1) A set of anti-eggshell rules for every core race is like 10 different ASIFs and you'll have 28 pages of rules instead of 1-2.

2) A different anti-eggshell system for every race and getting the right system for the right race will require so much playtesting that the ASIF will be the entire product and no one wants X2 to be just ASIFs.

3) One of the drawbacks of X1 was the "I don't want to learn all these new rules just to play a handful of ships" phenomina and that will get grossly exhasibated by the fact that in order to learn the ASIF rules of your race, you'll need to learn rules that hardly anybody you know knows and if you ever want to change races; you'll have to move to learning an entirely new set of rules.


Better to have one set of ASIF rules that stinks for most races about equally but is much more valuable to the players to learn and know because then all X2 ships become availible to them (and quickly which they'll like ) and that'll increase the fun:effort ratio.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 09:40 am: Edit

While I would like to see variety in X2, I do not believe it is necessary in the ASIF. ASIF technology should be a periphery capability of X2 that like general reinforcement makes only occasional tactical sense to power. Given its limited functionality it would be overkill to give every race a slightly different capability as the sum of these differences would be trivial.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 05:22 pm: Edit

We should remember too that the ASIF doesn't need to have racial flavour if the interactions between the ASIF and the pre-exisiting SSD box philosophy; generates racial flavour.
And weapon suites (both heavies and phasers) tend to be where the racial flavour is. Ever noticed how many heavy GW cruisers have 30 warp engine boxes??? So maybe it's okay to have the ASIF rules be uniform for X2 ships.

By Nikolaus Athas (Nycathis) on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 06:18 pm: Edit

Dear god !! Its a sign of the Apocalypse!

Im actually agreeing with MJC's reasoning and his logic makes sense!

In an X-Ship post at THAT!

No wait!!!

Who are YOU and what have you done with the REAL MJC?!

But Seriously - I have to agree the ASIF rules should be simple and apply equally accross all races. They should be a tactical choice of the player and the ship they are flying, rather than a race definition. Note though Im not saying what or how the ASIF should work (ie the mechanism) but rather that it should work evenly accross all races, with perhaps the only variable relating to the size class of the vessel.(power cost or amount of protection offered)

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 07:34 pm: Edit

Shockingly, amazingly, I agree as well. Someone send the devil an overcoat, 'cause hell just froze over.

X2 will be difficult enough to balance against two previous generations of ships without adding unique defense systems. While it might be possible, I don't think it's necessary and firmly believe that given the enormous number of rules the game already has, the number of interractions you'd have to account for would be staggering. I'd like to keep it as clean as possible, so a simple kind of extra defense for all and sundry works best to me. Personally I like regenerating shields, but that's me.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 02:02 am: Edit

Interesting point. What if there was a small basic core "anti-eggshell" tech for all, with different systems that would be more race-friendly? I think this was kind of stated but maybe not. Guess I'm still thinking it through.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 04:29 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Personally I like regenerating shields, but that's me.

---

---

Quote:

What if there was a small basic core "anti-eggshell" tech for all, with different systems that would be more race-friendly?

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 11:40 am: Edit

ASIF: One rule set was mainly what I've always supported. Not just to avoid adding multiple rules that accomplish the same thing but to the extent that FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION. The core point was that the ASIF was the technology that made X2 hulls possible.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 02:37 pm: Edit

Another good point.

Man, Mike and Loren and Nikolaus in agreement with MJC?

There may yet be hope. Perhaps we should rename X2 as Star Fleet Battles: A New Hope.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 02:59 pm: Edit

Get ye to the booth, Brodie!

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 03:20 pm: Edit

Is that where the green beer is?

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 04:59 pm: Edit

Forget the beer. Grab the Orion Slave girl!

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 05:27 pm: Edit

sigh...

I guess it's up to me to disagree then, or if not actually to disagree, then at least to interject a cautionary note.

