engines and other power-generation systems: tear them up wholesale.

Maulers use a dedicated capacitor bank made up for 2-point "capacitor" boxes that hold a total of 40 points of power, 20 per mauler if there's two (such as the Rom 3rd-gen maulers).

The mauler's capacitor bank allows the player to allocate energy from the caps to the mauler as he wishes (no more battery banks).

Each capacitor box holds 2 points of power and is hit on battery hits. The capacitor system also still a part of the reserve power system.

This gives an X-mauler a small bump in raw power, but still leaves the mauler hull looking and acting like its standard tech equivalent.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 10:36 pm: Edit

I have started a DDXE. The only X carrier is the GVX and it carries F-111s. Are these just standard F-111s?

Would an escort need ready racks for other fighters? Would it be a good idea (acceptable) for the DDXE to carry 2 F-18s like the HDW escort variant?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 09:50 pm: Edit

Continued from the "XP" topic: BCX's.

---

Quote:

Yes, there is a problem with it, and that problem is cost. The various X-cruiser designs start out as conversions of heavy or command cruisers, with a production line following. An X-cruiser to match the ISC CCX, however, would require the design and development of an entirely new ship...and the costs of doing so would be high. High enough, I think, that the exhausted post-War economies wouldn't be up to the task. The Gorn government certainly wouldn't go for it. The Roms were just finishing dealing with a civil war. The Feds had a new thrift-minded government come to power as well. The Klingons and Lyrans were tottering on the edge of financial collapse, and the Kzinti and Hydrans faced massive reconstruction efforts throughout great expanses of devistated space. All things considered, it's a minor miracle that enough funding was found for X-ships at all to deal (even partially) with the ISC Pacification War, and then the massive Andromedan Invasion...during which the focus was on pumping out as much as possible, not on developing new and expensive advanced cruisers from scratch.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 07:03 am: Edit

Well, in all fairness, the rules from X1 address the BCX issue.

From Module X1, Page 15 under "Design Notes"...

---

Quote:

One of the questions most often asked about these First Generation conversions is why the heavy battlecruiser designs were not improved to X-technology. The primary reason is that heavy battlecruiser hulls were built on battlecruiser or heavy cruiser hulls (the C7 owed far more to the D7 than appearances would indicate) and took those designs to their absolute limit. X-technology also put a strain on a ship's design, as considerable more power was being produced and used. The combination of BCH additions and X-technology was simply more than the basic cruiser hull could stand. Eventually, of course, a cruiser hull able to withstand these pressures was designed; these ships were the second generation of X-ships, but they did not enter service until after the Andromedans had been defeated.

---

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 07:51 am: Edit

That quoted design note does a good job of summing up what I've been trying to say in my last several posts.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 08:08 am: Edit

While I admit there is a certain guilty, sinfull attractiveness to the notion of the fully-fledged BCX, I don't think I want to see them become real. I'd be happy for them to be in X1R, should it come to pass, but only as conjectural, impossible, or unbuilt variants. Having made (and played) a C7X, I can tell you they rock...but just a mite too much, for my taste. I suppose making a set of BCX's could be a quick and dirty approach to X2, given the above, but to me it'd be boring.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 09:31 am: Edit

I should note that the reason given by the background text for no BCX: "X-technology also put a strain on a ship's design, as considerable more power was being produced and used."

To me this says no X1 upgrade of BCH, but no-engine replacement XP would be OK.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 10:27 am: Edit

Since R9 already includes DNLXs as "Impossible" ships, X1R might possibly include BCHXs under the same category. But I assume that X1R will mostly include "real" ships or at least "Unbuilt Variant" ships, which of course could have been built had the race made different doctrinal choices.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 10:39 am: Edit

That note lies at the core of my proposals for the ONE large class of ship in X2 (EVERYTHING else is smaller and more efficient).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 04:26 pm: Edit

Mike, Jessica

What's the heavyn weapons armament of a ISC DN.

I could be wrong, but 2x PPD, 2x S-torp comes to mind.

That's also the armament of a ISC CC, which functionally pegs it as a BCH.

That's point I've been making.

The "CC" designation doesn't save the Novahawk from being (wrongly) pegged as a "BCH", I see no reason why it should save the ISC CC(from being correctly pegged as one).

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 04:42 pm: Edit

John;

The ISC Dreadnought as originally published had 4 PPD. It was the Andromedans that caused the ISC to develop 2 PPD + 2 S-Torp and 4 S-Torp versions. These latter had less overall firepower but were also less vulnerable to the Andros doing stuff with the DisDev.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 05:01 pm: Edit

Nor do most BCHs have quite a DN's firepower either (Fed BCJ a notable exception).

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 05:37 pm: Edit

John,

I've already explained it as best I can, but I'll give it another shot.

The ISC CC is a CC because that's what they built the thing to be, right from the keel up. As such, the thing was designed from the get-go with broad safety margins and "free" space, and it is that that permits it to be converted to a CCX.

The various BCHs, on the other hand, aren't really designed from the keel up; they all owe a heck of a lot to their CA/CC equivalents, and basically were built by shrinking those safety margins and using the "free" space on the existing designs...and without that space, there's no way to do an even remotely stable or safe X-conversion.

