Mike,

Then the P5 fits in a sense between photon overloads and proximities.

What is the total warp being used now for a Fed XCA?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 12:41 pm: Edit

Joseph: Mind you this is a Board of Proposals and as such nothing is being used now. However there is some trend of proposals that began with X2 using, on the MC1 ships, 2x24 point engines. Fed and Klingon designs had saucer and boom warp but less XAPR. Impulse was at about 6 points.

There is a strong trend to reduce warp engines to 2x20 each and other power sources vary. This is still slightly more power than X1 engines wich are 2x18.

I find this acceptable too.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 01:24 pm: Edit

MJC and John Trauger;

I have to disagree strongly with both of you. The DDX has no difficutlty maintaining high speeds and has a better power curve than most X-destroyers. It generates 32 points of power, plus 9 reserve. The 32 points is superior to almost every other X-destroyer and the 9 is typical, though there are a couple (most spectacularly the Skyhawk-X) with better reserve power.

What the Fed DDX is, is overgunned. Perhaps if you reduced the weapon suite and also reduced the BPV it would be a better balanced and have more "bang for the buck". But taken as is, it canot be said to lack power. There is no requirement whatsoever that it arm every weapon it can, or that it generate maximum possible EW points. These are trade offs to be considered with other priorities, speed, tractor auctions, etc. depending on the tactical situation.

When I was first starting out in SFB, the best Federation player in our group regarded the DD as a ship with 3 photon torpedos, and the first torpedo hit against it was a "free hit". There would be specfic exceptions, such as a base assault scenario where the attackers could park and bombard. But by and large he treated the ship as a three-torpedo vessel unless there was good tactical reason to arm all four. And he got better use out of the ship than any of the rest of us did, because he better understood the trade-offs between maneuver and firepower than we did.

This is the part that seems to always brainlock MJC, who sometimes seems, judging from his posts, to operate from the assumption that you should always arm every weapon. I repeat, the Fed DDX has no problem maintaining high speeds and it has a better power curve than most DDXs. If it is unbalanced because of the firepower and therefor is less than maximally efficient for its BPV (and I'm not conceding even that), that is a different issue.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 01:40 pm: Edit

I would have thought the Fed DDX tactics to be obvious.

Open the scenario fully loaded the alternate loads so you can fire every turn after the first heavy launch. This require one turn of fast loads. Then as you play if the opertunity presents itse;f to unload a large strike then fast load the others or OL the ones that are ready to fire.

Most of all maintain a high speed and take advantage of the OK maneuverability.

The heavier X1 ships can't do this as well as the DDX mainly due to maneuverability. The DDX, well played, can maneuver a shot about every turn. If it doesn't then it saves power on the following turn by holding two standards. The extra power is then put into reserve warp for possible OL later.

In this way the Fed DDX plays a bit like a D7 with more power.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 01:44 pm: Edit

Joe,

Can't speak for everyone, but the designs I have used/tested have 2x18 warp, plus two to four boom/saucer warp. All the early X2 designs I have thus far have equal to or less power than their X1 counterparts.

RE: Fed DDX. It does have the same power as other destroyers, so has a good power curve. The problem is the expense of its heavy weapons. Four photons are pricey for a ship of that size.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 02:07 pm: Edit

Mike;

Actually the Fed DDX has more power than most X-destroyers. If you go through the MC 1/2 X-ships you'll find few that even match 32+9, let alone beat it. The Knight-X comes to mind, and the Skyhawk-X generates less power but has a spectacular 18 points reserve power. I don't recall what the "non-fish ship" Wyn X-ships are like and they may have some spectacularly overpowered X-ships. But the "typical" X-destroyer is more like 30+9, and the Tholian is 27+9.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 02:31 pm: Edit

It seems to me that there is a large gap in the federation X ships between a DDX and CX (46+15). Would any of you like to open a topic on a MC 2/3 SC3 Fed ship?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 02:37 pm: Edit

Not really. The idea was that the CX would lead mixed fleets and the DDX would support that. The XP refit will fill any gap that exists.

HOWEVER, I do believe that there is many proposals for X2 ships of that type. I'm pretty sure that most people intend that X2 be the ships that revamp the various fleets. Therefore there will be all classes of X2 ships.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 02:45 pm: Edit

Loren (and Joseph Carlson);

When the X1R threat was hot, there was some discussion of an X-version of the NCL. It would have either the same weapon suite as the DDX or perhaps a 10th phaser-1 (the FH cluster becoming 4 ph-1s as with the CX). The primary improvement over the DDX would be in survivability.

