The ASIF I'm currently working with only protects against a few hull hits a turn, and is comparitively expensive to power. Playtesting so far shows it to be usefull, but not overwhelming. One sufficiently large alpha strike will overwhelm it and wipe out all your hull, anyway, so it isn't too bad.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 09:17 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

The MY-EY comparison nicely shows how that notion fails.

---

---

Quote:

The underlying problem is, some of us think you can make anything compatible just by throwing enough BPV points at it.

The MY-EY comparison nicely shows how that notion fails.

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 09:39 pm: Edit

Orman,

We're completely aware that tech difference + BPV difference hurts. The point was first made over a year ago, in fact.

That's why most of us are looking for a moderate BPV increase. It's why XCAs have 6-8 P-5s, for one thing, rather than using CX weapon densities.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 12:28 am: Edit

There is added logic to 8 Ph-5 instead of 12 Ph-1s.

Long term maintenance cost. Once the proto-type bugs are worked out the cost is perportionally less yet basically equal in battle effectiveness.

The Ph-5 kill two birds with one stone. It's better and more predictable and costs less. Both things every empire will require.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 07:12 am: Edit

Futhermore the 8Ph-5s are superb at longer range battles.

Consider an XFF...even if the Photons are identical to X1 photons.

Cruiser in to R12 fire a pair of Standard with 7 ECCM against say a D7bk and fire off two bearing Ph-5s and your looking at 5 points of phaser damage and 8 points of photon damage every turn ( although it'll have to eat into BTTY to run the EW if it really want to move ) and it has two X1 style G-racks.

The equivalent BPV GW ship ( the D7bk ) needs to find a new methodology to fight the X2 vessel.
Three Ph-1s and Four Disruptors at R12 are going to be doing about the same heavy weapons damage ( and the X2 Photons MIGHT have 10 or 12 point standards ) but only about 3 points of phaser damage.
The Fed XFF will have better shields ( 30 all round ) and huge amounts of BTTY to offset the lucky shot possiblity.

At R12 even with X1 standards of Photons the Fed XFF of about the same BPV will be able to generate an advantage that it can capitalise on, turn, upon turn, upon turn.
If the D7bk tries to suicide tractor it doesn't take much BTTY to build two 12 point fastloads from 2 fastloads.
If the D7bk tries to starcastle the XFF can just build a nice little pair of 16 pointers and punch a fairly big hole in the D7bk's shield at R4.


THAT is the true advantage of the Ph-5...the ability to "long lance" the GW ships into submission.
AND that will be the reason why the Admirals will try to buy as many X2 ships as they can get away with, they render the GW ships obsolete...in the minds of the Admirals anyway.


If the D7bk on the other hand can wangle the range (to R8) with a mid turn speed change with a set of four overloads and BLAM, then the XFF will have a fight on it's hands.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 06:15 pm: Edit

I need to take a detour out of X2 and into XP and X1R for the next few weeks. I invite those that wish to do so to join me. I apologize in advance for hijacking any X2 topics for the purposes of fleshing out X1R and XP.

http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/23/2695.html?1078785850

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 07:12 pm: Edit

Hijack away. Might be kind of nice.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 07:25 pm: Edit

No worries here mate! A real product certainly takes presidence in my view!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 09:42 pm: Edit

On the subject of how the Admirals would see the X2 vessels.

Consider a Federation XDDa fighting a Federation DDX.
The XDDa has 6 extra shield boxes all round, 6 extra Warp Engine Boxes, 3 Photons capable of fastloading ( I'ld like to say 12 point warheads but 10 is more palatable to the general public ) 10 point heavy standards and a suite of 6Ph-5s in the DDX arcs with an ASIF and S-bridge chucked in for good measure. Such a ship would come out at 180-200 BPV ( probably 200 ).

As a replacement for the DDX deisgn it is quite handy, it will trump a BCH unlike a DDX and will fight a DDX at a new range.

