The D5F has four ADD-12 with limited Aegis, not E-racks. Against large numbers of drones, ADD's perform better than E-racks as they can fire once per impulse; against a steady trickle the E-rack is better. I can't find many ships that use the E-rack, just G1K's, the D6F and the odd Orion or Wyn.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 06:51 am: Edit

---

Quote:

The Right Forward Quarter would cover the #1 hex row and extent to the hex spline between the #2 and #3 shields.

---

---

Quote:

Against large numbers of drones, ADD's perform better than E-racks as they can fire once per impulse; against a steady trickle the E-rack is better. I can't find many ships that use the E-rack, just G1K's, the D6F and the odd Orion or Wyn.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 12:33 pm: Edit

I couldn't remember exactly which ship had the extra E-racks. My point was the mission.

As the quartered arcs SVC put and end to that idea. Oh well, no big.

By Joseph Justice (Woodball) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 06:50 pm: Edit

I got an idea that may seem a little weird. I was watching the 2000 24 hrs. of Le Mans, when I saw one of the Audis come in and make a rear end change in about 3 minutes.

As a result I came up with the idea that maybe all X2 ships could be modular, and that if fighting near a base or FRD; they could swap out modules.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 12:07 pm: Edit

Joseph,

I have something like that in the Romulan Proposal. The DD/CL are the truly modular ships. But the CA/FF both have some limited modularity.

Frankly Modules are Romulan racial flavor. So they shouldn't be too widespread. Maybe the limited NPWO boxes for the CA/FF could be utilised.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 12:30 pm: Edit

Yeah, I've been putting NWO on most of my designs, as a way to give them more utility and flexibility without making them a truly modular design.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 01:49 pm: Edit

I believe NWO is vital to the mission perameters of the era where X2 ships may likely have to full fill multiple mission types (including specialty missions) in one outing. The Galaxy is a far different place after the tides of 30+ years a war. Devestated zones, political upheaval on out worlds and core systems alike, lose of resources that need re-establishing, and Empire rebuilding. This is the field in which the X2 ship will have to compleat its mission.

All this is the obvious results of established history. No new history need be developed to establish the playing field. But then there is the game that can be played on this field. Vurtually no empire will have full control of their previous space. What sort of intregue will follow the Adromadin war? Will someone or many try to claim un-reclaimed space? Perhaps large areas will sue for independance from their previous governments. (Indeed, I believe the X2 era to have a rich potential for scenario creativity like none before.)

These empires will have to have ships capable of conforming to any mission perameter. NWO is just what they need.

BTW: I agree that the Romulans using modular designs is a good racial flavor and should be maintained. It allows them to get a functioning fleet out faster then build up that fleet with better more powerful designs later with less cost. It saved them before and they are facing a similar circumstance in Y200+.

Also, I think there could be some introduction of the new technologies before Y205. Perhaps an X1 cruiser with a couple PH-V's installed (could be the various GSX's with their heavy weapons replaced with the new X2 versions). A light cruiser with all the goodies introduced in Y203 as a test bed ship but has some draw backs like bad breakdown rating or a chance for a system failier (roll a die to determin which turn (1-6) the ship must roll for a critical hit). This reflects the developing and fine tuning of the technology. Give victory points for repairing the critical hit and surviving.

By Herb Diehr (Direwolf) on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 05:41 pm: Edit

X-CLASS PROPOSAL
by Herb Diehr


25 MAR 2004


First off, I’d like to thank those with the gumption to do this project. It certainly will be hotly debated and with some unhappy parties, regardless of the final product.

I believe the X-class games should be clean and easy, along the lines of the two-cruiser fight. So, Only Hydran, Federation and Kzinti should have fighters and large drone packages should be limited to the Kzinti. No doubt the Klingon and Federation will keep some, as well.