As I recall, not everyone was convinced of the necessity for such a ship. The gap between the CX and DDX is much smaller than the gap between the DX and FX, for example. So the Fed's need for an NCLX is much less apparent then the Klingon's need for a D5X.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 03:04 pm: Edit

The Fed DDX really is more like the NCL than the DD. It fills that role, and is a good "in between" ship for the CX and FFX. It's really more like the D5X than any destroyer you might find. That's one reason the NCLX didn't fly; they're just so much alike.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 03:11 pm: Edit

We all should wait until CL31 and go from there... as far as XP and the NCLX thing goes. I think it will become clear that it won't be needed... or possible.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 03:23 pm: Edit

For those who are not aware, take a look at some of the earlier X2 proposals on Vorlon's X2 page. It has some of the earlier proposals (September 2003) for X2 ships.

---------

Average damage vs. weighted damage:
When the probability of each event is the same, i.e., a single die thrown, then average and weighted are identical.

----------------------

The ph-5, I think, is a good weapon for X2.
Remember the political situation. Neutral zone colonies are buying GW surplus for local defense, while the galactic powers don't have the money for large fleets.

The ph-5 can do much more damage at the 9-15 saber dance/skirmish ranges than the ph-1 can. This will allow an X2 ship to engage a GW ship from that range and get the better of it. Plus, it has the power and speed to dictate the range.

---------------------------------

I've always believed that an X2 ship should be an even match against 2 late year non-X ships of the same move cost. (Klink XCA vs. 2 Fed NCAs)
The ph-5 is one piece of the puzzle toward creating that superiority.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 07:33 am: Edit

On Phaser-5s at range 6-8.
I think you'll find that whilst the Ph-5 generates an average ( unshifted ) of 3.5 points of damage at that range the Ph-1 is generating 2.16 which is a value very close to 3:2 hence the 2:3 ratio of numbers.

AS to it douing 2 points of damage at R9-15 instead of 1 for the Ph-1, yes it is a good weapon for sniping but then the enemey has a forrest of Ph-1s for your BPV.


Guru L.K.:
I think you'll find the MC1 X1 ships to have engines of 2x20 or at least the Fed CX and Klingon DX sure do.


A.T.:

I don't think I make a lot of posts stating that all weapons should be fully armed, but rather that is one of the assumptions one should make when determining if or if not the new ship will have a higher battle speed than GW and X1 ships.

I'm sure I've read in the tactic manual that the Fed DD should be flown as a ship with three torps and take the other torp as a "free hit".
The DDX is a psychological difficulty rather than a physical one...you've got the weapons and you do want to win ASAP so you really really really want to arm them all now, prferabkly as 12 point fastloads.
But then that is a really the old debate of SFB, is the power better used somewhere other than weapons and most often the answer is YES...IN MOVEMENT...but it still doesn't stop you from wanting to plug the power into the photons.

By Martin Read (Amethyst_Cat) on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 07:40 am: Edit

The Fed CX has engines of 2x20+1x2.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 03:33 pm: Edit

MJC;

There may well be a reference to only arming 3 torpedos in the Tactics Manual, I haven't looked at it in a long time. The thing is, this was back when I was at the University of Illinois, before I went into the Air Force. This would make it in 1981, and I'm pretty sure there was no Tactics Manual back then.

Regarding psychological reasons for arming more weapons and moving too slowly - I must admit you have a point there. Sometimes you really, really want just a little more firepower, and against your better judgement end up going too slowly. I'm better disciplined about that now, but I have certainly been bitten by it from time to time.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 09:23 pm: Edit

Yeah...we live & learn...or more accurately die & learn.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 09:38 pm: Edit

Ya, my goof. I don't know what I was thinking. 2x20...

My mind has been elsewhere lately... mostly on M82.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 08:50 am: Edit

Ok.

How about this for an outline for a 2X-phaser?

The Phaser-W

This is a variable-wavelength phaser that costs 2 points of power per shot, firing like a phaser-1. When the critical wavelength is fixed (below), it gains benefits and only costs 1 power from the capcitors to fire.
It is designed to penetrate enemies that have defences against phasers.

When the phaser-W hits and does damage with a natural roll of "6", the critical wavelength is established for penetration of the enemy defensive sytems. Mark the enemy SSD (or web) with a "C" and all subsequent phas-W fire at that unit only draws 1 energy from the capacitors. This marking is done even if the enemy has some method of removing, nullifying, or blocking that damage (e.g. phaser-reflecting shields, or specific reinforcement).