By making R12 fasloads attack runs the XDDa generates 1 hit ( her DDX opponent can generate exactly as much EW as she can ) from her three phot-torps for 10 damage and 8 points of phaser damage in an oblique whilst the DDX generates 10.66 points of photon damage ( and spends 1 point more warp power doing it ) and 6 points of phaser damage.
Since the XDDa has more warp power it can control the range and the speed and force the battle to one where it generates about 2 points of damage more and has 6 shield boxes more on all shields.
..... This creates a new style of fighting the Admirals are willing to capitalise on. It wins ( eventually ) costs about as much to build as the DDX ( in terms of ships yard limitations rather EP or Credits ) and still retains the ability to upgrade to a full 9Ph-5 suit with a fourth Phot-tude.


Victory + flexibility + exspnadability is exactly the formular the Admirals will be looking for, for their new X2 design. The fact that three Phot-tube and six Phaser-5s cost less to maintain and require fewer crew and thus is cheaper to run is an added bonus in the earlier years of the design.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 04:45 pm: Edit

Here is my own general synopsis.

1. I don't have time to do every product immediately.

2. At this moment, and for the next 4 minutes, I'm really excited about X2. But then, I'll be excited about something else in a few minutes, and even if I stayed excited about X2, I can't stop work on CL31, C5, F2, and everything else just because I got fired up about X2.

3. Assuming that I was going to work on X2 now because, say, Burnside was doing all of my CL31 stuff, it would take me entire days to read every topic and then to read them again and again until they all made sense together. I don't have the time. Were I to do this product, I would pretty much ignore all of the topics, go design what I wanted, and then read various topics looking for cool things to add or things I missed.

4. I toyed briefly today with the idea of letting you guys elect a supremo and have him go do X2 because I just don't want to do X2.

5. Seriously, what you guys should do is come up with a single list, a page long, of the key decisions to be made and the case for each possibility. THAT I could probably digest. But not before Origins and probably not before Gencon.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 05:22 pm: Edit

For a 2X Czar I'd suggest Tos. He was the person resposible for putting together the Counter List for a proposed X1R.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 09:44 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

5. Seriously, what you guys should do is come up with a single list, a page long, of the key decisions to be made and the case for each possibility. THAT I could probably digest. But not before Origins and probably not before Gencon.

---

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 11:36 pm: Edit

I agree with MJC, there should be a small number of one pagers representing our differing positions. Each one page summary should be written/edited by a single person so as to be internally consistent. I will begin working on one. Others should begin as well. We should compare notes before presenting a formal summary to SVC, but each person is responsible for the final version of his summary. We should limit our final submission to 2-4 versions.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 11:37 pm: Edit

SVC: "At this moment, and for the next 4 minutes, I'm really excited about X2."

Curious, what was it that peaked your interest?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 12:25 am: Edit

Actually Tos:

Perhaps a stylised questionaire would helpful.

E.g.

HISTORY:
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________


DESIGN PHILOSOPHY:
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________


GENERAL ( UNIVERSAL ) SYETEMS:
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________


GENERAL (RACE SPECIFIC ) SYSTEMS:
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________


WEAPONS:
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________


In this way we can all submit our thinking in a uniform manner.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 01:22 am: Edit

I'd volunteer to write a version of what my view of 2X could/should be like.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 01:22 am: Edit

Tos and MJC I think your posts are going in the wrong direction (Yes I could be wrong; not trying to be rude or argumentative).

SVC asked for "a single list, a page long, of the key decisions to be made ".

I think an example of a "key decision" is his F&E ship kill rule. In this case an example could be; should there be or not be X2 arrition units. In XP the "key decision" was should/could there be a partial x technology refit. He came up with the proposed rule and has opened it up for comment

Any of use can, based on the input guidelines, send SVC and X2 idea. I am not trying to stop anyone from doing that. I don't think though that he has asked for design ideas as the "key decisions" haven't been made.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 02:07 am: Edit

Jospeh, you are describing the difference between an integrated proposal and a list of topics in need of a ruling. Either might work, but I agree that we should self-limit what makes it into SVC’s inbox.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 02:08 am: Edit

Kenneth Jones: We would all like to do that. I'm pretty partial to my own vision but if we all do that then SVC will get a pile of e-mails he will print out and use to start a fire in his fire place where he will sit back and read a good book by.

In among the grand diction that is the X-files is a few basic concepts that were grown and explored here by us all. The paper SVC request should, IMO, review the core concepts, present a few variations to illustrate the ideas and be concise.

I have a well developed system I'd love to present and maybe could get SVC's ear since I've been producing much for him lately. But my sense of fairness will not allow that. As much as I'd like to see my own vision happen I cannot snub (or attempt to snub) my friends here in the X-Files. We must present to SVC a work that relays the core ideas of all the work done by all the good participants of the X-Files over the YEARS.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 08:09 am: Edit

Yes we should. But I haven't exactly been a minor contributor to the discussion. And unlike most of the posters I tend to have a different and more conservative view on what is needed.

At least I got one major concept included in the XP refit. (Battery Draw limitation.)

IF the 2X CZar picks me then I'll do my best to do all sides of the issue

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 09:46 am: Edit

I agree: "Key decisions" is what is needed. These of course need to be based on the SFU background material.
This stuff should be built fom bottom and up, not as an amalgation of various weapons and gadgets.

That is what I recently have tried to do in the other X2 thread: Major X2 tech changes for the BIG players.

Personally I'd like myself to approach it by a step-by-step process. But in discusions on the net it all tend to drift off course

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 11:03 am: Edit

The Tsar shouldn't pick one guy's work, he should listen to all and try to distill what is being said into 1)general concepts and 2) where needed options to reach those concpts.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 12:23 pm: Edit

I have sent e-mail to SVC to ask what HE think the main "key decisions" are to make.
Would be good to have somewhere to start.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 12:31 pm: Edit

MJC, another duty of a Czar, if we choose to have one, would also be to try keep discusions on track.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 01:33 pm: Edit

Key decisions at this point IMHO correspond to core issues of X2-ship structure. Photon torp or disruptor advantages, for example, would be getting into excessive detail.

PROPOSED X2 KEY DECISIONS LIST

I. MULTIPLE GUESS


1. Move Cost of a XCA

A. MC=1

B. MC=1.25

C. MC=.67

D. MC=1 with MC=1.25 (Still SC3) Command Cruisers

E. MC=1 evolving to MC=1.25 (Still SC3) in response to the Xorks

F. Somethng Else?


2. Common "workhorse" ship of Early X2 Era (Y205-225)

A. MC = .5 XDD

B. MC = .67 XCL or XCA

C. MC = 1 XCA

D. MC = 1.25 XCA (Still SC3)

E. Somethng Else?


3. Warp Power on a MC=1 early X2 (Y205-225) ship

A. 30-32 but greater efficiency

B. 36

C. 42 (i.e. same as X1)

D. 48

E. More/less?

F. Do away with Warp and do something else


4. New X2 Damage Mitigation Systems

A. Loren's ACIF

B. Vorlon's ACIF

C. Shunting some amount of damage to a neighboring shield

D. Secondary Shields that can be shifted to to cover or reinforce regular shields

E. Something else

F. Combination

G. Do away with shields and use something else.

H. No additions.


5. BPV low end for a MC=1 X2 Ship (X1 ships have a low-end of 250 [Fed CX] and a high end of 315 [ISC CCX])

A. Less than a CX (200 or 225)

B. Approximately equal to a CX (250)

C. Minorly greater than a CX (275)

D. Moderately greater than a CX (300)

E. Defintely greater than a CX (350)

F. Other


6. S-bridge functions (Check all that are acceptable)

[] Unblindable

[] Energy Cost as Scout Channel 1pt

[] Energy Cost: Free

[] Lend EW to Self

[] Lend ECM or ECCM to Freindly ships

[] OECM

[] Attracting Drones

[] Seeking Weapon Control

[] ID Seeking weapons

[] Detect Mines

[] Gather Information

[] Do not use S-Bridge


II. ACCEPTED OR REJECTED

1. X2 continues the Heavy-Weapon-Phaser-secondary-system dyanmic SFB has used since inception.
Accept = yes
Reject = Do something else
Maybe = Generate some other options and get back to me


2. Overall X2 evolution path is assumed to mirror MY -> General War evolution.