Simply put, the ISC works differently than the other Galactic races, because their ships were designed under vastly different circumstances -- and with a completely different operational philosophy -- than the late-General-War-era ships of the other Galactic races. They aren't quite so different as the Andromedans, but they aren't simply the same, either. They built based on a fleet doctrine, over many years, whilst not at war with anyone, preparing for a long-range campaign that would place squadrons and fleets at the ends of exceedingly long logistics chains for exceedingly long tours of duty. That they would build their cruisers larger than those of other races to better handle such a mission whilst maintaining a generous margin of safety and plenty of elbow space is hardly surprising.

As far as the Novahawk goes, I don't know. The Rom ships are odd ducks from the get-go. Given how much more is packed into a Novahawk from the base Firehawk hull, however, it probably just doesn't have enough of the aforementioned safety margins or "free" space left to handle an X-conversion; thus, the BCH designator.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 06:25 pm: Edit

Jessica,

Don't mistake disagreement for a lack of undersanding.

If your logic is the state of affairs, then there is nothing to stop any race from building a from-scratch, built-form-the-keel-up BCX hull with Y180's X-technology.

The rule Mike quotes says there is a *technical* limitation that stops BCX development.

I'll agree that a good reason needs to be found that set the ISC CC as an exception to the "No BCH" rule, precisely because the thing *is* a BCH in all but name.

I'm not sure a simple construction difference is the place I'd want to make my stand, however. At least not without something else to support it.


RE Novahawk:

I wouldn't personally think the additional batteries or command systems would be enough to prohibit an X-conversion. Forgetting the cloak, it has (at best) the capabilities of a CCH, which is X-capable.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 06:35 pm: Edit

Here's my thoughts; take 'em or leave 'em.

Most CC's are built with command being a primary function; they have the control facilities to lead fleets in peacetime, to keep those expensive DN's in the dock where they belong. This shows in their command rating, which is less than a DN's. In wartime, they can lead a fleet if they need to, albeit a smaller one than a DN can. They are also almost exclusively conversions of existing ships; CA to CC, D7 to D7C, etc.

Later, as the war goes on, along come the first true BC's. These are on new hulls; they are not conversions. But the designs are based very much on the older CA, and simply taken to the max. They are, in many ways, the ultimate war cruiser. They have a DN's command rating, because they need it; they are warships, after all, and are expected to command in a war time environment.

Now, after the war grinds down, the ISC come along. They've had years to develop and design a fleet made specifically to pacify the galactic powers. In other words, they have a custom-made fleet of ships built for a single purpose driven mission; invasion, pacification, and enforcment. The ISC CC, then, like all other ISC capital ships, is a bit bigger than most of the galactic counterparts. But functionally, it is still a CC. It has the command rating of a galactic CC, and is built from a CA hull. So while it may be bigger and tougher than the average CC, it is still a CC because that is how the ISC defined it, just as they defined everything else...to be better than the forces they had to subjugate. It's roll as a CC is therefore determined in comparison to the ISC fleet; not anyone elses.

Make sense? I can't really put it any other way. Part of the problem is that ISC ships just aren't balanced the same way as the galactic ships are; no galactic CA stacks up to the ISC CA one on one, for example. You have to look at their CC in the context of the ISC fleet as a whole; not in comparison to someone else's BC or CC.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 06:54 pm: Edit

re: Novahawk-X

Have you compared a Novahawk vs Firehawk lately (besides the Flagbridge).

2 IMP, 3 Batteries. That's about it.

Now considering that a Novahawk-K has 8 Batteries (6 in hull, 2 in Modules). If it received the X-Refit w/ 8 Batteries it would have 24 power saved up in them.

Now considering a FH cloaks for 18, a FHX cloaks for 22 (net 4 difference), if a NHX followed the same logic, it would go from 20 (NHK) to 24 (NHX).

It could cloak off battery power alone. Isn't that reason enough, not to let it be made?

By David Lang (Dlang) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 10:15 pm: Edit

John

---

Quote:

If your logic is the state of affairs, then there is nothing to stop any race from building a from-scratch, built-form-the-keel-up BCX hull with Y180's X-technology

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 10:34 pm: Edit

David,

OK. I'll accept that.

I was about to write some kind of rebuttal and the idea had time to sink in: The ISC had researched and deployed superior hull technology, as compared to the rest of the Alpha Quadrant races, hull technology which had a nice synergy with X-tech.

Apologies if I seemed hidebound before, but it just didn't make sense.

No further objections, Your Honor.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 10:44 pm: Edit

Deleted by author.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 11:38 pm: Edit

yeah, the ISC and everyone else had no idea that X-tech was on it's way and what the limits would be or everyone would have researched their hull tech a little differently, the ISC just happened to luck out

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 09:32 am: Edit

This is a ship I made awhile back. I added a fifth photon and 2 GX racks.
http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/x1/joecarlson/Fed_CCX%20_v2.GIF

I intended the ship to be a X equivilent to the BCH and DNL.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:04 am: Edit

Joseph Carlson;

I note that the #1 and #4 shields are slightly weaker on your CCX than on the standard CX. Was this intentional?

Other than that, I like the ship but think the BPV is too low. You add two more points of generated power (50 vs. 48), two GX-racks (4 vs. 2) and a photon torpedo (5 vs. 4). Under the CL23 errata, a Fed CX is already 240 BPV and you assign your ship 250. Even if the slightly weaker #1 and #4 shields were intentional, this ship is more than 10 points better than a CX.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:14 am: Edit

Particularly when you consider that those new drone racks come loaded.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:30 am: Edit

Alan and Tos,

No the weaker shields were not intentional. I have a different version that has the BPV at 285.I though I had made the front shield 42 but miscounted the boxes.

Thanks for your comments.