Garth, being a weatherman YOU would know about that more than most!

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 11:29 am: Edit

But of course. Chaos Theory was discovered by a meteorologist, after all.


Garth L. Getgen

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 09:35 am: Edit

And now away chaos, away!!!!!!!!!

I thought giving nimble status to 2X FFs and movement cost 0.25 would give the advanced feeling of better materials, technology, and help out its survivability.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 10:30 am: Edit

What that will accomplish is a ship that never moves any speed less then maximum. This removes an important variable from the game.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 04:35 pm: Edit

I agree, however it would not be so if OTHER power requirements are needed, i.e. 2X weapons, 2X defensive needs, etc.

I look at what a GW cruiser could dish out or a X1 DD could dish out.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 05:06 pm: Edit

I agree.

We've batted about the idea of FFs getting a few bennies such as always being nimble or or always getting small target mods.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 05:25 pm: Edit

I feel the same way Roger. I felt X2 ships should be more maneuverable and faster due to streamlined hulls. When I looked into it further I found that the cost of arming a single overload disruptor would slow a MC=0.25 ship by 16 movement. Not many Captains would make that exchange.

Ships are already too fast, hence the need for the Sabot plasma. After running these calculations I realized that X2 ships would actually be more fun to fly if they cost more to move due to larger class hulls, with a commensurate increase in power of course.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 06:59 pm: Edit

But then it's BIGGER. BIgger means more boxes. I don't like more boxes. X1's warp has more boxes. The product would not be interesting if it was just bigger.

Man...X1 ships are fast too.

My comment about the GW and X1 equivalents touches on the reality of a small ship 2XFF needing to stand up in some way to that kind of firepower.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 07:28 pm: Edit

We can do more efficient warp, but as other people have noted, it will boil down to ship pegging the needle at 30 and 31 and not slowing down.

Which will be less fun, not more, require a speed-48 or faster sabot...

Just say "no".

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 01:24 am: Edit

Choices.

an 2x frigate can choose to fly fast

or

put power into weapons

or

put power into some new 2X defense system (shielding and/or ASIF and/or whatever)

ANd I do agree with you and Tos, flying 30 or 31 every turn makes for a boring game...it's one dimensional and munchinlike but can we find a balance, where the 2XFF doesn't have to fly 31 to survive against Late GW and X1 equivalent BPV?

And note that Late GW and X1 equivalent ships CAN and DO fly fast. That's why there is a plasma sabot rule in the first place.

I think the increased speed that *already* exists by the time 2X is supposed to appear in the timeline. That's already fixed. So my question again is what should a 2XFF be designed to do and be against these already speedy opponents?

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 08:49 am: Edit

A Frigate, even a X2 Frigate is still only 1 level removed from being an attrition unit.

I would like to see FFs armed lightly, with good speed (say average of 28 with weapons loading), and some defensive equipment of some sort. Not designed to be by itself, but rather with other forces.

DDs on the other hand are one ship that I would like to see remain a "warship". Designed to hunt and kill. A very good weapons suite, big enough to be out on its own (larger crew compliment) and high speed 25-29 with weapons loading).

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 11:25 am: Edit

I'm not sure the Frigates Captain's of X2's tradewar period are considering themselves attrition units. That's a General War concept. I would expect the Tradewars to be far less bloody.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 11:58 am: Edit

I see an 2X FF be the 'patrolship'.

Mulitrole.

can kick butt in a squadron.

can hold its own against GW CAs and X1 DDs.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 06:27 pm: Edit

How I see it:

XDN, MC 1.5 - never built.
X-tech couldn't be made to work on it, as proven by X1.
An XCA is as powerful as a DN, cheaper to build, and cheaper to maintain.
I see the DN class having a similar history to 20th century battleships; big, impressive, the king in their day, but now relegated to museums as new technology makes them obselete.

XCA, MC 1 - the flagship.
Rare, impressive, and built for the admirals.

XCL, MC 2/3 - the workhorse.
The cruiser of the fleet.

XDD - MC 1/2 - the light workhorse.
Sent when a cruiser is unavailable.
Also a large support ship in fleets.

XFF - MC 1/3 - the support ship.
Provides varients for the fleet.
Can work effectively in squadrons of 2-3.
By itself, X2's version of a POL.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Revolutionary.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 12:22 am: Edit

---

Quote:

That's already fixed. So my question again is what should a 2XFF be designed to do and be against these already speedy opponents

---

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 07:34 am: Edit

CEF, I'm with you on the basic design for the XFF. I'm thinking primarily an all-phaser ship with defensive weapons. This allows the ship to zip around for a turn or two before it has to catch its breath recharging the phaser capacitors (it then goes "totally defensive" on EW, shields, surrogates, etc.).

"Heavy" variants (XFA/XFB) would have a heavy weapon suite and exchange a couple of phasers for reactors. If you look around the X-Files you'll see some posts on my frigate ideas.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 05:11 pm: Edit

CEF and I are actually pretty much in agreement about lots of things X2. I totally agree with the destroyer description, and with the frigate. Frankly, the X2 frigates I've been toying with aren't much different than X1, though they have the different X2 bells and whistles. Still small, and better used in groups or as support ships.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 08:37 pm: Edit

I think X2 frigates should be able to hold their own fairly well, a proportional increase in warp power ( from the FFX 16 to XFF 20 ) and increasing the shields to 30 boxes all round ( from 24 on the FFX ) and suddenly you do have a ship that can met and match a CA.


You might need the ASIF and a few other things to match a CARa+ but that's okay.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 06:43 pm: Edit

Tos, were you being 'sarastic' with your 'revolutionary' comment?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 08:05 pm: Edit

Indeed. What Jeff proposed was that every class should have exactly the same movement cost and pretty much the same mission as they always had. Its a perfectly viable suggestion, but bland.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 10:51 pm: Edit

But a good idea.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 11:04 pm: Edit

A starting point.

A little bit of spice on a bland dish is good. Too much, and nobody will want it.

Edit: The galaxy in Y205 is in a similar situation as Y130. Large neutral zones, a lot of unconquered/independent territories, Galactic powers with very limited resources. I would expect similarities in the ship's roles of the two periods, even though the capabilities are vastly different.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 11:21 pm: Edit

Having MCs and SCs and Roles being the same is good because it lets people automatically know ( roughly ) what they are looking at.

Perhaps the XFF could be a never-vanilla type ship with all roles except scaled down XCA but I kinda like the idea that an NCLa+ would have a toe-to-toe slugfest with an unrefitted XFF and have a challenge on her hands.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 09:21 am: Edit

Jeff, I agree with you on the core roles, but I'm open to non-standard movement costs.

Take a Fed CX, change its MC to 1.25. Different ship, different playing experience. Now chnage it to 0.75. Again, a very different ship. Which of the three will be more satisfying to play? Dunno. Certainly the lower movement cost will be easier to play as it will have more disposable power. But is that what we want? Would it be too fast? Would the 1.25 MC version be too slow? How would the BPV change by making such a simple change?

I'd like to identify what feel we are looking for X2 to provide and then pick the ship that is the best fit. MC is a simple variable that has dramatic impact.