I've thought for a while now that some of the basic assumptions about "why Supplement 2 was a failure", have been wrong. But I didn't want to post anything until I could dig out my old Sup 2 and make sure my memory wasn't misleading me. Last night, I finally dug it out.

As far as I can tell, the prevailing opinion seems to be that Sup 2 failed because of the range-12 overloads, or the improved weapons tables, or the 5-point batteries coupled with 2-for-1 specifc shield reinforcement. I believe this is wrong, or rather, that it is only part of the answer. Range-12 overloads might explain why 2X versus 1X or standard tech was broken. It can't possibly explain why 2X versus 2X wasn't much fun either. And yet, 2X versus 2X wasn't fun to play.

Why was this? Well, here's what I think...

The 2X ships were all meant to be even matches for each other, class by class. So every XCC was 325 BPV, every XCA was 300 BPV, every XDD was 200 BPV, and so on. So let's look at how this was "achieved".

The Fed XCC generated 46 points of power, and it had 25 points of reserve power available. Its shields were 48/42/36/30.

Klingon D9C: Power - 46+25, Shields - 48/42/36/30

Gorn XCC: Power - 46+25, Shields - 48/42/36/30

Lyran XCC: Power - 46+25, Shields - 48/42/36/30

Anyone notice a pattern?

The Romulan and Orion were a bit different, because they had capabilities (cloak, engine doubling) that other races did not. And if they were going to come in at the same BPV, they would have to be weakened somewhere else. Therefore, they had less power and weapons than the other races. But except for the Romulans and Orions every race (including the Tholians - no more MC 2/3 ships in 2X) had an MC 1 XCC with the same power and shields as every other XCC.

It gets worse. The Gorns have lots of shuttles? Not anymore. A Gorn XCC has 6 advanced shuttlecraft, just like everyone else's does. And maneuver? Throughout the time period covered by SFB, the most maneuverable races in Alpha have been the Orions, Tholians, and Klingons. Not anymore. In the 2X universe, the Orion turns exactly as well as the legendarily maneuverable Gorn does.

In my opinion, what killed Sup 2 more than any other single factor was an insistance on equality between ships of the same class, to facilitate 2X duels, coupled with a belief that it really should be only weapons that provide different racial flavor. The resulting extreme "cookie cutter" quality of 2X made it bland, generic, "vanilla", dull. (By the way, Sup 2 didn't even achieve the goal of even duels. There were in fact some bad mismatches.)

Now none of this necessarily means that every race should have a different ASIF. I don't think anyone here has suggested that all X2 ships should have the same BPV/power/shields/maneuverability etc. I believe the ISC X2 cruisers should outgun their opponents. The ISC just seem to be better than anyone else at putting lots of weapons on their hulls. And if that means the ISC has a higher BPV than its counterparts, and no single X2 ship is a match for it one-on-one, that's fine as long as the BPV reflects the actual difference in capabilities accurately. I believe the Klingon should be more maneuverable, but a bit more fragile, than its Fed counterpart. With a couple of oddball exceptions, (Archeo) Tholian ships in the SFU have better shields but fewer internals and slightly less weaponry than their counterparts. I would like to see this in X2 as well.

I don't really "have a dog in the fight" regarding whether every race should have the same ASIF or not. I think one could go either way on that and have an interesting and fun X2 universe. But I did want to, as I said earlier, interject a cautionary note, about what I believe would be the likely result if the notion that a race is defined solely by its weapons gets taken too far.

P.S. In the above, I've tried to use "2X" to designate second-generation X-tech as defined by Sup 2, and "X2" to designate what we're trying to define (or more accurately, recommend to SVC) currently.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 05:36 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

In my opinion, what killed Sup 2 more than any other single factor was an insistance on equality between ships of the same class, to facilitate 2X duels, coupled with a belief that it really should be only weapons that provide different racial flavor. The resulting extreme "cookie cutter" quality of 2X made it bland, generic, "vanilla", dull. (By the way, Sup 2 didn't even achieve the goal of even duels. There were in fact some bad mismatches.)

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 06:02 pm: Edit

Mike,

It wasn't "Equality between ships" that killed Sup 2. Rather, it was the mindset that equality between ships was of such overwhelming importance that nearly all racial distinctions should be sacrificed to it, and the extreme cookie cutter effect that followed from said mindset.

And you haven't explained how range-12 overloads ruined 2X versus 2X battles, which in my memory at least, were bland and tedious compared to "standard SFB". If we both have range-8 overloads, or we both have range-12 overloads, how can that be the difference?

I'm not even sure I ever played a 2X versus 1X or 2X versus non-X battle. I can't recall. But I recall that 2X versus 2X battles just weren't fun and something other than range-12 overloads has to have been the explanation for that.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 06:35 pm: Edit

I'm going to agree with Alan here.

Sup2 had it's cookie cutter problems. 2X vs 2X was bland. It was playing chicken. with WSIII. There were simply to many similaerities between the ships.

The single most enjoyable Sup2 game I ever played. Was 3 XCC vs 9DN. I killed/mission killed 7 of the DN and had one of my ships dead with one of the others having minor internals.

(The guys playing the DN were beginners and I was using Orion IIRC)

Admittedly the Sup2 ships were overgunned. But the big problem was it wasn't interesting for them to fight each other. Because they were just to similar.

Having said that; I do think ASIF should be a one size fits all rule. There will be way to much complexity involved in working out the interactions of dozens of ASIF systems.

Because of the inevitable arguments/complaints saying that my friends race got ASIF/B which is great. But my race got stuck with ASIF/C which sucks.

It's going to happen when we have 3-4 diff disr types, or similar systems. PPL will complain that one is so much obviously better than the other that design creep will sneak in and then we will have UIM/Derfacs (bland across the board vanilla) all over again.

IF I'm going to work and fight for design differences. I would MUCH rather spend my energy on a primary item like weapons, than a system that if not the main focus of the new tech will at best be a secondary or more likely tertiary (sp?) system.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 09:15 pm: Edit

I dunno guys, I still didn't find the ships themselves to be a problem. The tables if anything made them too similar; X2 photons had nearly the same hit probability as the X2 disruptor. But the ships looked a lot like the X1 versions did, except for the hold boxes. Put it another way; take those X2 ships and play them as X1, with current X1 rules, and they'd be just fine. Take those X2 tables and rules and apply them to any ships you like, and they'll suck. The rules ruined the module, not the designs themselves.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 09:37 pm: Edit

Mike,

Maybe we're talking past each other. Would you really like to see X1 with every d*mn ship in a given class having exactly the same power, the same shields, the same maneuverability, the same everything except weapons? I sure wouldn't. But that's what the Sup 2 ships were. If the rules (especially range-12 overloads)^* were the problem, then why were 2X versus 2X duels so dull? I hate to keep harping on this, but no one except Ken Jones has addressed it, and he agrees with me.

^*Actually, there was one way in which range-12 overloads were a problem in 2X versus 2X. They totally destroyed BP in BP versus DF duels. But I never found DF versus DF duels to be remotely as interesting in 2X as in "standard" SFB, nor have I heard an explanation of what range-12 overloads had to do with that.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 12:28 am: Edit

Alan: I would disagree with you on that issue. Many exciting tournament duels have been fought between identical ships. Andros have been radically different yet able to provide some of the least interesting games in SFB.

The problem with X2 was that most of the designs were never played; in some cases for the simple reason that the underlying rules had yet to be written. The major crucial design problem was the limited power generation compared to increased power consumption. (Not just weapons, shield and life support costs were increased too.) Thus most games took to a common template: both ships would charge towards each other, achieve a good firing position, most of the damage is absorbed by reinforcing energy, and then the ships spend several turns trying to refill the batteries before attempting another pass. Both players could either ineffectually mirror the other or commit suicide by attacking too soon.

The key to having a successful X2 product will be to sample the various forms and toss aside any design not fun to play.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 12:32 am: Edit

The range 12 problems is against non sup2 ships. Sup2 ships fighting at range 12 simply disolves into a reinforcement game. SFB is made to be played up close, everything else is just foreplay.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 01:33 am: Edit

Wasn't the problem with Suppliment 2 X2 Vs X2 fights that the Phasers could be fired as Ph-Gs and so you basically waltz in to R1 and then each ship does so much damage that it's target can't live but since the other guy knew R1 was (to quote coke) "the real thing" that he also fired and generated that same amount of damage???
Net result, both ships explode.
Net net result; both players find the situation to be no fun after very few playings of the game.


To a degree I don't think the ASIF will create too much sameness. Firstly, it shouldn't be a big deal, ships should have Regenerative Shields or the like as defensives tools in addition to the ASIF so it's not like the ASIF is the whole ball game, it's barely one innings.
Also the push for sameness is less strong because we are looking at things like the 3Ph-1/2Ph-5 dynamic.
I think we'll take a look at MY & X1 and find an X2 that'll have flavour without being too hung up on exactly equal BPVs.
Remember also that the ASIF shouldn't be too powerful because the option of not powering the ASIF and then having power to put somewhere else should be more legitimate for certain tactical choices than powering it. And that option of not powering it being good for some tactics means good for some races and thus there'll be a flow on of racial flavour as ships with good range and turn mode pump power into movement instead which forces the other guy to make the choice; drop ASIF to follow or keep ASIF because you'll need it when you actually do get up close.
Powering the ASIF like power to tractors or holding a weasel should be a choice.
And choice generates flavour.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 08:00 am: Edit

Oi, Rich beat me to it. The argument that ships that are exactly the same ruined the module doesn't work for me, and that's why...tourney ships are designed precisely that way, and tourney play is hugely popular.

Again, I have to say the problem isn't the ships themselves. I mean really, just look at them. Does not the D8 look a whole lot like the DX? And the Fed XCC, doesn't it look a lot like the CX? They do, and should play the same...but the don't because of how the rules are written. When photons and disruptors both use the same chart with the same range increments and hit probabilities, they start to get boring. And when the only really good tactic is to close and hose and hope your monster brick of reinforcment can protect you, that's boring too. If you take those rules away, and play any of those 2X ships with standard X1 rules, they work just fine. I know, 'cause I've done it.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 09:30 am: Edit

I didn't remember the bit about every phaser being able to fire as a Gatling. That little tidbit would be a sufficient reason alone why Sup2 was broken. The P5 was designed precisely to discourage the “close to range 1 and someone dies” tactic. This should serve as a reminder to those who would rapid pulse the P5 that it has been tried before with disastrous affect. Tread carefully.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 11:33 am: Edit

I think every phaser could fire as a gatling in defensive mode only. I'm pretty sure you can't do it offensively. And I haven't seen anyone propose that the P5 rapid pulse in offensive mode, either. Only defensive using X-Aegis.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 12:14 pm: Edit

The P5 rapid pulse should be simply the scale up of the current X1 P1. It works and is a logical step.

Supp2 suffered from both situations mentioned. You either did mid-ranged passes and recharged batteries between or you close-and-hose your opponant and it becomes a dice game.

That's be beauty of the ASIF, IMO. Battery reserve is going to be pretty good. It's a bit whacky to think it will be less than X1 (maybe after fifty years of peace but that hasn't and won't happen). So to avoid the battery as shield only the ASIF gives the player the mind set that he can absorb damage OK for the moment and the batteries can be used better elsewhere. Besides just making ships more durable the ASIF gives players more dynamic options. Once reserves are gone a player might feel he can survive a well timed attack run on the enemy.