The phaser-W can fire through web at critical wavelength under the same restrictions as a Tholian phas-1. Establishing the wavelength requires the ship to fire at the web and do 1 or more points of notional damage to the web while rolling a natural 6. The critical wavelength for each patch/layer of web must be determined independently, and the phaser-W may never fire through more than 1 layer of web (unlike tholian phasers which can). The tholians can drop the web and raise another in the same location to require the phaser-W to gain a new wavelength "lock on".

The first point of damage from each phaser-W fired at critical wavelength ignores 1 layer of standard shielding to score an internal. Ships with double shields, phaser-resistant shields, or other defensive systems may still stop this leak damage. The phaser-W cannot penetrate both web and a tholian ship's shields in this manner. All damage scored in this manner is pooled into one volley.

There could be other interactions here as races possibly develop phaser-resistant shields.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 10:11 pm: Edit

The concept that all races that field X2 vessels will use the P5 has been challenged.

There is a proposal that some races may stick with the X1 solution of all P1. Does anyone want to propose what races might consider this and why?

There have been a number of interesting proposals for P5 alternatives, do any of them have sufficient support to be seriously considered?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 10:58 pm: Edit

Tos,

A while ago I proposed an alternate arrangement for phasers for X2. The basic idea was that a phaser-5 is no larger than a phaser-1, but to achieve those power levels in a weapon that size, the phaser had to be optimized for high power pulses only, i.e. no rapid pulse capability. The three types of phasers available for X2 ships would be the phaser-5 (maximum offensive power but poor seeking weapon defense), the phaser-1 (the most flexible option since it retains rapid pulse capability, but inferior to the phaser-5 against enemy ships), and the phaser-6 (a pair of ph-6s taking the same space as one ph-1 or ph-5, maximum seeking weapon defense and close combat capability, but the worst medium/long range capability).

Different races might have different ratios between the phaser types, enhancing racial flavor. For a ship with 8 "spaces" of phasers, one race might choose 6 phaser-5s and 4 phaser-6s. Another race might might go with, say, 4 phaser-5s and 4 phaser-1s.

I still like this idea, precisely because it does provide for more racial differentiation, rather than make every race's X2-ship an "all phaser-5" boat. But I recall that most people disliked the idea of a phaser-5 that couldn't rapid pulse, so I seriously doubt it has "sufficient support to be seriously considered".

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 11:27 pm: Edit

That changes how the P5 works. It does not change that a P5, of some type and of some number, is mounted on your X2 hulls.

To be clear, no one is challenging that the P5 might be mixed with other phasers, the challenge is that some races may eschew the P5 all together and go with a unified P1 suite.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 11:41 pm: Edit

Tos,

Personally, I like the idea that X2 ships are not "pure phaser-5". I think it makes the game more interesting as a game. The problem is that you need a rationale for why some race would go with a unified phaser-1 suite.

MJC suggests that 12 phaser-1s are about equivalent to 8 phaser-5s. I think he's wrong in his assessment. But even if he isn't, he has also suggested that at some later date technology improvements reduce the size of the phaser-5, and an XCA can now hold 12 of them. At that point the phaser-1 race is in deep kimchee, or else they refit their ships to 12 phaser-5s as well, and racial differentiation in phasers disappears.

So why would any race not go with all phaser-5s? One possibility is that the race in question never developes phaser-5 technology. But another possibility is that the phaser-5 has some limitation that makes it undesirable to go with all phaser-5s.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 12:02 am: Edit

I don't think anyone has yet proposed that a race would go with a 100% P5 design. The question is would any race not choose to or be unable to mount a P5 in an X2 hull? If so which race and why?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 12:05 am: Edit

I have never liked that the P5 could be rapid pulsed and like you would favor that it be limited to a purely offensive role. I fear we may be in the minority.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 12:09 am: Edit

My answer is the Tholians would choose not to upgrade to P5 if the P5 were found to be incompatible with their web pass-through. Unlike all the other races they may be technologically limited and unable either to develop a P5 or mount one on their hulls.

We can combine these two reasons. For example even if the Feds give P5 technology to the Tholians (which I consider unlikely), the Fed technology cannot pass-through web and the Tholians don't have the technology to adapt it. In this event the Tholians might go with a pure P1 solution.

Another race that might not go the X2 route at all is the post-Usurper WYN cluster. They simply don’t need the things that make X2 better then X1 and lack the technology base necessary to develop it on their own.

The Orions, like always, are a wild card. We should consider the possibility that X2 is beyond their capabilities.