I worry that if we allow a P5 on a non-X2 hull even once that we run the risk of backdooring a P5 upgrade to X1 ships. I vote no. If we need backstory, test the P5 on a BATS replacing a P4.

I could support an X2 base upgrade where 1 P4 on each module is replaced by 2 P5. In this configuration a BATS could have 3P4 + 6P5.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 11:42 am: Edit

X2 weapons should require an ASIF on an X2 hull structure and an X2 power grid.

If your X1 or GW ship has those then fine.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 12:10 pm: Edit

Tos,

Upgrade? 3P4 + 6P5 looks like a downgrade to me. It especially looks like a downgrade on a stationary platform, since the enemy will control the range.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 05:31 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

X2 weapons should require an ASIF on an X2 hull structure and an X2 power grid.

---

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 05:38 pm: Edit

Some action on XP? No, that X2 stuf has leaked. ... Could you guys take the X2 discussion back to the X2 area. It doesn't need to muddy up this topic.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 05:41 pm: Edit

I think we could avoid having a Ph-5s being standard on X1 ships by writting in the R-section of such a ships that it needed a complete overhaul of the power grid place the Ph-5 on an X1 vessel and even then it could only be mounted in the heavy weapon stations.
Few people are going to want to swap heavies for Ph-5s which are a little worse than Disruptors...maybe an Orion Phaser-boat.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 06:08 pm: Edit

MJC: Not at all.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 07:04 pm: Edit

Yeah, it has some Advantages over heavy weapons.
But at R0, you need to roll a 1 or 2 to score the full 10 points of damage and the Disruptor does it automatically, sure the Ph-5 costs less to arm and generates no feedback damage...but the Disruptor still does more damage.
And at R8, the Ph-5 is generating a mere 3.5 points of damage and the X1 Disruptor is scorring an average of 5!

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 09:08 pm: Edit

I wonder if anyone has submitted any playtest results for XP yet.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 08:31 am: Edit

We can't get around that there is going to be a ship-based X2 testbed.

I like the idea of requiring a comprehensive testbed. That for whatever reason you can't just stick a P-5 onto an existing ship.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 10:42 am: Edit

Any X2 tech test bed might not have been combat capable until there X2-hull itself was a test bed.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 01:00 pm: Edit

The testbed could be an impractical X2 prototype rather than retrofitting an old design and opening the door to possible refits. I'm thinking of something useless like an XFedX with an X2 engine and a single P5.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 04:11 pm: Edit

The Feds used a CB as an X1 testbed. (as an aside, I'm dissappointed that SVC simply made it a CX instead of creating a unique SSD for the ship).

A CB might be a good choice for X2 also, since standard tech is still going to be around.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 05:14 pm: Edit

Depends on what you mean, John. If you mean upgrading a standard-tech CB with X2, then I have to disagree...I personally do not want X2 to be compatible with standard tech like that, not ever. It should require newly-built hulls made expressly to use that new technology. Others may differ, but that's what I see. It's so new, and so advanced, it requires a unique test vehicle to put it on. Think of it like jet propulsion in the forties; they didn't build a jet engine and slap it on a prop plane; they built a plane designed to use it. That's how I see X2, as a completely new approach.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 05:44 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Think of it like jet propulsion in the forties; they didn't build a jet engine and slap it on a prop plane; they built a plane designed to use it. That's how I see X2, as a completely new approach.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 05:47 pm: Edit

That should be XCA of cause.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 06:53 pm: Edit

X2 should be ALL NEW hulls. No conversion possible because the very structural design is radically different.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 10:39 am: Edit

Ya, that seems more reasonable to me.

Make X2 a complete departure (in hull form, atleast) from X1.

With the ASIF to factor in, there would be a rational justification that ASIF requires new construction. And that justification might prohibit certain ships from being refitted to the X2 standard.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 10:59 am: Edit

The ASIF isn't just a system you install, its part of the overall ship frame with field emmiters on every beam and strut. THat's why it isn't a box you can hit and why it isn't something you can retrofit.


IMHO

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 11:08 am: Edit

This is annoying. There are about 50 topics for discussing X2 stuff. This topic is about XP refits, which were published in CL31. It has nothing to do with that X2 stuff.

I don't give a bupkis about X2 and have ignored that area. You are wasting my time. Sorry if this offends some of you.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 01:24 pm: Edit

I'm game for a special-built testbed.

Now we're making John cranky. Shall we reconvene in the "Generic X2 Hull" topic?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 04:17 pm: Edit

That's fine with me.

John W.: Part of the question being discussed was if any X2 should be ever part of XP. I think that question has been put to rest with a resounding NO.

By Charles Gray (Cgray45) on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 05:59 pm: Edit

I'm about to get CL31-- so here's a question. What sort of partial X upgrades have proven most useful to you in play?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 06:41 pm: Edit

Charles,

That's really very situation dependent. But my personnal tendency is to go for the power upgrades (APR/AWR and Battery) first unless I'm the Romulans, when I tend to go for torpedo upgrades first. (I would also got for torpedo/heavy weapon upgrades as the Gorn or ISC, but I just don't play those races very often. If I were Kzinti, a race I play very rarely, I suspect I might tend to go for drone rack upgrades.)

By Ed Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 07:44 pm: Edit

Power first, you can never have enough. Then torps if I am using plasma, otherwise phasers, again it is almost like a power upgrade because of the capaciator.