The point is to create a system that is somewhat close to balanced. The X2 ships should have X2 duels available because players like duals. X2 tech will be more advanced then X1 but X2 needs to have X1 duels available. I’m not dictating that an XCA = CAX, instead what is needed is an XCC = ??X. I do advocate that X2 needs to have a significant upgrade path available to fight the Xorks.

One way to accomplish this is to create under-armed X2 units during the trade wars. Why was this done? I’m sure we can come up with many good reasons but the reason that has been suggested was a treaty signed by the galactic powers. Under-armed ‘reconstruction cruisers’ would fail to be a galactic threat during the wide neutral zone era of the trade war.

Sure, no one expected it to last forever, no one thought there wouldn’t be some stretching of the rules or even outright cheating, but it would be much better than nothing. The fact that the cruiser could be easily and rapidly up gunned through engineering forethought (putting a drone rack where a photon could be mounted, excessive shuttle bays, building a PL-L in a room large enough for a PL-S, increasing the drone throughput by using a dual magazine rack, 24-point photons) is critical to the Xork defense.

I’d prefer not to define this treaty too specifically. Instead provide some basic guidelines and let the SSDs and BPV speak for the framers intent.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 06:03 am: Edit

Well I for one am not an advocate of the uebermunchkin X2 starship, and the "gunnery" layouts should be near Y168 levels, but I don't think a treaty needs to be the reason for it.

But hey, this is fiction so we can do whatever we want with it. If SVC thinks an "arms limitation" treaty is the way to go . . . I'm still spending my money on the finished product.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of nifty ideas that could go into a treaty like this (call it SALT, "Space Arms Limitation Treaty"???), I just think economics and technology should be the restrictions rather than diplomacy. Still, as has been stated before, diplomacy in this case could be driven by economics and technology.

Maybe I'm just spitting in the wind.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 09:37 am: Edit

So you are proposing a Washington Naval Treaty for the end of the General War.

So, the Gorn and Feds honor it, and everyone else makes the best darned thing they can.

Great idea there.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 09:46 am: Edit

Well, for what it's worth, I mostly agree with Brodie on this one (mostly). My preference would be for 2X cruisers that approximate 1X cruisers in total combat power because they have better technology but are not maxed out in weapons/power systems the way 1X ships generally are. And I also am not a big fan of the "treaty" as the driving mechanism for this.

After the GW/ISC Pacification/Andro Invasion, I believe that the basic infrastructure of most of Alpha Sector would be in shambles. The critical task for the various races would be re-establishing this infrastructure rather than producing new warships. I would like to see 2X ships with lots of labs/cargo/NWO/shuttlecraft to perform the many tasks associated with this rebuilding effort. When the Xorks show up, much of this lab/cargo/etc. would be converted to power or weapon systems, just as happened with MY designs prior to/during the GW. Some designed-from-the-ground-up-as-warships vessels might also appear at this time. This seems to me a more solid foundation for 2X ship evolution than trying to define some treaty.

But that's just my .02 quatloos worth.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 09:50 am: Edit

Well, I think that's sort of the point, isn't it? We know it's going to be broken; it's just a matter of when.

Let me see if I understand this. The reason a treaty is being discussed for the background is to provide an excuse not to have XBCH's and such right away in Y205, is that right? Specifically, it is meant to limit the number of Phaser-5's on new ships. Sound about right? Well, then, it might be broached like this.

Once the Andro invasion and Op Unity are over, everyone is going to be in pretty sad economic shape. There are huge devestated zones between empires, and everyone is going to want a little breathing room. A treaty would be ideal, even to those who intend to break it, because it does give them time to regroup, re-establish colonies and industry on worlds in their territory, and to build up their shattered fleets. Agreeing to limitations to gain that time makes sense. The Feds would honor it, as would the Gorns and ISC. The Klingons, Lyrans and Romulans wouldn't feel terribly obligated to, but are in such poor shape they really can't afford to break it, at least not significantly. If it gives ten years of relative peace (Trade War period), everyone benefits. After that 10 years, you might start seeing some of the empires begin to openly break it. The Klingons might, for example, be the first to deploy an XBCH, or even an XDN (should they ever come to light at all).

If this idea isn't appealing, then just impose a technology limitation; no first run X2 ship can carry more than 8 spaces of Phaser-5's. Give it whatever techno-babble you want. It wouldn't be the first time that weapons were limited.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 10:06 am: Edit

Mike,

I think you and I generally agree about the economic state of the galaxy during the early X2 period. Where we disagree, I think, is with the idea that a treaty is the best way for preventing XBCHs and such. During the early "trade wars" period, XBCHs wouldn't be built because they aren't very useful under that particular set of circumstances. What would be needed would be general-purpose ships that are still powerful enough to travel through a dangerous galaxy. But ships that can do nothing but fight would be an inappropriate expense for the Klingons as much as for the Feds, until the work of re-establishing infrastructure is well under way.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 10:15 am: Edit

I agree. There seems to be some desire, though, to have this treaty as part of the background material. The Klingons would sign it knowing they couldn't break it anyway, and knowing as well that if they didn't they might have to go right back to war again.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 12:59 pm: Edit

The _______ were weak post Andro War. The treaty doesn't limit them as much as it limits their enemies. Knowing they are safe from invasion, at least in the short term, gives them the opportunity to focus on reconstruction.

