MJC, a teenager is an adolescent. *raised eyebrow*

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 07:26 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

The thing is, that if he had used the ASIF, the 6+15 power requirement of it (for that ship) would mean that he wouldn't be making battles speed much faster than GW ships even with those extra 8 warp engine boxes.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 09:25 pm: Edit

Yeah...but I think it works better since the ASIF I use ( Low:-Double Hull Boxes, Full:-Double other kinds of boxes as well) has no minimum "breach threshold" I don't really mind the fact that it is so powerful...also it's less powerful after damage because it costs the power requirment irrespective of the number of lost boxes.

The Low power setting give the 12 F Hull & 8 R Hull of my Fed XCA a doubling which is the creation of 20 phantom boxes in effect.

Thus it's far more effective to have a lower power ASIF than SSReo because you stop 3.66 points of damage per point of power but the draw back is that there are systems not protected by HULL ( A2, A3, A4, A10, A11, A12 ) which all take hits as normal whereas the SSReo would have protected those systems as well.


It gets less effective with Full power as the 20 other boxes get doubled to give you 40 boxes for 21 power...again more efficent than SSReo but with the draw back of the A3, A4, A10 & A11 hits still being availible to get hit unprotected whereas 21 points of SSReo would stop those.


I realise it's the biggest power consuming area short of CLOAK and MOVEMENT but it makes for a simpler ASIF resolution which I hink makes it worthwhile.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 06:12 pm: Edit

We could make X2 ships faster without increasing their strategic speed in F&E terms.

In F&E strategic speed is measured in 6-month turns. X2 could have a faster 'dash' speed that allows it to respond locally much quicker then other ships without increasing its top-end.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 12:09 am: Edit

Tos, X1 already gives a faster 'dash' speed, for lack of a better term. Perhaps a longer range at dash speed would be a better way of putting it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 12:29 am: Edit

CFant: There one we totally agree on. Such a thing was discussed before and I like that then. So I'm with you on that one.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 07:32 am: Edit

In the XPh-1 Thread Loren was concerned that my mythical XCA wouldn't justify a 300 BPV versus a CX equipped with 8 of my P5s. Thinking that it would require lots of Bells and whistles.

---

Quote:

Yes, total damage output would be about the same but the XCC will have less weapons. It Bells and Whistles do cost BPV but those B&Ws start on a ship with less numbers of weapons. Yet the ship will have a higher BPV.

How is this going to balance if the Ph-5 and the Ph-1 are on par?

Well, some want lower BPVs. I would think Kens Ph-5 would lower the BPV of the ship unless there is a heck of a lot of B&W's.

Also, I'd like to point out that ONLY 20% is misleading. It is far more accurate to show the advantage of 300 BPV over 250 BPV as 50 BPV.

---

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 08:48 am: Edit

Warp is usually billed at 4 credits per box. You are billing at 2; a bargin.

Likewise 3xCaps for a lightly armed unit with 6 P5@1.5 and 2 P1 is 33 power. That's twice what the batteries are likely to hold and 11 more one-time power for only 4 BPV; a bargin.

We have to give some serious thought to caps; I'm not sure extra power produces the game dynamic we need, particularly against vintage ships. But that discussion is best made in the phaser thread.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 09:28 am: Edit

Warp power is usually billed as 4-1. But after a point extra warp power is just extra power (which is 2-1 IMO). 6-10 more warp just doesn't have that much extra effect since the ship can still only go 31 hexes+EM for 37 power.

Which a CX can already do.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 09:38 am: Edit

Maybe for some races, but for a race using photons I'd charge at least the 3 it costs to get an AWR.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 10:44 am: Edit

Well the BPV is a composite of everything. The numbers I tossed around were just to get an idea of the ballpark we are looking at.

After all. How much would you say 16 point fast loads and FH arcs are worth for the Fed Photons, when combined?

1 Point per Photon for FL and 0.5 per expanded arc? But those can only be considered for fine tuning. It's the total package that will determine BPV.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 12:41 pm: Edit

Extra warp is every bitas valuable as regular warp but in a different way. Speed is not the issue but durability IS. Add two warp to a Fed CA (GW) and you get a ship that a far more capable than one that gets four AWR. THis is because those extra warp DO come in to the speed factor as the ship takes damage. This mean that the ship will have a much greater advantage as each side take damage. The one with extra warp will fight longer.

This is why War Cruisers can fight the way they do. They generally have less durability in most aspects except their most important assest keeps going longer (although balanced by lack of protective hull).

X2 will have both extra warp AND protective hull AND something that protects the hull.

Tos is right about the bargain.

