| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 08:19 pm: Edit |
So, since we are in the SC4 topic, how many drones do we want an XDD to shoot down in a single turn?
Comparing XDD armed with 16 ADD loaded (half) to a Kzinti NCC armed with 2B 2C 2SP Double Drone Control. The Kzinti can reasonably put 12 drones on the map for two turns. On the third turn it can only put 2 drones on the map, so its done. So, since we are in the SC4 topic, how many drones do we want an XDD to shoot down in a single turn?
The Kzinti can reasonably put 12 drones on the map for two turns. On the third turn it can only put 2 drones on the map, so it had better make the first two waves count. The XDD has 4 TB, 4P1, 2P5, 2Trac, 2GX2 Racks, 2Phot. That’s enough to easily walk through the 12 drones a turn the Kzinti can launch/control.
How many drones do you really want an XDD to be able to kill? Is it reasonable for a 150 BPV non-escort to kill 15-18 drone per turn? In my mind this violates rule #1. Rapid pulsing a P5 is unnecessary and overkill. A single fire P5 forces designers to make a choice, restoring racial flavor.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 08:43 pm: Edit |
I'm not sure how powerful the ASIF should be.
Too little protection and it becomes a pretty lousey fall back position.
Too much protection and then enemy just can't crack the nut. (Admittedly the doubled hull boxes route and the shielding between A&B collums on the DAC both allow the nut to be cracked with constant pounding (reread multiple turns of fire and mizia effect respectively) but it is possible to have an ASIF design ( say a special shield before the A collum on the DAC ) that renders it impossible to crack the nut even with constant pounding.
It's one of those threshold things like the old suppliment 2 2:1 reinforcement coupled with five 5 point BTTYs. You basically had to break the threshold of 50 points of damage or you'ld just find that next turn the other guy pumped 25 or fewer points of power back into BTTY and you got no where. Now I can see an X2 cruiser with totally maxed out heavy weapons and Phasers being able to have threshold that's not too high at 25 in Y225 but in Y205 I think it's probably a much safer bet to leave that particular threshold at 15.
So lets make sure we build ASIFs with a very low threshold even if they do grant great toughness.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 09:09 pm: Edit |
Quote:How many drones do you really want an XDD to be able to kill? Is it reasonable for a 150 BPV non-escort to kill 15-18 drone per turn? In my mind this violates rule #1. Rapid pulsing a P5 is unnecessary and overkill. A single fire P5 forces designers to make a choice, restoring racial flavor.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 09:49 pm: Edit |
13.5 drones should be 13.5 type IF drones.
If we're talking about IVF drones then the Fed DDX can kill 9 with phasers alone.
The XDD with 6Ph-5 will only be able to kill 9 IVF drones if it can rapid pulse as 3Ph-3 shots per Ph-5 and I suspect I'm the only one who wants to see that.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 10:50 am: Edit |
The question is what is the right thing for us to do to ensure a balanced result? Designing every X2 ship to be completely immune from drones is folly. X1 ships were designed during the General War to fight each other. X2 ships were designed during the Andro War to fight Andros, and Andros aren’t know for large drone waves.
The DDX at a revised 170 BPV is tied with the SKX as the most unbalanced X1 design. X1 was never well balanced against GW tech and should not be our guide. Our directive is to balance X2 with GW tech and our target should be the DW, CW and NCA. The Fed NCA is 147 + 2 G-Racks and can fire 10 phasers a turn. An equivalent BPV X2 ship with X-Aegis should not have more phasers or it simply won’t play nice.
| By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 04:04 pm: Edit |
"The question is what is the right thing for us to do to ensure a balanced result?"
I don't think we even have consensus on what is a "balanced result".
My two bits:
I want an X2 ship to have a 60/40 to 70/30 advantage against an X1 ship of the same class.
It should also be 50/50 against TWO GW ships of the same class, but not have any more internals (better, not bigger).
Drone defense is only one aspect of the ship design. A ship can have weak drone defense but more firepower and be a balanced fight.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 04:44 pm: Edit |
Jeff, just so I understand, you are saying an XDD verse 2 production DD should be an equal match. The average production DD/DW is 110 BPV, so you are saying the XDD should weigh in at 220 BPV. Your right, we are clearly not on the same page.
