Archive through February 03, 2005
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 Frigates and Destroyers.: Archive through February 03, 2005
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 01:18 am: Edit

This is the thread to debate smaller X2 craft such as the XFF and XDD of each race.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 03:27 am: Edit

Here's where I stand on the Fed XFF.

It should be a Fed FFX with the following changes.

The LS & RS pairs of Phasers hould be replaced with one Ph-5 (each pair) and the FH Ph-1 should become a Ph-5...after a refit the ship will have total of 5Ph-5s.
The Photons should be upgraded to 24 point photons and the shields should be improoved to 30 all round shield boxes.
The Engines should add in an extra 4 warp engine boxes for total of 20.


I think the Fed XDD should be a DDX with the following cheanges.
40 all round shield boxes.
2 24 point photon torpedoes reiftted to 3 and then 4.
The Warp engine boxes should have 6 extra ( total 20 ).
The LS/FH/RS Trios of Ph-5s should be replaced by pairs of Ph-5s.

The Feds orgininally agreed to a 3 Photon limit onm their DDs and built XDDs with 2 in the beleif that 1) it would be cheaper to make the heavy weapon supplies of the XDD and XFF identical and 2) the fact that in one turn the ship could hurl the same expected heavy weapon damage as four 12 fastloaded photons was considered enough.
Indent After a Fed XDD was crippled by a BCJ in "flying the Jolly Roger", the UFP went to the three photons ( althouhgh it took them a long time to refit all the destroyers ) and again after hostilities broke out as the treaty was found to be unworkable, the XDD got both the upgrade to the forth Photon Torpedo and the trios of Ph-5s instead of pairs.


The Klingon XF5 should be a Klingon FX with the following changes.
The Phaser should stay the same but there should be a refit for the boom phaser to be increase to Ph-5s.
The Shields should gain 3 shield boxes to all sheilds.
The Disruptors should be intergrated UIM/Defrac with a 4 point Disruptor Caps and a 6 impulse double broadside limit...the Disruptors should get 6 point Disruptor Caps after the refit that added in the Ph-5s.
The Warp engines should gain 4 extra boxes for a total of 28.

The Klingon XDD should be the XD5.
It should be a D5X with all phasers being Ph-1s ( refitted to Ph-5s after the refit ).
It should have 6 extra warp engine boxes and 6 extra shields boxes on each sheild.
It should have Disruptor Caps and intergrated UIM/Defracs and a 6 impulse double broadside limit.


The Fed XCA should be a Fed CX with the following change, 24 point photons, the 4 FH Ph-1s beome a pair of Ph-5s, the 360 degree Ph-1s become Ph-5s, the LS and RS Trios of Ph-1s become Pairs of Ph-5s ( aftere the refit the XCA has all 12 phaser spots as Ph-5s ).
It has four 24 point Photons.
It increase the shields to 48/40/40/40 and increase the warp engine boxes to 48 ( instead of 40 ) and adds a further 2 saucer warp engine boxes.

The Klingon XD7 will have all Ph-1s ( refitted to all Ph-5s ) and 4 intergrated UIM/Defrac six impulse double broadside disruptor caps driven Disruptors...latter refitted to 6.
It should also have 6 space X2 A-racks and after a refit increase those to 8 space B-racks and add in an X2 E-racks.
It should increase the number of warp engine boxes to 48 and increase the sheilds to, 48/44/42/40.

As can be seen the Feds will have the Better XCA before the refits when they become very even but the Klingons will counter that by having the better XDD on account of the 4 X2 G-racks.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 12:33 pm: Edit

Michael:

If we seem to be having so much trouble nailing down the cruisers, why open a bigger can of worms by going to the smaller units now? Still, a couple of comments / questions.

"it would be cheaper to make the heavy weapon supplies of the XDD and XFF identical"
Um, a Photon Torpedo ia an energy weapon with a physical component, and I don't think that the Federation would be so dumb as to place two different models of launcher in the fleet. As the launchers are identical and the torpedo casings are identical, HOW could the supplies between a frigate and destroyer be any different? They would have the same replacement parts and torpedo housings.