16 point fastloads will make up for a lot but is over the top IMO. A LOT of discussion happened over those. I had critical OL for Photons but that was a two turn thing. One of the greatest desires among the majority on these threads was to return Feds to the two turn paradigm with photons. 16 point Fast OL is the opposite of that.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 09:32 am: Edit

Has anyone come up with a way to calculate BPvs roughly?
It would be nice to have some useful numbers for ship comparisons.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 02:11 pm: Edit

Carl, playtest, playtest, playtest.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 02:59 pm: Edit

Well, I have actually considered using a monster scenario for that. Thoughts?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 03:56 pm: Edit

Make X2 roughly equal in capabilities to something with a known, and accepted, BPV. Change one capability and recalculate.

It can also help to build a FF, DD, CL and CA and calculate all of their BPVs. If there is a problem with your formula it might appear when applying the formula across a line of ships.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 04:04 pm: Edit

Second idea: Post it to the board with the appropriate rules and solicite feedback.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 06:12 pm: Edit

And if you can't find a single ship that's worth what your X2 CA is worth, use a pair of X0 CAs in a squadron, particularly baseline ships that everyone uses often (not the D7D in a duel)

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 02:37 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 07:01 am:

A CXX should be as powerful as a DNX...period.

---

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 03:34 pm: Edit

For started I would like to assume that we can set up a duel. Duels are good because they are fast and easy. Players like duels. If possible I’d like to give the players what they want.

For a tactical comparison I’ve always felt that X1 ships, being true warships, should be more heavily armed then X2 ships. X2 should be equally capable, but in a way that doesn’t require the same raw firepower.

For GW era ships I see the critical balance to be power. Few GW era ships generate the power curve of an X1/X2 ship, but in the few cases they do it would be a helpful BPV comparison. I’ve always considered the DNL to have the closest combination of speed and weaponry to make for the best, albeit non-historical X2 duels. Realizing that not all GW ships are DNL we will have to do some sanity checks with some of the more common classes in pairs, but lets start with duels.

So we have XC = CX = DNL. Here the Feds seem to intersect best for our purposes. I don’t choose this price point because I think its right; I choose it because it’s the only place where we can find a duel. IMO Finding a duel is critical if we want to get the BPV right. If we can design an X2 ship that is simultaneously balanced against a CX and a DNL then we can decide later if it should be called an XCL, XCM, XCA or XCC.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 04:37 pm: Edit

In the XCL world the closest match seems to be the BCH class. The power and weapons of a BCH approaches that of a CLX. For this duel I like XCL = D5X = C7.

For the XDD class I like the Lyran XDD = Lyran DWX = Lyran CWLb and the Hydran XDD = Hydran KNX = Hydran APA.

For the XFF class we could equate the XFF = Kzinti FKX = Klingon FWL.

I haven’t looked at plasma yet but you get the idea. The purpose is to find something comparable with a known BPV. Balance against a known BPV first, then scale up or down as desired.

Does this sound reasonable? Can we see some X2 designs intended to balance against these marks?

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 04:38 pm: Edit

Tos,

Seems to be a realistic approach to follow. I like that you haven't defined XCA=CX=DNL, but left open the class designation. This approach should develop information needed to "ground truth" some our design ideas.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 04:46 pm: Edit

Joseph, the principle you mentioned should be assumed in the subsequent post even though I didn't state it explicitly.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 04:50 pm: Edit

So we have a second. Does anyone have any SSDs in the following categories:
240-250 BPV Fed
190-200 BPV D&D
135-145 BPV D&D
135-145 BPV Hydran
120-130 BPV D&D

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 05:40 pm: Edit

I haven't contributed much over the past few months, since things seemed to be going for yet another round of arguments. I decided to keep my own counsel.

But I feel I need to interject here.

An XCA really does need to be in the same ballpark as an ISC CCX or it won't be built. If it can't stand up fairly evenly with a 1X ship that all the races have fought. Then it wouldn't be built in the first place.

Another concern is the multi on one scenarios. Admittedly 2 DW's should be a fair match for a BCH BPV wise. (They might even have the advantage.) But wouldn't you prefer flying the BCH in that match up?

That would be a regular problem with GW-2X matches. With the differences in capabilities the GW player will almost always have to use say 2CW/CA depending on what final BPV is to make a good match or use a DN variant.

That would mean that a XCL 200-250 BPV would be the main combatants. Making a BCH/2CW/2DW/CX (depending on races and final set point), match a almost dead certainty.

2X ships do need different capabilities. Letting them work differently from a GW/1X style. But any 2X ship should be able to handle in combat (meaning increased combat power in some form), it's 1X equivalent or IMO (and most likely other players) it would have never been produced in the first place.