Archive through December 19, 2005
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
The "X" Files:
OLD X2 FOLDER:
X2 Structural Integrity Field:
Archive through December 19, 2005
Tos,
Yours and mine sound nearly identical. The only differences are that I didn't go with the damage control rating, namely because the higher repair cost of the systems I put on the ships warranted a higher DC rating than normal; the XCM and XD7 both top out at 8...too much for an ASIF, IMHO. I did make one other change due to some playtesting results. The ASIF protects up to its rating IF the ship has that many boxes left intact. For example, if I have an XCM with a ASIF rated at four, and I have only two hull boxes left, only two hits will be stopped. The reason was that it was too easy to repair a single hull box and then turn on the ASIF on full, effectively repairing seven hull per turn for the price of one. By limiting it this way, it takes away that "cheat" and helps level the playing field.
I haven't playtested so I can't say for sure, but I tend to disagree on some items.
"The problem I had with it was that the ship could take almost no damage unless the volley was large enough. It made X2 almost sniper proof."
If I take eight sniper damage and had powered eight ASIF I could lose four phasers, two warp, a torp and a drone. Ouch. You could also roll straight hull hits and I would take no permanent damage. Risky. With the amount of reserve power these hulls have snipping will be ineffective anyway unless I’m flying in a nebula.
“I didn't go with the damage control rating, namely because the higher repair cost of the systems I put on the ships warranted a higher DC rating than normal;”
I have been assuming DAMCON is on par with X1.
“the XCM and XD7 both top out at 8...too much for an ASIF”
Why? That’s 8 power to save 8 hull. I don’t consider 8 shield reinforcement too much for an XCM. Generally I would prefer not to take the 8 internals in the first place.
“The ASIF protects up to its rating IF the ship has that many boxes left intact”
That’s cool, I can live with that. In that case what box types would you count? In this instance counting control stations would seem unbalancing. Or are you saying if I have two hull and six control and put four into the ASIF then I would stop two hull damage or up to four control space damage or two hull damage and two control damage? I’d be concerned that I would have to keep track of how many of each box type I had at the beginning of the turn using the last method.
I don't...the ASIF protects hull only. It's relaly simple to use, too. Just roll your internals, and ignore the first however many hull hits you get. It can be very effective, until you start to really take some serious damage. And by serious, I mean the kind of damage that makes your cringe, like a full salvo of photons at close range.
The DamCon thing was something I did because I did make the new weapons I'm toying with more expensive to repair. The phaser-x costs more than a P1, and the new disruptor and photon do, too. Still, it sounds like we're definately on the same track.
I'm not sure about the direction that the ASIF is going, the more I listen.
Tos is right. I'd prefer 8 reinforcement to spending 8 power on an ASIF that I, in my relative inexperience, will probably have powered at the wrong time anyway. ;)
Right now I'm liking advancing Mike Raper's idea with the addition to the breakdown rating. How about paying power to allow a ship (limited?) nimble status. Or maybe spend (only during allocation) double normal cost of an HET to get an HET with no breakdown roll.
Dunno. ASIF to mitigate damange is looking less and less attractive.
In the playtesting I've done, the power to use it is well spent, and especially so once you start taking down multiple shields and the choice is powering the ASIF or general reinforcement. It was also handy when I needed to make a tight maneuver or two, and wanted that safety net on the breakdown rating.
I have a problem with lopping off damage like that.
I really think it should absorb damage incrementally.
In what way? If you mean it absorbs every x-number of hull hits rather than the first few, it doesn't work very well...we tried. The problem with doing, say, every fourth hit is that ships with very little hull, like frigates, can potentially loose all their hull with only one point being stopped by the ASIF. For example, if I have a Fed XFF with six hull. 8 or 10 points will only save 2 of my hull at most, and the rest could be wiped out; in fact, that's pretty much what happened when we tried it. The way Tos and I are suggesting gets you more bang for the buck and is truly worth the points you spend. In the above example, the XFF could have stopped up to five of those hits, saving himself a decent amount of damage. Its expensive, but can be worth it.
MOVED FROM X2 FF & DD topic:
It is the fact that BCH's couldn't handle X1-Tech that leads me to believe that X1 was a half step to X2. It is because the partial implementation of X-Tech was so definative in history that it is defined as it's own generation. Perhaps there sould never be even a term called X3 since X3 would be a new paradigm and should be something else... like Nextech... or whatever.
So, X-Technology is one thing while X1 and X2 are sub-classes of the over all technological base (X2 being the whole thing as well).
Also, the BCH thing is why I like the ASIF concept. It is a system that solves the problem that prevented the BCH size hull from handling X-Tech. The problem was that the BCH was the maximum of the core cruiser design and that design was the best that could be built. The ASIF, however, allowed hulls to be put together in new ways. This allowed BCH sized X-Hulls but also allowed Ph-5 to not cause shock and solved a host of other problems. It made for a sturdier ship and lent to the mission of a ship that preserves it's crew better while taking damage.
To me there is two things that define what X2 should be: The ASIF and the Phaser-5 we all designed on the boards. The benefits of the ASIF were never of one proposal but I think we can all agree that the core function of the ASIF, no matter what breed, is to support X2 tech as a core difference in hull design.
I propose that without the ASIF you can't have an X2 ship and you are building an X1 ship instead.
There would be three levels of function.
A zero power level. This is the basic technology of the hull design.
A Basic Power level. This provides that basic bennifits that effect tactical actions.
A High Power level or Reinforced level. This requires several times the energy for a few but effective bennefits.
==============================================
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 03:05 am: Edit
========
L.K.:
One of the advantages of a JOB LOT methodology of ASIF opperation is that it doesn't give you much choice in speed selection rendering X2 ships either travelling at GW-X1 battle speeds or not having ASIF benefit.
Making people pay ASIF for EXCESS DAMAGE boxes at the low power setting is rather good at making the system inefficent.
One of the problems with the old 2:1 reinforcement and even the current huge quantities of BTTY going to improptu specific reinfoprcement is that they are quite efficent, indeed 200% and 100% respectively.
Making people pay for boxes they don't count on using makes people less likely to want it, which offsets the fact that it is efficenet ( even more efficent than the old 2:1 reinforcement IF used correctly).
Conversely an ASIF needs to be more effcient than reinforcement lest people will never put energy into it.
This is further taken by the question of "holes" that reinforced shields won't have but certain forms of ASIF will.
===========================================
By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 11:51 am: Edit
=========
Loren, there is a problem here that so far no-one has seen
Quote:
To me there is two things that define what X2 should be: The ASIF and the Phaser-5 we all designed on the boards.
C O O K I E - C U T T E R I S M
Actually the Ph-1 is cookie-cutterism too, but it's a bit hard to rewrite that
In my project the ASIF is a Fed gizmo only, and the Ph-V table only used by the Tholians.
Few would like the Feds develop an entirely defensive system, and the Tholians would not waste money developing stuff that doesnt shoot through webs.
Everyone else get race specifik stuff; thats the natual way things evolve and is also the only way to make X2 interesting and non-X1.
====================================
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 12:46 pm: Edit
============
Those two basic technologies are hardly what define a particular ship or race tactics. So I have to disagree that it would be Cookie-cutterism.
There are basics to designing starships and when you reach one levels limits you have to build beyond those limits somehow or stop progress.
The ASIF is not a defensive system but the system that allows progress in hull design (as I propose it anyway). All ships of all races have structural integrity systems already. It's what keeps you from beaming specific people off the enemy ship, for instance. All X1 ships have problems with stress and the hulls that bear it well are the X-ships we have.
It seems to me that material selection can only go so far when dealing with the sort of stresses on starship hulls. It's seems obvious that a more advanced structural integrity system would solve a multitude of issues. So, we can stop there and say the ASIF does nothing but allow X2 ships to exist. Boring, IMO.
I would like a common system that helps to define all X2 units as X2 but doesn't define the ship. Are shields Cookie-Cutterism? Do shields define the ship?
I suppose the way a race implements the ASIF might be different but preserving the ship and crew is such a high value (especially in the post-GW/ISC/Andro years) that I'm pretty sure that all races would implement it. All races so far care about their crews. Even Andros respect that crews cost resources to build. Klingons with a 50% slave ratio would still consider their crews valuable. It takes consierable training to do anything on a starship. There aren't just ditch diggers.