"The Fed XCA should be"
I thought that this discussion was for DD and FF huls, not a place to preach about your visions of XCAs.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 01:58 pm: Edit

MJC, I still have your Fed XDD. We never finished it; if you like, we can, and we'll post it. That makes it much easier to grasp.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 05:34 pm: Edit

X1 showed friates are clay pigeons.

Why would anyone waste the resources making a XFF?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 05:59 pm: Edit

Ah at last!

John, exactly, hence why I designed them the way I did, as support craft ONLY. With no main combat designs. My XFF proposals consist of Scouts, drone support, Fast Supply and Police type designs. These are the ships that free up larger ships from menial tasks for which they have no time for. Most will be designed to land or will have a class which can land.

For instance, my Fed X2 proposal will have two Frigate classes. One is Star Fleet Navy and the other is Federation under control of Star Fleet. The second sound odd but the point is that the second is rarely put in harms way except where unavoidable. Since it can land, it might be used as a Troop ship, but I have another proposal that would make that less sensible.

After X1 small ships become too vulnerable and are removed from combat planning. The XDD is the smallest Combat design. All races come to this logical conclusion.

In case your wondering, yes, my XFF is slightly smaller but armed with X2 technology. The Fed XFF is also X2 but lacks some of the more combat oriented technologies (like Special Bridge and ASIF). This makes them cheap to build but able to keep up with the times. The Naval XFF is built by Star Fleet and its usual contractors. The other is built by new independent contractors and is acquired easily in greater numbers. The Feds are first to adopt this and other races that have similar needs follow suite with in a couple years.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 06:31 pm: Edit

I went even further than that; I didn't even develop them, after I got a feel for how small they were. Support craft is an interesting approach, though.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 07:10 pm: Edit

Well, there is just SO many missions to be done that tere needs to be a certain number of individual units and there definatly don't need to be all large.

Frigates have the vertue of being cheap to build, maintain, and crew wile in numbers also bennifit from force dynamics. That is a Frigat pair can do quite well against a heavy cruiser. So, a frigate squadron can perform two or three separate mission in near proximity (i.e the same F&E hex) simultaniously but also come together to handle sizable threats, all the time being cheaper or similar in cost to have and use than a single larger ship. Frigates give young Officers a chance at command; a vital stepping stone to supply larger ships with properly experienced Commanders.

X2 eliminates some of the force dynamic of multiple small units because they can just stomp them one at a time quickely and from longer range. So Frigates are eliminated from combat missions (preferably) but their presence is still required for their other missions.

One mission I see is after a XCC gains control of a new system (via combat or negotiation or whatever) thay call in the support squadron. This would be two to four Frigates with maybe a XDD for initial protection. The XCC would remain on station while the XFFs do the running back and forth, establishing the first secure lines. Once things are secure and established, the XCC would leave and the XDD or XCM would provide local security. Freighters would then begin the big work and the XFFs would either continue with fast opperations or move to another mission.

Something I've left out is that I'm proposing a new freighter type that will augment the current fleet. It has a rack system that mounts multiple smaller sized Cargo (or variant) containers. All X2 ships will have provisions to mount Containers;two max. (This lessens the need for Tugs.) The Cargo Container has four cargo boxes. The New Freighter is X1 tech. and can move at fleet speeds though cannot maneuver like an X2 ship. It still has some limitations due to it's being a freighter. It does, however, out perform the current freighter design. Introduced in Y205-8 quadrant wide.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 09:22 pm: Edit

I agree with what Loren had said a few months back.

The Trade Wars should have a feel closer to Y150 than Y180.

In Y150, there were CCs, CAs, CL/DDs, FFs.

RoleY150Y205
EnforcerCC(DN)XCA/XCC
WorkhorseCAXCL
General dutyDD and FFXDD
SupportAny varientXFF


The enforcer role is for the biggest ship available. Usually this ship is the flagship of the fleet, and if the empire has to send THIS ship out to take care of pirates, it means they want to get rid of the pirates once and for all in that sector.

The workhorse role is for the biggest, yet still common, ship. It is designed as a multi-role ship that can take on any mission assigned, including commanding a squadron. In Y205, the MC 2/3 ship fills this role, as it is a true cruiser. In Y150, the MC 2/3 ship hadn't been invented yet.

The general duty role is when an empire needs to show a presence but the issue isn't big enough to send a cruiser. Convoy escort, research, rescue, and a ship-of-the-line role.

The support role is for the specialized varients. Minesweepers, commando, scout, etc. In Y150, whatever was available was used. In Y205, the frigates fill the role due to the limits of The Treaty. Many empires are forced to make most of their bigger ships capable of handling frontline combat, so the frigates have to fill in.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 11:02 pm: Edit

Quote:

MJC, I still have your Fed XDD. We never finished it; if you like, we can, and we'll post it. That makes it much easier to grasp.


I'l email some stuff to you, as I want to cover the functionality of the ASIF and.

Note all X2 designs I would put forwward have S-bridge, ASIF and Full X-Aegis.


Quote:

X1 showed friates are clay pigeons.

Why would anyone waste the resources making a XFF?


My theory is that all X2 Cruisers and Destroyers got a size class increase and thus there were a lot of shipyards that couldn't build XDDs but could build XFFs.

Also consider the Firepower of such a ship and her defensive capabilities.
A CARa+ firing at R8 is dishing up, 2/6 x 4 x 16 photon damage against ( there is a +1 shift in play defending the XFF and a -1 when attacking ( Ahh the Joys of 9 points of BTTY )) and 1.5 points of damage per Ph-1 ( and has four bearing ) for a total of 27.33 points of DF damage ( the CARa+ is probably running the G-rack as an ADD-8 ) and strikes a 30 box shield.
The XFF fires 2Ph-5s and two 24 point photon torpedoes for 40 points of damage ( thanks to the EW ) against a 28 box shields with possibly 4 BTTYs.
The 2X2 G-racks will probably be kept pretty busy and keep busy the ADD-8 and the 2Ph-3s.


And that would be the Admiralty thinking...with the new EW and the powerful new phaser ( without EW it's a little weak until it moves to the Phaser refit ) suite and sup'ed up photons, it can be considered able to take the place of older heavy cruisers...and what's more it it choose to run, only another X2 craft can catch it.


I can see XFFs being used for a whole host of missions, including but not limited to, carrier escorts ( does an really survive battle better than an XFF!?!...and with S-bridge drone knock-downs it might be hard to claim that the NER is better at defending the carrier ), picket duty, free ranging missions, search & Destroy anti-prirate work and front line combat mixed into GFW fleet, it's as deadly a CARa+ ( maybe more ) so you'ld be nuts not to fill your one smaller X ship spot if you had the BPV for it ( although if you listen to me there should be more spots ).


Quote:

I went even further than that; I didn't even develop them, after I got a feel for how small they were. Support craft is an interesting approach, though.


I would have gone the otherway and given the XFF more powerful capasitites than her strikely combat related breathen.

Consider this one...before a scenario an XFF may be announced as the escort for one carrier in the scenario ( assuming there is one ) and then has the ability to loan ECM to the fighters of that carrier as though that XFF was the carrier that launched the fighter squadron.
If the XFF player chooses to and there is a drone Bombardment ship then he may loan ECM to any drones in one hex ( upto 12 ) as the drones were fighters.
Even if there is no carrier and no drone Bombardment ship, the XFF may loan ECM to it's own drones as though those drones were a squadron of fighters launched from the XFF.
Because the XFFs were designed by designers who were almost totally concerned with carrier escorting, the XFFs got this ability but none of the other X2 ships did...possibly with the exeption of an XDE.


Quote:

X2 eliminates some of the force dynamic of multiple small units because they can just stomp them one at a time quickely and from longer range. So Frigates are eliminated from combat missions (preferably) but their presence is still required for their other missions.


Again it depends on the design.

A Fully refitted XFF ( as listed above ) would be able to give a DDX a pretty good run for it's money.
System XFF+ DDX
Obiquing Phasers 3Ph-5s 6Ph-1s
Centerlining Phasers 5Ph-5s 9Ph-1s
Photons-two turns Two 24 point Photons Four 16 point Photons
Photons-one turn Two 16 point Photons four 12 Point Photons.
Sheild #1 30 32
Shield #2-6 30 32
Warp Power 21 28
Impulse 3 4
BTTY 3 x 4 3 x 3
MC 0.33 0.5
EW 8 8
Drones 2X2 G-racks 2X1 G-racks
H.K. 3.5 (Note S-Bridge) 2.5
Sheild #7 60 ( with ASIF 74 ) 76

The XFF+ might not win in a sttraight stand up fight with the XDD but it'll come sure close.

Besides which, XFFs make really good pick-up battles for X2 Vs GW where an NCA or CARa+ goes up against an XFF.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 11:25 pm: Edit

Quote:

The support role is for the specialized varients. Minesweepers, commando, scout, etc. In Y150, whatever was available was used. In Y205, the frigates fill the role due to the limits of The Treaty. Many empires are forced to make most of their bigger ships capable of handling frontline combat, so the frigates have to fill in.


Actually I can see Frigate Design being as much an outworking of THE TREATY as the shift in SC of the XCA and XDD.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 11:29 pm: Edit

The majority of skirmishes fought in the Trade Wars would indeed but between smaller ships. Frigates and Destroyers. But thats not ever been uncommon.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 01:24 pm: Edit

The FF may not be useless in X2 but it has ceased to be a viable ship for squadron or fleet duty. Any DF fleet can wreck a frigate at range 30.

There may be small duties there for a FF to do, but where in that equation is the requirement for them to be XFFs?

Especially when we have a wealth of war-production DDs and CWs for the job?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 01:57 pm: Edit

There is no requirement but I have a new design this has to be new to do the job (old designs wont work) and the best technology is applied. This also makes them more survivable, which is important. But this is unique to my proposal. There will be different reasons for different proposals.

I did just have what might be a goofy idea that could breath new life into the FF. Some sort of active Electronics that allows SHIPS of small size, like Frigates, to appear smaller and thus bennifit from a modified "Small Target Modifier" rule. Probably use the STM chart for fighters and add five to each range catigory. That would make FF much more survivable at extreme ranges. Allow it only to work with very small craft, say MC 1/3 and or 1/4, whith PF being too small to be equipped by it. Perhaps the devices roots come from old cloaking technology that everyone would have some sample of. (The Feds, Gorn, and ISC through captured samples and the Klingons and allies through trades from the past.) Would make the Tholian PC stand up better, too.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 09:08 pm: Edit

Quote:

The FF may not be useless in X2 but it has ceased to be a viable ship for squadron or fleet duty. Any DF fleet can wreck a frigate at range 30.


I wonder if that is true.

Since there will be hardly any GW big fleets we can assume that this will be an X squadron of some kind that will be fighting this battle.

Let's say an XCC, 2XDDs and 2XFFs are to fight 3CX an SCX and a 2DDX.

At R25 the X1 squadron fires everying at the XFF.
The XFF is flying an ECM drone and generating 6 ECM for a mimiumim of a +1 shift.

The X1 fleet fires (3 lots of 9 Ph-1s +2 lots of 6 Ph-1s for) 30Ph-1s with a -1 shift at R25. The X1 fleet also fires ( five ships all with 4 Photons ) 20 Proximity Photons at the Frigate (although it will probably fire alternating pairs to deal with the fact that fastloads can't fire at this range ).
The combines effect of this damage is ( 0.166 x 30 + 1/3 x 4 x 20 ) 31.66 points of damage.

With 9 BTTY and all round 30 box sheilds that XFFs isn't going down in a hurry! And with the ASIF bumping it up to XDD levels of Shield #7 it'll get into and out of battle, a fair bit before it's too damaged to continue.
It's cheap, it doesn't pop during the inital lead-in stages and it's got some goodly antidron abilities ( an extra S-bridge, Rapid pulsed anythings and 2 X2 G-racks is kinda helpful in a fleet battle, even after the firigate has taken 18 internals ).

Even when playing without EW, the 15 points of phaser damage and 40 points of Proxi photon damag isn't going to Kill an XFF that's running an ASIF.
55-30-9...16 internals is bad for weapon losses but won't really destroy the ability to fly in with the fleet, launch a drone and S-bridge a few drones, and defense is what an FF does in a fleet.


Quote:

That would make FF much more survivable at extreme ranges. Allow it only to work with very small craft, say MC 1/3 and or 1/4, whith PF being too small to be equipped by it.


I was just thinking, if the Lyrans X2 PFs had that it might be the reason why the PFs didn't die out completely.


What about X2 EM got a hell of a lot better, using a randomised computer to control the movement that inhearently used chaos theory fluctuations to alter the coase of the vessel.
One odf the outworks of chaos theory fluctions is that larger ships are naturally more stable than smaller ships, consequently, the smaller a the ships it the more dynamic it's EM is.
Say 3/4 and up X2EM works as +5 bonus both ways.
3/4 to 1/2; X2EM works as a +6 Defensive bonus +5 Offensive Bonus.
1/2 to 1/4; X2EM works as a +7 Defensive bonus +6 Offensive Bonus.
1/4 and down; X2EM works as a +8 Defensive Bonus +6 Offensive Bonus.

In this way X2 frigates become much more survivable than their X1 counterparts.


Now here's a wild concept.
The X2 EM is a controlled by a computer to make the micro changes and all enemy X2 ships have a computer to track these micro changes and extrapolate the next micromanouver of the ship.
For every full 20 impulses ( keep adding in each impulse ) that the X2 ship spends undergoing EM the enemy X2 ships shall be become more able to extraplolate the next micromanouver of the ship and therefore reduce the defensive ECM generated by the EM of the defending ship by 1 point of ECM ( upto all the ECM generated by the EM ).
Each ships EM period is recorded seperately but a ship may only record one impulse of EM in any one impulse ( if no ships are generating EM on an impoulse reguardless of how many were generating on previous impulses;- no impulses of EM may be recorded for that impulse ).
An X2 ship has the right to jump back normal EM proceedures ( which do not count as EM impulse for the enemy tracking purposes ).

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 09:39 pm: Edit

MJC, There's no need for a gadget. Simply make the ship Nimble. Then at R15 it will receive the STM. Which gets surseded by EM if the unit uses EM.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 09:39 pm: Edit

MJC, There's no need for a gadget. Simply make the ship Nimble. Then at R15 it will receive the STM. Which gets superceded by EM if the unit uses EM.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 12:16 am: Edit

Kenneth, your right. (as I smack myself in the back of my head.)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 01:59 pm: Edit

Nimble ships are usually short on space.

perhaps some "small ship stealth" design that allows ships to be larger than older types of nimble but still be treated as if nimble...

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 03:07 pm: Edit

One could say that it's a vertue of small X2 hulls. That is the ship I'm considering as nimble would only be a few boxes larger than other nimble types. I'd say a ship with in eight boxes of an LR would still work. (not counting extra power from X2 warp.)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 07:30 pm: Edit

Why not open it up to any MC = 1/3 warship as an X2-only.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 08:46 pm: Edit

Quote:

MJC, There's no need for a gadget. Simply make the ship Nimble. Then at R15 it will receive the STM. Which gets surseded by EM if the unit uses EM.



I'ld really rather push up the value of the EM so it could be used for all but the last few impulses of the attack run.

Chaos Theory computer Controlled EM coupled with higher EM beneis for smaller ships sounds to me like the right mencanism for letting smaller ships survive better in fleet and Squadron battles.

Making the chaos Theory Control computer completely intergated into X2 systems means that X1 & X2 can't just buy a PC and get a retro-refit and we can put in a line about a complete overhaul to give X1 and GW ships this capasity would cost almost as much as building a new X2 frigate so it was never done.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 10:00 pm: Edit

MJC,

Your XDD SSD is on the way. Look it over, let me know what to change, and we'll go from there.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 05:31 pm: Edit

I love Chaos Theory! It was my the topic of my graduate thesis. Chaos Theory, contrary to popular notions, does treat chaotic phenomena (water flow, airflow etc. ) as HAVING patterns that can be predicted. It's not a theory on 'randomness'.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 11:17 pm: Edit

The best way I can explain Chaos Theory is "patterns in the randomness and randomness in the patterns".


Garth L. Getgen,
USAF Weather Forecaster

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation