Tos,

I'm baffled by your logic here. The Tholians are in a war for survival therefore they won't attempt to upgrade their technology?

It seems to me that there's also a problem with your suggestion from a simple business perspective. If everyone gets the latest cool tech except the Tholians, those players who like the Tholians get pissed off and are less likely to buy the product.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 03:27 pm: Edit

I still hold that X1 was the prgress technology and X2 is the final technology. X1 came from projects that were still in developement but the need to implement what was developed at that point was great. Finally, the problems of X1 were solved and X2 was implemented on ships.

As such, any one with X1 would end up with X2... as I see it.

I don't see the technology generations as definative and separate but that X1 was a sub-developement of X2.

Any of this make sense?

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 03:45 pm: Edit

Loren,

Does to me. The idea that GW, X1, and X2 tech as definative and separate never made sense to me.

Is the idea that intial X2 ships would be an X2 version of the FF, DD, and CA? X2 versions of the FB/DW/CW and BCH would be follow on X2 ships?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 05:00 pm: Edit

One of the few things we know about X2 is:
1) GW can be upgraded to X1
2) GW and X1 cannot be upgraded to X2

I'll add to that:
3) Homeworld Tholians never developed X1 ships.

Lets say for a moment that these are immutable truths. Where are the Tholians getting the design and production facilities necessary to build the from scratch hulls necessary to base X2 off?

To me a more likely path is the Tholians, who don't burn up tons of fuel patrolling a vast empire, upgrade all of their ships to X1 tech.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 05:02 pm: Edit

Above post duplicated in the X2 Tholian thread. Please move responses there.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 05:45 pm: Edit

I see X2 as totally different and new tech, not just upgrades. For example, the P5 is a new phaser...not a better version of the P1, which is what X1 is. Let me try a real world analogy.

The M60 tank was the final stage in that type of tank development for the US; from the M4 Sherman to the Bulldog, to the M48 to the M60, the tanks were more or less the same concept...they just got bigger, and better armed. They all had high profiles, relatively low speed, and were made for defense...not to attack.

Then, the M1 comes along. It's totally different. It's fast, has a lower profile, uses a gas turbine instead of a deisel engine, and has crew safety components out the whazoo. It's an offensive platform, meant to run and gun and be able to shoot on the move as well as it does when sitting still.

To me, the M60 - best of that type of vehicle, very effective in it's role but still not really new - is X1. The M1 is X2; yes, it uses some similar components (big gun, machine guns) but it has a different mission profile, and was built to suit it from the ground up. It performs VERY differently from the M60, because it's supposed to. It is, in fact, not as good a defensive tank as the M60 for a variety of reasons, but that's okay because it isn't supposed to be. To me, this is what X2 is like. Not the whole defensive-offensive thing, but a different approach to ship design alltogether from X1 and a different mission. Dunno if that makes sense, but there it is.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 07:03 pm: Edit

Mike, yes but you must keep a continuity too. You don't go from Fed saucer designs to Fed Cubes a la Borg( with borg style weapons to boot).

Designs reflect so much: culture, doctrine, engineering traditions etc. I am not sure the M1 is so far from the M60s. For one thing aren't both the tanks roomy? Just compare to the Russian crowded cans!

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 07:29 pm: Edit

Sure. I wouldn't want to do that, at all. But the shape can still be modified...just look at the difference between the various Enterprise's. Saucer and two warp engines, but they all look vastly different.

Oh, and you can trust me when I tell you that M60 and M1 are completely different. I should know; I spent 12 years on tanks, and they are two totally different beasts. The M60 is way roomy...you can lay down in the turret. The M1? Nope. You can't even stand in the turret without a hatch open, and it's way crowded.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 08:13 pm: Edit

I want to see alternate designs but I would like to see an evolutionary step take place rather than change for change sake.

Federation spade hulls are neet looking but I think they should be on limited classes. The spade hull was done to eliminate a problem that in turn allowed faster flight. But X2 is supposed to be what developed to solve the main problems and that shouldn't be, IMO, the old fix of a spade hull. HOWEVER, to carry the X2 design further a spade hull might be used as a reaplication of an old technology to step up speed once again. Perhaps this time for endurance more that pure speed increase. This would mean, I think, that in the X2 era the spade design would be a unique class (still).

But as far as all classes and races go I'd like to see mostly an evolution of design.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 10:03 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I don't see the technology generations as definative and separate but that X1 was a sub-developement of X2.

Any of this make sense?

---

---

Quote:

Is the idea that intial X2 ships would be an X2 version of the FF, DD, and CA? X2 versions of the FB/DW/CW and BCH would be follow on X2 ships?

---

---

Quote:

2) GW and X1 cannot be upgraded to X2

---

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 02:30 pm: Edit

MJC, because the X1 is at the limits; there were NO X1 BCHs remember. Therefore it's obvious that (for other reasons too) that new designs are needed.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 04:11 pm: Edit

MJC: (X0.0)
"X-ships produced during the period Y180-205 were all conversions of existing designs."
...
"After Y205, many ships were built from new designs using even more advanced technology. These were known as Second-Generation designs"

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 09:15 pm: Edit

Tos: Perhaps more accurately conversion can be from either an exsisting hull or and exsisting design. Many X1 ships were build as X-ships from scratch.

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.

Anyway, I've gone off tangent. Sorry.

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.

---

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.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 12:54 pm: Edit

I've reposted the recent ASIF stuff to the X2 SIF topic. Since this is supposed to be about FF and DD's we shouldn't continue it here.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 08:49 am: Edit

To a degree everything is cookie cutterism.
Everybody has either Ph-2s or Ph-1s.
Everybody has warp drive ( usually in two Engines on their CAs ).
Everybody uses the same DAC.
Most everybody has about four heavy weapons.
The Kzintis have reversed numbers of Klingon weapons.

What with relatively unique heavies and alternate battle doctrines the same lego-bricks can be used to make a great many things. Let's not go too overboard with changes to the way thingswork when how they work togethjer and how much of each can also create new flavours that players will want to taste.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 01:17 pm: Edit

Frigates and Destroyers, this has lost a bit of focus.

The issues are the same for all X2:

Smaller X2 ship vs. bigger X1 or GW ship.

Hence, be brave, and if an 'ASIF' is given to FEDs
What do the others get? Or do they get a different ASIF that matches their combat and fighting style?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 08:25 am: Edit

I think everybody in X2 should get the same ASIF then they can choose to not power it if they don't want the benefit as per their battle doctrine.
Having several different but ultimately (after HWs and phaser suites and shields and power are factored in) equally effective ASIF designs would be quite simply nightmarishly difficult to develop, let alone correct under playtest.
I mean all bar the Orions have warp engine boxes that work the same way, why should tech developed after the GW-ISC-Andro Period be radically different!?!

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 12:40 pm: Edit

continuing..

IF different races handle DAM CON issues differently, then what would it look like?

FEDs protect hull more than weapons?
Klingons protect weapons more than hull?
Romulans could protect...

Then, would a 'dial-a-ASIF' be a workable solution?
One that functions the same for all races, but depending how you 'use' it or 'power' it can reflect the racial flavor we really want to preserve?

This ASIF thing is very important when we are talking about FFs and DDs because they can and will be fighting bigger ships.

Perhaps
POWER
GENERAL SYSTEMS
HULL/CARGO/COMMAND FAC.
HEAVY WEAPONS
PHASER GRID

Yes, balancing would be an issue, but for the payoff, the work to balance may be worth it.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 03:25 pm: Edit

MJC, nightmarish? I submit that making everyone's ships exactly the same so they are "balanced" is the real nightmare. I know it was done (in terms of game design) during the General War but I'm not it's necessary now (in terms of game design).

If game design merits the inclusion of ASIF in SC4 X2 units then fine, it keeps them in the game and makes for gaming flexibility and diversity. That said, will the ASIFs need to be exactly the same per race? I'm not so sure about that.

Go ahead and install something that our battle doctrine says we won't power? In other words, add something to a ship design that won't be used? Or in terms your "Admiralty" will understand, spend money on a system our training will prohibit the use thereof?

You were kidding about that, right?

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 03:49 pm: Edit

Don't put the cart before the horse. The need for ASIF can only be established once the ships are designed and done. It would a rule that would be a balancing factor.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 01:03 am: Edit

---

Quote:

You were kidding about that, right?

---

---

Quote:

MJC, nightmarish?

---

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 04:36 am: Edit

MJC, I get your basic point.

What I'm asking is, which do you prefer? X2 ships being designed with the same "anti-eggshell tech" for the sake of relatively easy game balance, or X2 ships designed with carefully calibrated (through playtest, SWAG, etc.) counterbalancing "anti-eggshell techs" for sake of game design?

Or to put it another way, how is taking the time to "do it right" nightmarish?