I like the term 'Reconstruction Cruiser'.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 06:38 pm: Edit

Exactly.

It's not that anyone does/doesn't break the treaty, they can't *afford* to break the treaty in any significant way.

With an (admittedly artificial) cap on the upward spiral of arms buildup. Nobody breaks the treaty because (for a while) they can't afford to court war with the neighbors.

The treaty could reasonably be phrased in terms of standard technology with unforseen consequences:

"A cruiser shall not mount more than 8 offensive phasers. An offensive phaswer may be replaced with two defensive phasers. Two offensive phasers may be replaced with three dual-use offensive/defensive phasers."

The intention being a reference to the P-1/2/3 paradigm. This provides a rationale for improved weapons rather than grater numbers.

Natrually,when the P-5 is deployed everyone will call IT the "offensive phaser" and start saying their "dual-use" phaser is now the P-1.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 08:44 pm: Edit

Before we go too far down this path again, I would suggest that everyone read the two years worth of archives that are sitting at the top of this topic.

A lot of this stuff was hashed out then, and is sitting there waiting to be read and rediscovered.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 09:39 pm: Edit

I am not sure I see agreement in the past discussions (lots of good ideas) and general postions on X1R, XP, and X2.

For a treaty cruiser I suggest an X1R version of the CAR+ (not a conversion to a CX). It would be an expression of mature X technology in a standard cruiser. I would keep the same systems and weapons layout. The only change would be to add 2 C warp to the saucer (warp engine would remain 2x15 box engines). The BPV would be slightly over that of a DDX.

It would be a more advanced X ship that the first generation so it would not need the special crews of the CX, and DDX class ships. In a way it is a bridge between X1 and X2.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 04:46 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I am not sure I see agreement in the past discussions (lots of good ideas) and general postions on X1R, XP, and X2.

---

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 09:52 am: Edit

Lets not go this way again.

Players who purchase 2X will want the ships to have a signifigant advantage/improvement. If they don't have a signifigant advantage then why bother playing/buying the stuff in the first place. He already has 1X tech and will write 2X off as a bad idea. Meaning it won't sell well. Which means it won't drive further game expansion. That means it's a waste of ADB's time and resources.

Just go onto the web and come up with your own flavor of 2X if the official doesn't meet at least your basic perception of what 2X is.

IOW:
2X ships must have at least the same combat and defensive ability of 1X. (Even if of a different flavor.)

The power to use these capabilities must be present.

Meaning that a 2X ship should have more or equal combat ability of an 1X ship of the same class. So a XCL should be capable of dealing 1-1 with a CX (Of the same race.) (After all this game is known as Star Fleet BATTLES. The combat aspects must work before we can get anything else done.)

And it must be interesting/challenging to play.

If we don't meet these criteria then we have wasted all our time and SVCs time/bandwidth.

I'm going back to concentrating on Shield Galaxy stuff for now, since it has a chance of being published in the foreseeable future. When the discussion gets back to practical matters I might get involved again.

PS TOS I'll get around to uploading the last of the 1XR Klingons I got next week after I re-proof them.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 10:05 am: Edit

IMO thats what 2X is about. Improved capabilities for ships balancing out the reduction of sheer fire power.

Even with a treaty. No one is going to build a 2X ship thats inferior to the equivalent 1X ship. There has to be some form of compensation. Especially if Outstanding crews will be lifted for X1.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 02:13 pm: Edit

That's my take as well. Early-X2 is offensively not as potent as X1, but defensively tougher, and more flexible all around.

Flexible is a generic word here, but basically means tailored energy use and damage shunting (for example).

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 03:07 pm: Edit

The CX for its time represents the maximum combat capability for an SC3 ship (In the Unity campaign you can replace a DN with a CX). It is the end point of the CA, CC, CCH, and BCH progression. It would seem to me that the X2 analog to the CX would be the XBCH. The second generation X cruiser (XCA) would be the CA for this time period. This leaves plenty of room between these 2 ships for other X2 ship classes.

Is my analysis accurate or am I off base here?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 06:33 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

2X ships must have at least the same combat and defensive ability of 1X. (Even if of a different flavor.)

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 07:09 pm: Edit

Oh, spare me...

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 07:58 pm: Edit

Time to visit the archives again, especially since a lot of these ships haven't seen the light of day since fall 2003.

MJC, I just saw your ships for the first time today. My opinion: What the CA is to the BCH, so are the other propsoals compared to yours. I think your ships should be a starting point for the Y225 ships, while the other proposals are the starting point for Y205's ideas.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 08:00 pm: Edit

Look, your; four Photons, two GX-racks and 8Ph-5s, at first looks weaker on a Fed XCA than what the CX has, but after you add in the extra warp power, realise what the X2 Photons are capable of, acount for the effect that the extra shielding and A.S.I.F. have on the defensive qualties of the ship and you realise it's actually a better ship then the CX ( well worth the 300-330 BPV price tag on the SSD ).

And I think that's the way XCAs should be..."cheaper looking" because no one can afford to make an SSD with a truckload of weapons boxes but still able to go toe-to-toe with an ISC CCX and make a good account of itself.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 08:17 pm: Edit

J.T.:

Yeah...I agree but the ISC CCX and Orion CX need to be acounted for.
If a I build a FED XCA and it comes in at 220 BPV and it's the best of my brand new ship designs then I'm pretty much giving the Orions a free hand.
I should atleast be making them pay to take that cargo by having a ship not only in the feild but also in the ship yards that has a chance to bring them down.

If I have to send a CX & a DDX of to bring down a n Orion CX then that's two areas where a Klingon C7 just got a free hand in what ever activity it wants to do on my boarder.

The CXs and XCAs are forcing BCHs and CWs and DWs to go the way of the dodo ( due their lower strategic speed and cost in crew wages ) and by building a ships that can get to where that Orion CX is opperating but can't FORCE THE ORION TO STOP is probably a bigger waste of money than keeping all those CWs, DWs and BCHs running with their increadible wages bill.

I guess playtesting will prove which ships can fend of the ISC CCX and Orion CX and which ones can't and which ones are too much of a walk over.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 08:33 pm: Edit

On a Side note of Photons almost any improvement will do. Even if Photons can just fastload 16 point Photons in a single turn ( ahh, a tautology ) then it'll be keeping up with six Disruptors with built in UIM.
R8 6 Disruptors with built in UIM, 5/6 x 6 x 6 => 30 points of damage per turn.
R8 4 Fastloaded 16 point Photons, 3/6 x 16 x 4 => 32 points of damage per turn.

R0 6 Disruptors, 6/6 x 10 x 6 => 60 points of damage per turn.
R0 4 sixteen point Photons, 6/6 x 16 x 4 => 64 points of damage per turn.


So basically so long as the Photons of the XCA are "better in some way" than those of the CX the XCA will keep up with CX opponents it's likely to run across from time to time.


The thinking of the admirals ( as I would see it ) would be that if the XCA meets a DXD that's UPTO NO GOOD and doesn't have the ability to stop it; then the whole point of a new design high technology ship will be of very little value indeed.

By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 07:05 am: Edit

Increasing capabilities and defenses is definitely the way to go for X2.

With X1 ships, there is the "eggshells with sledgehammers" problem. This is reduced now by removing overloaded phasers, but it's still an issue. X1 shields are thicker and have more reserve power, but the ships themselves aren't any tougher than MY ships from 70 years previous. This reduces the importance of maneuver and tactics and maximizes the importance of firepower. Which is sort of boring.

The other thing that needs to happen for X2 is the return of diversity. In X1 there is a lot of sameness, largely due to convergence on the one-size-fits-all best solution. For the MY/GW era:
Klingons, Lyrans and Hydrans have trouble making P1's, so they use P2's. In X1, everybody's got P1s.
All the drone using races have different drone racks, depending on their doctrine. Kzinti C-racks for throw weight, Fed G-racks for multi-role capability, Klingon B-racks for long battles. In X1, everybody's got GX racks, because they are unequivocally, all-around better than all the other options.
Everyone's got an outstanding crew.
Loss of racial 'flavor'. Lyran power shortages, Kzinti weapons shortages, Klingon mutiny and "cheap junk" construction style, Romulan general weirdness, all disappears.

If X2 is supposed to start off with a MY-style, "general peace with occasional strife" the races should return to the design philosophies that brought them to have racial flavor in the first place. Kzintis and Lyrans should build ships to fight themselves rather than their enemies, Feds should sacrifice combat performance for strategic range and scientific capability, Klingons should go back to cutting corners, Romulans should continue to deal with multiple mutually incompatible ship types, etc.

I don't like the "treaty" idea and I really don't understand why so many people think it has to be done. If you go with a treaty, you end up with ships that are equal or worse than their predecessors, and no one is going to want that.

War cruisers/destroyers, BCHs, other "firepower first" ship designs make sense in a war, but not during peace, or even semi-peace. CW/DWs cost too much to operate compared to their multipurpose peacetime abilities, BCHs cost too much to build to send on patrols. These ships wouldn't be built during peacetime, even if it were technologically possible, because it wouldn't be economical.

The same would hold true for X-equivalents of these same classes. An X-BCH can't be built the minute X tech is invented, and by the time it can be built, it isn't needed... until war breaks out again. The same evolution of design that worked during the GW era will work during X1, and X2 eras as well.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 11:12 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I don't like the "treaty" idea and I really don't understand why so many people think it has to be done. If you go with a treaty, you end up with ships that are equal or worse than their predecessors, and no one is going to want that.

---

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 12:39 pm: Edit

I think the primary force that would preclude such a treaty is uncertainty.
•The Andromedans may come back (With newer technology!)
•The ISC may return
•No one knows for sure what the rest of the galaxy holds
•And who are these scary people in the Omega Sector?

Or put another way I have no doubt that such a treaty might be negotiated-or even signed but like the similar treaties in the wake of WWI it will quickly be left in the dust...
regards
Stacy