Even pirates, who may otherwise care nothing if a crew member lives of dies, know that they cannot recruite crews if they are known for dying left and right. Being able to tell prospects that their chances of surviving to spend their money is better that ever before is an attractive inducement.
Experienced starship crews are extremely valuable and preserving them is a top priority of all races, the non-Federation ones most of all since their crew resource is more limited.
Well, the flaw is that real life evolution isn't X this or that; (I think it was a BIG mistake to call X1 for just *X* as it resulted in wholesale(W?) identical changes for all. Thats not how it worlks in RL.)
It would be better IMO to say X2 is the post OpU history and those ship that turned up then.
They could be very advanced, or even LESS advanced than the X1! For example, my Police design for Roms don't have either double seeking wpn contr. or ltd aegis. Definitely a step back, but for the police the ship as a whole would be a Leap forward! And consequently it could be called X2 design, since it's not in M:X1, and would appear late.
So IMO searching for something that a common system that helps to define all X2 units as X2
is wrong for precisely that reason.
It is the path to generic designs, probably designed by the pan-galactic design bureau
Yes, it's, like Ph-V, is "CC"ism IMHO.
And I don't buy that reason for protection, since fatter shields and batts would be a better route to that goal. (stop the damage with ur shields rather than ur fat!) And then it's not a weapon; The Klinks would definitely spend the research money on better weapons, And the construction money to add 7th disruptor.
Then they outgun the stupid Feds and go home with the kill, but with crew losses probaly. But then the Feds lost the whole crew.
This is the logic dictated by combat as I see it.
Carl: Real life does work that was in general. Take a look at word ship design from 1900 to present day. It's a little bouncy but in general ship design advanced fairly evenly over the decade.
Protection: Carl, you assume that I want the ASIF instead of added shields. Not true but adding shields only works so far. You cannot add an unlimited number of shields and there is also a point where it gets prohibitively expensive. Also, ships take damage while not in combat and some time when shields are down. When you can have the most efficient shield system and go further to protect lives with the ASIF then you should.
There is also a game thing here. JUst cramming on shields is BORING. What's special about that? The ASIF (in all proposals) is a tactical device that requires consideration on it's use. You can abuse it and pay the price by wasting power. It's something the enemy must consider in a different way as well. It totally changes how X2 ships will fight.
I DON'T want X2 ships to be the same old sheep in different fuz.
Quote:In my project the ASIF is a Fed gizmo only, and the Ph-V table only used by the Tholians.
Few would like the Feds develop an entirely defensive system, and the Tholians would not waste money developing stuff that doesnt shoot through webs.
Everyone else get race specifik stuff; thats the natual way things evolve and is also the only way to make X2 interesting and non-X1.
That's a fine idea, but be aware; you will make it infinitely harder to balance that way. Let's face it, Carl; certain things are the same because that's just how the game works. All Alpha ships have phasers. They all have some sort of heavy weapon. They all use shields, warp, and control spaces. This is so they can play together nicely. There's no reason to assume that just because X2 ships all use P-5's, they will be any more cookie-cutter than previous versions.
Now, about the ASIF thing. Not my cup of tea, but Loren is right. Just cramming on more shields is dull, and the uber-shields were one reason Supplement 2 was such a flop.
"Cookie-cutterism" makes ships with the same BPV, the same mission, same number of phasers, etc. Just because all races use the same phaser does not a cookie cutter make, though it could lead there.
The ASIF could be another cookie-cutter "enabler." Maybe not. It does define how a ship's internals are protected from damage. All ships have used DAMCON, and its variants. Is that cookie cutter or is that just a core concept/mechanism of the game?
ASIF and other versions of protective technology grew out of a concern that X2 ships could become "eggshells with sledgehammers." It's a just concern. The concern is that X2 ships wouldn't have enough internals to stand up to a large volume of firepower. This has branched off into several discussions that build frameworks around how X2 is defined as a SFU era. An interesting side-effect (though some started with a framework and built technology around it).
I've come to recognize ASIF as one possible technique in a core X2 concept I call "anti-eggshell technology." Under this umbrella could appear several things. Some of these might be race-specific, others might be universal. ASIF itself already has several variants. The point is there's a concept out there that ASIF is but one technique of.