| BPV | ATU | Total | Race | Ship |
| 97 | +4 | 101 | Federation | DW |
| 107 | +8 | 115 | Federation | DWC |
| 100 | +16 | 116 | Federation | DWD |
| 101 | 101 | Gorn | BDDb+ | |
| 108 | 108 | Gorn | BDLb+ | |
| 85 | +20 | 105 | Hydran | DWF |
| 95 | 95 | Hydran | DWH | |
| 110 | +20 | 130 | Hydran | DWL |
| 86 | +24 | 110 | Kzinti | DWD |
| 105 | +16 | 121 | Kzinti | DWLy |
| 90 | +16 | 106 | Kzinti | DWy |
| 107 | +8 | 115 | Klingon | F5WKu |
| 107 | +8 | 115 | Klingon | FWL |
| 107 | 107 | Lyran | DWbpu+ | |
| 115 | 115 | Lyran | DWLbpu | |
| 104 | 104 | Romulan | SKAb | |
| 125 | 125 | Romulan | SKLb | |
| 96 | 96 | ISC | DDb | |
| 114 | 114 | ISC | DDLb | |
| 110 | Average |
Quote:Drone defense is only one aspect of the ship design. A ship can have weak drone defense but more firepower and be a balanced fight.
| By Nikolaus Athas (Nycathis) on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 09:12 pm: Edit |
TOS said: X1 ships were designed during the General War to fight each other. X2 ships were designed during the Andro War to fight Andros, and Andros aren’t know for large drone waves.
TOS, Im not sure that that is infact the case about X2. Sure the Andros were perceieved to be a potential threat but they were at the time of the first X2 ships a defeated menance.
If X2 was to be primarily designed to be anti-Andro ships then you would have seen a massive reliance on DF weapons and a much lesser reliance on seekers. Or a Massive amount of Seeking launchers to absolutly flood the spaceways with seeking weapons so the Andro's couldnt avoid some.
Secondly I have to agree that any X2 class needs to show some superiority (125-150%?) to an equivalent GW hull class, otherwise whats the point in building them?
I dont agree that it should be as high as Jeff's desire, at least in direct combat capability, but maybe in flexibility, range and response time they should be.
ie an X2 DD should be as useful as any 2 equivalent GW DD for all DD duties except direct combat.
On saying this I understand that it is an nebulous concept to put into rules format.
Going back to an earlier post that I made, when it comes to sheer combat crunch I think that the X1 ships should be the kings of the crop.
X2 does things differently and maybe more flexibly - maybe X2 is range 5 tractors, range 7 transporters and +4 range on labs and probes, Pre GW numbers of P5s and P6s. 3 impulse delays in shield drops/raising - in other words better capabilities not just better firepower.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 10:47 pm: Edit |
Quote:The Fed NCA is 147 + 2 G-Racks and can fire 10 phasers a turn. An equivalent BPV X2 ship with X-Aegis should not have more phasers or it simply won’t play nice.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 11:45 pm: Edit |
I don't think one can say X1 ships should be the kings of direct damage. For one thing BBs already beat the best X1 vessels and many people would argue that a squadron of F-14s is even better.
Now to say that X2 ships should be the equal to the class above them of the generation below would be a good rule of thumb for the fully refitted hard-core versions of those vessels but being the equal of the X1 vessels in the early X2 era would be a good target.
As I said I can see a Fed XFF+ at 170 BPV being as capable as a Fed DDX. Twin 24 pointers ( 16 point fastload option), five phaser-5s and the ability to hurl 24/8/40 drones from the pair of racks with 15 points of reserve power ( beating the DDX's 9) all backed up by an ASIF and an S-Bridge and regenerative shields...yeah that'ld give 9 X1Ph-1s and four X1 Photons and two GX racks a real run for it's money.
On drone defense.
One should remember that at least some of the thinking of the varrious Admiralties would be that at the end of the Andro Campaign; GWII will start on the grounds that the GW wasn't properly ended. So if rapid pulsing was at all possible it would be installed.
If there are any Andro SC5 units ( I don't have my books handy ) then they would also be fought better by a rapid pulsing Ph-5 which would have the ability to target such units under X-Aegis.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 11:59 pm: Edit |
I would like to point out again that drawing a Ph-5 into rapid pulsing takes a bigger offensive punch away from the X2 vessel than an X1 vessel because of the ratio of 3Ph-1s:2Ph-5s.
If I have a Fed NCLa+ and am attacking a Fed XFF that has a three Ph-5 suite, then launching a single type VIF drone from my rack will require a Ph-3 shot from the XFF which will effectively leave it only able to bear one Ph-5 (unless it centerlines me or the IVF drone). Admittedly the XFF should be looking to use it's own drones racks to kill the drone and I should be looking to kill the XFF's drones with my type IVF drones but the point still holds. Fewer Phasers ( even if they are quite a lot better ) will have a greater reduction in offensive ability when used defensive. Net result an X2 vessel will have by default a harder time fight drone ways. The bigger the drone wave, the less true that will be (assuming 3Ph-3 shots is possible from a Ph-5) but for taking out the attacking component of the X2 vessel, drone launches against X2 vessel will be more effective.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 12:09 am: Edit |
Even if there are no Andro SC5 units, the ability to maul Orion PFs would be particularly handy.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 11:09 am: Edit |
MJC, a ship with 5 triple-pulse P5s and a pair of 24-point photons wouldn’t be 150 BPV.