KZINTI TADS-X 20 2 P-3 FA P-2 FA 2X1 + 2XVI 14 2XSPC RAIL 15 Y180 4
FED A 10 – X 16 1 P-3 FA P-2 FA 2XI 2 POTON 1 P-3 RA 15 Y180 1

Now, all of us have become used to X-ships having heavy weapons fire once per turn, or every other turn for plasma. However, that leaves the disruptor out of the game. If the particle cannon rules were ported over as the disruptor cannon, it would make a fine upgrade for them! Perhaps too fine, but that’s not my view.

The rest of the heavy weapons seem fine, now drogues have been added. Perhaps the Kzinti could have H-drones, but perhaps not. I believe a sensor and a heavy weapons drogue should be built into each cruiser, with no shuttle loss, as well. Additionally, all X-class ships would, effectively, have an MRS built in as natural EW. All X-ships would have 2 ECM, 2 ECCM and 2 swing points built in. This would be lost when crippled. Thus, EW would be far better for X-cruisers than anything an older ship would have, as is proper. Smaller X-ships would be closer, but still superior.

Phasers are always a difficult issue with X-ships. Increasing the number of type-I phasers by 50% and reducing or eliminating P-III’s works OK, but I believe we all would like to see a new class of phaser available. If we leave the frigates and destroyers as they are and have cruisers and larger with the new ones, things should work well. My idea is to have a –1 to the die roll for ranges 9-24. Cumulative with a –1 for a negative ECCM, long-range firing would become effective. This is a result of better fire control and better crews.

I would like to make a case for the X-dreadnaught. There still are no command vessels for each race and if there are going to be sectors for each grouping of X-ships, they still will need command. Bases just are not able to function in this role well enough. These were built toward the end of the war, but it was still on-going and each race was hoping these would be enough to tip the scales of victory in their favor. As a BC is coming, the DN would be a nice addition. We all like to see some new ships in each product.

In addition to the new fire control and better crews, BC’s and DN’s also could have a new type of phaser, the P-V. This would split the P-IV table and the P-I table down the middle, with the –1 built into the chart. This would give more damage done without having to have a great many more phasers. Only the FA ones (three to five phasers) need to be V’s; the rest stay P-I’s. As far as other weapons, perhaps the large photons will actually be used! A concomitant increase in other heavy weapons would be fine; for plasma, have bolted torps at ¾ strength. They will be much more effective!


Please notice that these ideas do not change any existing SSD’s and make less major changes on the remaining ones. However, the X-class flavor is strong and the benefits are quite real.

Finally, please remember you are selling a product to many people interested in the game. While some are unhappy with a type of weapon in particular, many of us are fond of our maulers! We, the customers, should decide what should be, not the producers. I am perfectly willing to design my own, but some souls are less trepid. The vast majority wants them. X-class was built for a DD-mauler.

Thank you,

Herb Diehr
The Dire Wolf

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 06:14 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Phasers are always a difficult issue with X-ships. Increasing the number of type-I phasers by 50% and reducing or eliminating P-III’s works OK, but I believe we all would like to see a new class of phaser available. If we leave the frigates and destroyers as they are and have cruisers and larger with the new ones, things should work well. My idea is to have a –1 to the die roll for ranges 9-24. Cumulative with a –1 for a negative ECCM, long-range firing would become effective. This is a result of better fire control and better crews

In addition to the new fire control and better crews, BC’s and DN’s also could have a new type of phaser, the P-V. This would split the P-IV table and the P-I table down the middle, with the –1 built into the chart. This would give more damage done without having to have a great many more phasers. Only the FA ones (three to five phasers) need to be V’s; the rest stay P-I’s. As far as other weapons, perhaps the large photons will actually be used! A concomitant increase in other heavy weapons would be fine; for plasma, have bolted torps at ¾ strength. They will be much more effective!

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 06:56 pm: Edit

The double-firing disruptor was indeed put forth, and as far as I know is still up in the air; I don't recall anyone being emphatically against it.

The phaser thing has been an issue for awhile, that's for sure. I have been testing a new concept for phasers that bunches them in groups or arrays. While a single phaser does less damage than a P5, or even a P1, when grouped together they get a die roll shift. I won't go into specifics here, 'cause this isn't the thread for it. But in the testing I have done, it's worked very well; better than I'd hoped.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 07:55 pm: Edit

I proposed several version of a double firing disruptor. It was not well received but no one freaked out on it either.

By Herb Diehr (Direwolf) on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 12:33 am: Edit

For X2, the added EW would still be a bad idea?

Also, the P-1 -1 die roll at 9-24, would that fit X2?

Any hope for the mauler?


Thanks!

Herb

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 02:24 pm: Edit

There is a single mauler on the X1R list, but I've listed it as conjectural. Of all the conjectural ships the Mauler is the one I would most like to see printed.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 02:38 pm: Edit

The sheer power and capability of the mauler on 3-point batteries has to be dealt with.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 02:50 pm: Edit

Is the mauler an X1R ship, or XP? If XP, what was the official word on the batteries?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 03:11 pm: Edit

The proposed mauler is X1R. The XP Mauler still requires work depending on which battery solution is chosen during playtesting. I can make arguments for and against X-maulers.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 09:07 pm: Edit

Mike's SSD posting reminded me that Joe Carlson and I had been batting some SSDs back and forth and they're at the point where I'd like to post them.

They are the Federation Medium Combat Unit and Light Combat unit.

The concept is this:

In peacetime you need light-maintenance units for peacetime mission and anti-piracy, etc. But in war you need heavier and more powerful units. The ones you need in peacetime drop like flies because they're the smallest.

Rather than haphazardly define an upgrade path as you bump into the need, design the upgrade path into the ship from the start.

The LCU and MCU start out as a frigate and a destroyer resepectively.

When the threat of war begins to rise, they can be fitted with a standard secondary hull to create a heavy frigate or war destroyer (take your pick) and a light cruiser

When it becomes all-out war, an improved secondary hull can be fitted instead to create a heavy destroyer and a Medium Cruiser or New Heavy Cruiser (take your pick).

For someone like the Federation, being able to crank out a handful of standardized hull sections would have a hades of a lot of appeal.

I played with the concept of a Heavy Combat Unit and decided that I didn't like the idea.

Joe and I batted around the idea that the secondary hulls would be detachable like Tug pods, but I don't know. It seems too good an advantage even if it isn't a combat advantage.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 09:23 pm: Edit

I like the concept John. But it turns the Feds into Gorn, and that I don't care for.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 10:04 pm: Edit

How so?

Oddly enough, I did intend it to be the Gorns who were working on something similar and give the idea to the Feds. (The Gorns get so much technology and stuff from the Feds its like they can't do anything on their own, so I tend to look for opportinities to let the Gorns one-up the Feds).

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 08:58 am: Edit

I don't see them as particularly Gorn-like; more like the NCA and DWH ships the Feds already have. Definately a different approach, and no less valid than any other.

By Mark Russman (Cannich) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 09:51 am: Edit

I thought the history said the Feds were caught off guard (unprepared) by the general war? Wouldn't that mean they would not have had anything like this..?
Just a small thought...

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 10:20 am: Edit

That's general war, though; this is years later for X2, when they would presumably have learned some lessons.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 11:08 am: Edit

These ships build on the lessons learned in the GW. The Federation has 2 classes and 6 ships that can be quickly made.

As a variation on the theme of modular ships I built a hybrid between a LTT an a FCR. It uses pods to change the mission of the base ship. The pods range from from cargo and fighter delivery types to exploration and combat type pods.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 06:13 pm: Edit

That's the thing.

The Feds look back on the General War and see how DD's turn into NCLs turn into NCAs and design their X2 DD to formalize the progression. (same thing for their XFF)

In a war, the Federation would have a purposefully limited set of hullforms that they would already know how to build efficiently. No need for corner-cutting war production hulls.

Most variants would simply entail changes to the secondary hull allowing the saucer section to stay standard at all times.

By benjamin sun (Ben2207) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 07:04 pm: Edit

BTW I think the back two PH-5s need to be labeled 7 and 8 instead of 6 and 7 on the Medium Cruiser (it was a throwback to the heavy destroyer which does have 6 and 7)