The ASIF also came from a line somewhere in the rules saying that advances in structural integrity fields and hull design are what made X2 possible. Now that could be something transparent in SFB but I've always felt it was an interesting thing to bring forward as a playable function.
It also creates new dynamics so we aren't playing the same ol' SFB when we break out the X2 stuff. I'm really hoping that to play X2 you will have to develope new tactics that just don't apply backwards (this is not a backwards compatability issue).
It does go to the Anti-Eggshell issue and deals with it nicely too. But it also seems to fit what should be the efforts of the races design programs. Particularly at the end of 30 years of war ALL the races know the value of an experienced crew. It means the difference between ships that come back and ships that disappear. An experienced crew is worth the entire value of the ship each time it comes back from a dangerous mission. Preserving that crew is paramount. If a new technology can do that then it should be used.
Loren,
Quote:"I'm really hoping that to play X2 you will have to develope new tactics . . ."
Amen there! It was interesting to watch the new dynamic develop when the X-fix was underway. I hope we see more as time goes by.
On a side-note re: crew, one of the little X2 tweaks I've done is to suggest that "advanced shipboard automation" allows for a ship to have a minimum crew requirement of one less than pre-X ships, which is a dramatic change from X1 ships. This gives an X2 ship just one more chance to stay in the fight, and at a very minimal BPV cost (the equivalent of 1 crew unit).
This goes toward the notion that X2 isn't really experimental technology at all, but rather is matured advanced technology. I agree with the notion that X1 was experimental (unfinished) technology hastily employed for wartime use.
I'm a big fan of the antieggshells-with-sledgehammers feel.
I'm for:-
ASIFs.
FULL X-AEGIS.
RAPID PULSING (2Ph-6 & 3Ph-3...keeping X1 levels of phaser defense).
S-Bridge Drone Knock Downs (with reduced chance on the die roll against more expensive X1 and X2 drones to avoid making X2 drone useless).
Almost all of these will have their own tactics or atleast their own price to pay in order to have the ability.
X2 really shouldn't be more of the same only more so, it should be a new understanding of what can and can't be done and how to squeeze out from the ship a victory over an enemy that will have the advantage in sheer bulk.
On the ASIF.
One could argue that the extra weight and material of larger framework rendered X2 too costly to build and in many cases exceed the ability of manufacturers to build items of such bulk in order to support the massive engines needed to move the X2 ships at the strategic speeds of X2 ships and thus the ASIF which made the engine supports stronger were needed in order to push the ships at those strategic speeds.
So the ASIF is need for X2 but only in strategic movement. I don't want people to be forced to power the ASIF in battle but I'm okay with ( and indeed want ) all races to have ASIFs on their X2 ships.
I am not a fan of Full X-Aegis. These ships were designed during the Andro War and Full Aegis isn't worth a wooden nickle against an Andro.
Tos: That is unless you are being swarmed by MWP's.
No one will be designing the ships to be effective only against Andros. X-aegis is too valuable to give up, and frankly with limited depolyment of the P5, it's necessary in late war years for them to survive. An XCA with only 6 P5's and no defensive abilities will be easy pickings for seeking weapons.
I'm not saying give up X-Aegis, I'm saying Full Aegis is overkill.
Mike, the solution is obvious; aegis as an OPTION.
But frankly some races would not even consider it an option; The Gorn, or ISC have little use for it.
The need belong to the races on the drone side of the quadrant IMO.
The egg shell idea is not supported by the idea mentioned in X1 of basing the new X2 ships on BCH hulls. Those are allready at 100 ints plus, and then with X engines you add another 20 ints.
Then you got X shields and X-batts to boot (7-8 batts). I have found the increase in fire power
balanced by this.
Mike, it won't be harder to balance. My Fed phaser improvement for example, as can be seen in the chart on the SSD Brodie has on his web page,
do a bit more damage at range 8. That average damage is easily translated as being X number of extra ph-1s.
Carl: In regards to your Eggshell post you seem to be missing that while X2 heavies my have more internals those ships will be facing 300+BPV of enemy. The ships will put out more damage than before per hull class.
These ships will put out damage like a B-10, have BPV like a B-10 but will have far less internals than a B-10.
Eggshells...
Dear Lord I hope they don't put out B10 firepower! Can someone run some numbers on that real quick?