Let’s stick with one thing at a time. How much offensive/defensive phaser power do we expect an X2 ship rated at 150 BPV to have? I don’t care if we call it an XDD, XFF, XPOL or XPF. At your recommended phaser level, how many heavy-weapon/seeking-weapons would it have?
Because of the enhanced non-weapon capabilities given to X2: S-Bridge, ASIF, whatever; the answer must be less than the heavy weapons found on a 150-point NCA.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 01:21 pm: Edit |
Four to six "spaces" of phaser should be plenty. Say four P5's and a pair of P6's, or something similar.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 01:34 pm: Edit |
And the associated heavy weapons with your proposal?
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 01:58 pm: Edit |
For a DD? Two DF heavies; no more. For drone races like Feds and Klinks, a rack or two. So, a Fed XDD has six P5's ("pure" phaser suite on this one), a pair of 10-point photons and a pair of drone racks. The opposing Klingon would have two disruptors with a six-point base + capacitors, a pair of P5's, 4 P1's, a drone "B" rack, and an XADD rack (a return to racial differences in drones)...and perhaps a drogue rack.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 02:20 pm: Edit |
I thought the plan had always been for about pre-war numbers of Ph-5's with double pulsed Ph-6 as a defensive mode. A lot of work went into arriving at that. Why is it being rehashed?
In all, the defesive capability will be about what X1 is against drones. There will be less Ph-6's but the Ph-6 is more effective. It can kill a Type-IV and two will always kill most any X-Drone. The ships speed, reserve power and shields will counter drone effectiveness as well. How X2 ship take damages will also contribute.
X2 will have multi-layered defenses against damage in general so against the same wave of drones, even though the up front drone defenses may appear less, the X2 ship will be the equal, if not slightly better, than the previous era ship of the same class.
Will Feds still keep G-Racks? Heck ya. They haven't been a peace that long yet.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 04:03 pm: Edit |
Loren, Mike, I'm putting a slightly different spin on things. MJC and Jeff have pointed out that we do not have alignment on what a ship classes are or are not. I'm looking at the question from the perspective of BPV and comparing that to the BPV of a comparable GW era ship.
Mike asked "For a DD?" No. For 150 BPV. It doesn't matter what that ship is called.
His answer is 6xP5rp3 + 2x20-point photons + 2xGX2 racks. Envision XDD with the P1 upgraded to P5.
The two turn output of 2x20-point photons is 20+20+10f+10f=60, or about equal to the 4 photons found on the Fed NCA.
6xP5 are twice as good offensively in the 6-8 bracket (27-37) as 8xP1 (17). 6xP5rp3 + X-Aegis is hugely better defensively than 8P1+2P3.
The EW and maneuver advantages of X2 will allow the XDD to fight at 6-8 while the NCA won’t become effective until range 4.
Clearly the proposed configuration will be worth far more than 150 GW BPV given all of X2s natural advantages.
So the question remains, what do people expect an X2 Fed to be armed with if it fights at 150 BPV? Double the phaser armament of its GW compatriot with similar heavy weapons suites is not the correct answer.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 04:24 pm: Edit |
Taking Loren's idea as a basis, lets do a straight conversion of an FFG (2Phot + 3P1 + 2P3 + 1G) to X2 tech (2Phot-20 + 3P5rp3 + 2P6 + 1GX2).
Equivalent photons to an NCA. Equivalent range 6-8 offensive phaser damage (13.5-18.5). X-Aegis grants our XFFG a more effective defensive phaser array. Before taking into account the various X2 advantages an XFFG would be the weapon equivalent of an NCA. But the XFFG would still fight better, and therefore cost more because of S-Bridge, ASIF, EW, Maneuver and all the other X2 advantages.
So taking into account all the bells and whistles, if an XFFG would cost more than 150 BPV, what would a 150 BPV X2 ship be armed with?
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 08:11 pm: Edit |
When did we move from 170 BPV to 150?
Because of the enhanced non-weapon capabilities given to X2: S-Bridge, ASIF, whatever; the answer must be less than the heavy weapons found on a 150-point NCA.
I think an XFF with two 24 point Photons ( no fastloads beyond 12 (an that influnces regular overloads )) and three Ph-5s and two GX racks with the S-bridge and ASIF and Regenerative sheild could come in at 130 BPV. A few refits then would make it 150 BPV.
That being said, yes it's less than an NCA in pure fire power terms. Her heavies max out at 48 damage ( instead of 64 ) and phasers can't really generate the point blank bang of the NCA either. But what she can do is out manouver the NCA through the careful selection of only powering a few things and staying out of the deadly R4 of the NCA, weaken a few shields at R8 without getting caught out and eventually the NCA will be mice-meat. The NCA on the other hand has a few options of its own.
I thought the plan had always been for about pre-war numbers of Ph-5's with double pulsed Ph-6 as a defensive mode. A lot of work went into arriving at that. Why is it being rehashed?
Sit down with the Fed DDG (not DDG+) and compair to M.R.'s short list.
6xP5 are twice as good offensively in the 6-8 bracket (27-37) as 8xP1 (17). 6xP5rp3 + X-Aegis is hugely better defensively than 8P1+2P3.
Firstly, where are you getting 27-37 from, it should be 21. The Ph-5 is suppossed to average out at R6-8 at 3.5 so the damage of the six should 21.
As too defensive fire, well yes, the abilitiy to hurl 18Ph-3 shot in defence will be better at stopping huge drone waves than 8Ph-1 shots and 2Ph-3s. But...if you talking about one or two drones, the NCA can kill one type VII drone with her pair of Ph-3s and not reduce her R8 offensive firepowerpower by any detectible level; the X2 whatever at 150 BPV would have to reduce her offensive firepower by 1 whole Ph-5 to kill a type IF drones ( probably with a rapid pulsed Ph-6 ).
Yes the X2 vessel will have better drone defense, but that is partly made up due to the fact that the NCA can deliver more damage with Photons and has more warp engine boxes with which to arm them.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 08:33 pm: Edit |
A few comments. The parameters I posted were not for a BPV of 150; I was posting for an XDD, which I have at a BPV of 170.
The XFF I have has a BPV of 130, with two photons, four P5's (2 FX and 2 RX), and a single drone rack.
Both ships have less power than their X1 predecessor and more to spend it on.
I agree with Loren about how P5's are deployed and used; less of them on a given ship with the ability to rapid pulse in defensive mode as two P6 shots. Not sure why it's being revisited, though there's certainly nothing wrong with discussing alternatives. I do think, though, that three pulses is a bit much. Too much like a Phaser G.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 08:54 pm: Edit |
The two turn output of 2x20-point photons is 20+20+10f+10f=60, or about equal to the 4 photons found on the Fed NCA.
Actually it's quite a bit worse.
You compairing 64+0 to 40+20 but we all should remeber then when the NCA fires, the range will be so close that it will in fact be 64 (maybe) plus three tubes re-arming against 40+10...and that a huge reduction in direct heavy weapon firepower. Even at 64+0+32 then NCA is better off than the 40+10+10 of the two photon X2 vessel.
You know, maybe you 20 point boys whould still keep 12 point fastloads!?!
So the question remains, what do people expect an X2 Fed to be armed with if it fights at 150 BPV? Double the phaser armament of its GW compatriot with similar heavy weapons suites is not the correct answer.
I don't think people are talking about double the phasers of a GW ship of that class and similar ( but hooped up ) heavy weapons.
They're talking about X1 heavy weapon suites of X2 weapons with Ph-5s (or Ph5s&6s or Ph-1s) in a ratio of 2Ph-5s:3PH-1s. And then letting the BPVs of the ships fall as they may. If that means a 130 BPV Fed XFF fights a fairly even battle ( on a sometimes fixed and sometimes floating map ) with a Fed NCLa+ then I think that a natural progression that technological advancement makes vessels better than the vessels that go before, is quite justified.
| FF | 71 | |
| FFG | 75 | |
| FFB | 90 | DW:-97 DD:- 92 |
| FFX | 113 | CLa+:- 113 |
| XFF | 130ish | NCLa+:- 124 CA:- 125 CC:- 137 |
| XFF+ | 170ish | CB:- 162 I wounder if it could be an old DN??? |
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 08:56 pm: Edit |
Quote:You know, maybe you 20 point boys whould still keep 12 point fastloads!?!
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 10:09 pm: Edit |
1) Three pulses is way too much. The double pulse XP-1 thing should be the early version of the P-5 system.
2) Twelve point fastloads: Naturally since this is an X1 capability.
3) Twenty point photons: IMO ONLY IF 17-20 POINTS CANNOT BE HELD (and perhaps cause a lot shock IF the ASIF isn't on).
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 11:10 pm: Edit |
Quote:When did we move from 170 BPV to 150?
Quote:Firstly, where are you getting 27-37 from, it should be 21.
Quote:I think an XFF with two 24 point Photons ( no fastloads beyond [range] 12 … Her heavies max out at 48 damage ( instead of 64 )
Quote:You comparing 64+0 to 40+20 but we all should remember then when the NCA fires, the range will be so close that it will in fact be 64
Quote:You know, maybe you 20 point boys would still keep 12 point fastloads!?!
Quote:I don't think people are talking about double the phasers of a GW ship
Quote:Also do we have to get hung up on having a 150 BPV X2 Federation vessel?
Quote:The XFF I have has a BPV of 130, with two photons, four P5's (2 FX and 2 RX), and a single drone rack. … rapid pulse in defensive mode as two P6 shots
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |
