| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 11:18 am: Edit |
Mike West:
I am sympathetic to you point of view, but I would suggest that the Star Fleet universe is not static. (ie unchanging).
It (the History) is still being written, there are stil modules to print which will (I have no doubt) contain new and different kinds of ships for a variety of time periods.
As ADB is a business, if the "public" (as illustrated by Aaron, Glenn and others) demand DNX, BCHX and so forth, then the possiblity exists that ADB will print products to meet that need.
There was a time that certain ships were "impossible" to build (the Klingon B-10 is an example of that), and others that I am sure you are aware of.
You may disagree with me, but IMO the answer is not to argue against Aaron and his cronies.
The answer is to write, submit (and hopefully ADB will publish) the kinds of scenarios, SFU histories and campaigns that do not rely on "moster" (aka 'scary ships') vessels.
i want interesting stories, and scenarios, just counting ever increasing numbers of SSD boxes on the page doesnt do anything to increase my satisfaction in the hobby.
| By Ed Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 11:32 am: Edit |
Ok, lets remember a couple of things, everything in the game is conjectural. It is nice to have a variety to use. Myself I dont use X-class that often, but I do like the new XP refits, especially the power. Each player has his personal preferences, I believe and we usually play in our group that if there is a published SSD(and some cases even if it is not published) we use it. We have even put together and SSD book of ships found on the internet that people use. Do I want a DNX, not really, because I probable would not use it, but then someone else would like it. I am a cruiser DD person, hardly ever use BBs, DNs or carriers, but that does not mean it should not be in the game. I am sure Steve likes to limit it somewhat to keep some sort of balance to the game, but then it is really up to the players to decide what they want to use and how they really want to limit them within their own group. The limiting rules really seem to be designed for an overall balance in the game when Charlie from Maine plays Joe from California at a local or national convention.
| By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 12:07 pm: Edit |
Aaron: I guess a some folks do care. I'm just not one that lets things like that spoil my fun. It depends on the kind of campaign you're running. If I was playing a fairly-historical GW campaign, yeah, I probably wouldn't want to see DNX hulls, at least in any numbers. On the other hand, if the premise of the game was focused on (or designed to eventually BE focused on) the X1 era... I would think those ships would be a good addition.
Like Jeremy said, hopefully the folks you're gaming with can be reasonable and work things out. In our own campaign, we allow at least 1 of a CNJ unit to be built... unless we give it the nod, in which case it's freely available. Great example is the BHB Battlehawk Leader; it's a Starfleet Times ship, not even officially "published", but we allow its use. Campaign command limits keep it from replacing the BH, though, as it suffers the 'leader' penalty.
As for whether the DNX or BCX will ever become 'real', well, we all know things *never* change in the SFU. After all, there are no NCA variants allowed, nor will there be. The Fed CS is a unique, one-off ship.
Oh wait... ;-)
| By ART TROTMAN (Drneuro) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 12:30 pm: Edit |
Good day everyone and Merry Christmas. I hardly ever post to these discussions as they always seem so intense, but this time I want to say something. I understand what Mike West is saying but I still agree with Aaron and Jeremy. Trust me, as a player that allows my campaign opponents to use any ships that are available for the year assigned, I find that it is easier for us to have the ships available and have everyone agree on some limit or banning altogether than it is for a ship to be conjectural and not even having a chance to use it. Unfortunately, some of my players share Mike West's view(no offence Mike) and wish to impose their dislike of some units onto the other players. This game should be for all players, and therefore should supply something for everyone. Maybe some players like powerful units, maybe some don't. By putting the ships out there, at least everyone can choose what works for them in their campaign.
| By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 12:32 pm: Edit |
Quote:I am sympathetic to you point of view, but I would suggest that the Star Fleet universe is not static. (ie unchanging).
It (the History) is still being written, there are stil modules to print which will (I have no doubt) contain new and different kinds of ships for a variety of time periods.
| By ART TROTMAN (Drneuro) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 01:01 pm: Edit |
I also wish to add that I would like to see more scenarios in the products that encourage us to use all the new ships in that product. Also, maybe a compromise to make the new ships more interesting is to have different ships for each race as Jeremy suggested(I think that is what he was saying)-as long as the sum of each races new ship bpv is roughly the same. A DNX here, a BCX there, several CLX variants somewhere else-this may increase the use of tactics since someone might have a DNX, but their opponent might have several specialied smaller x-units to counter-what do people think of that idea? I am just trying to think of some way to compromise, but SVC is pretty good at doing that so I am sure that we will be happy with the final X-module product. Hopefully all these opinions and suggetions that we are putting forth will only help make it an even better product
| By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 01:27 pm: Edit |
I don't know how many of you have recently looked at the write-up on the Andromedan Threat File; C3A. It is in CL# 18. There were a few Andro X-ships and a few rules. The galactic DNXs and BCH-Xs could go in that module C3A. X1R could then be more focused on historical to campaign conjectural (like the Fed ACS in R9).
| By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 05:30 pm: Edit |
I certainly don't object to a DNX BCHX on principle. But I doubt I would use them much myself. But then I hardly ever use DN's or BB's. Let alone CV's or PFT's. I still like to contemplate the idea of such fleets/units. Even though it is still is unlikely that i would ever use said units.
Offhand many major races have a very large # of SC2 ships already, (some races almost have enough variants that they couldn't actually build them during the entire GW). But does that stop ppl from buying R5? BIG ships are a proven sales point for ADB.
IMO the "work" increases more than the fun does past the size of a squadron, (3-5 ships). And even that can be a LOT of work based on the exact mix of units. But maybe a DNX+2CX would make an interesting squadron.
So if there are DNX's BCHX's etc. published by ADB I'll buy them. I even bought J2 as soon as I reasonably could. Regardless of my dislike of attrition units in general.
| By SSG Staley Aaron M. (Awwwdrat) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 06:54 pm: Edit |
"But, really, it all comes down to the issue of whether making the biggest ship that you can cram the most weapons and power onto is "interesting". I grew out of that a long time ago."
If this is the biggest thing you're worried about Mike, then I suggest you need to spend about 5 hours in the woods doing yoga and refocus your inner chi.
There's the Munchkin and the Anti-Munchy. Both are just as bad as the other.
One would play chess with 16 queens / the other with 16 pawns. I want to play with all the regular pieces.
| By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 08:19 pm: Edit |
Quote:One would play chess with 16 queens / the other with 16 pawns. I want to play with all the regular pieces.
| By SSG Staley Aaron M. (Awwwdrat) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 09:01 pm: Edit |
Mike West:
"I like regular pieces, too. DNXes or BCHXes are not regular pieces."
No Mike, you just like taking pawns and painting them different colors.
The DNX is NOT a munchkin ship. If the DNX is a munchkin ship, then so is the DN. Since the DN isn't; neither is the DNX. You are being hypercritical. Chi brother.
"It is a Munchkin question to ask, "How do I get a ship with more weapons, power, and other goodies than any other ship added to the game, but at least pretend to have a context to justify it?" The logical answer to that question is "DNX"."
This is not the question folks are asking; but it's the question you seem to think we are and then misinterpreting our actual desires as munchkinism to justify your extremist anti-munchkinism agenda.
"A DNX is a Munchkin ship." No it isn't.
"There is Power Gaming (trying to maximize what the game gives you) and Munchkin (trying to change the game to get power)."
No one's trying to maximize anything. What we are simply saying is that it's ridiculous for any admiral to believe that he should give up his heavy duty flagships for a CCX, that's going to lead 2-3 other CCX's, in the current setting of the SFU. There must be something harder to destroy and that will last longer for command and control in a fleet environment (a point your anti-munchkin mind completely and conveniently ignores). I even said that a SC2 SCSX without any heavy weapons would be ENTIRELY reasonable (even if there was only just one historically for the entire race). But you just want to paint pawns.
"A DNX is obviously, without question, a Munchkin ship." Only in your mind.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 10:08 pm: Edit |
Nothing can be done that will break existing established history. The Desecrator was destroyed during Op:Unity. How much easier will it be to take out a Desecrator guarded by a pair of Dominators when you have 800 BPV split between your DNX and BCX?
The Andros have to have a chance; something they already struggle with when fleet density goes up. Does allowing historical BCX or DNX put us over the balance threshold? I don't know; but to my uneducated eye it comes uncomfortably close.
I don't really care if BCX or DNX SSDs are published now or in the future. I begin to care deeply if important historical units get bumped from X1R so these controversial units can be included.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 10:09 pm: Edit |
As far as I'm concerned, if a module that includes DNX's - either hypothetical or historical - sells well and makes ADB money, then it should be published. No one can force anyone to buy it or play with the ships in it. I personally don't care to see them as historical units, but if a module full of them sells like hotcakes, then hey...fire away. Ought to make nifty counters, if nothing else.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 10:11 pm: Edit |
Quote:"A DNX is obviously, without question, a Munchkin ship." Only in your mind.
| By Ed Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 10:36 pm: Edit |
Always wonder what made a munchkin ship, was the B10 when was first brought considered a munchkin, biggest most weapons all of the bells and whistles, was a CX considered since it had everything you ever wanted compared to other ships. If everybody gets one is it still considered munchkin. designs evolve, does that make it better, no does that make it more fun to play no, If the game had started out with early years ships would the CX have been considered a munchkin. thats the history of weapons design, get more in the design
| By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 10:40 pm: Edit |
Nope, I like all the pieces. (Well, almost all. I am still not too hip on HDWs.) However, I do like to make sure the pawns are still present. In the appropriate numbers.
Quote:No Mike, you just like taking pawns and painting them different colors.
Yes, actually, you are. You are asking to add the most powerful ships that the game has ever seen. Ships that will immediately outclass every other ship that is currently in the game.
Quote:No one's trying to maximize anything.
DNXs would be the single most powerful ship class the game has ever seen, and would immediately outclass and marginalize all other ships. Regardless of whatever "reasons" you try to use as justification, that is trying to change the game to get power.
Quote:"A DNX is obviously, without question, a Munchkin ship." Only in your mind.
| By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 10:50 pm: Edit |
No, because the CX was roughly comparable to the DN. (And, initially in the game, they were DN replacements.)
Quote:If the game had started out with early years ships would the CX have been considered a munchkin. thats the history of weapons design, get more in the design
| By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 12:14 am: Edit |
SSG Staley, while I can agree with both sides in some respect in this matter, I THINK what SVC is saying is that the era of the X1 SHip was just as everyone was entering exhaustion, was needing ship NUMBERS and the Xtech was just too scarce to commit such a large % of it to X ships larger than a CA.
BUT, I think that a "X ships that never were" module could be interesting. A simple note that these ships were thoeretically possible, none were built for various reasons ($, tech availability, Andos, Xorks, ISC and what have you). By the time the $ AND the design issues had been resolved, the era of the X1 ships was over and these designs were not a viable use of the $.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 12:34 am: Edit |
Andro threat file could also include what the Andros were afraid we would produce...
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 01:00 am: Edit |
I have little issue with conjectural DNX's although I wouldn't want them nudging out other more important ships.
I do NOT want to see them become historical. SFU history is THE most important thing to me and I believe the DNX would diminish the quality of the SFU history.
I also doubt SVC will go back on published history and allow DNX's. That is specifically X1 DN's. The history as given is quite logical and by the time the technological issues were dealt with it would be the X2 era.
What Aaron wants to say is that the technological impediments to SC2-X were overcome earlier on. If such were the case then I would have to agree with him that the Admirals would demand several DNX's. So his arguement there stands. Where it fails, IMO, is that the Admirals can demand all they want but if a DNX is not technologically possible then tough nuts.
It is stated that verious limitations of X1 were overcome with X2 and X2 is NOT yet written. There may be room in the history of SC2-X.
I hate the idea of creating a discontiuity in the established SFU history. The situation on SC2-X1 is well defined in the current rules and fiction and histoical indications and F&E. IMO, it is flatly too late to include historical SC2-X.
| By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 01:14 am: Edit |
Aye, there's still about a seventeen year period of the SFU that doesn't even make it up to the level of murkiness: the Y203-220 period following OpUnity. Heavier X-ships of some variety could easily exist within that period, without having the slightest impact on already established history or any game or campaign set before then. If DNXs are YIS217, serving as flagships for the counterattack against the Xorks, then they're not much of a worry for a GW campaign or a Y175 one-off battle.
And yes, they would be more powerful than anything published before. However, I see no mandate that what has gone before must somehow forever remain the high water mark. To say that the CCX and B10 can never be exceeded, no matter what, is a needless design handicap. The context of anything beyond that should be carefully examined to make sure it has a place. Retconning DNXs into the ISC Pacification and Andro War would be bad, but I don't see anyone advocating that.
| By ART TROTMAN (Drneuro) on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 01:14 am: Edit |
Actually, I think that I like the idea of DNXs being built as replacements or instead of BBs--that seems like a good compromise!
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 01:39 am: Edit |
DNXs can never be historical. They can be published as "impossible to build, but this is what they would have looked like". And that's all I can offer you. Take it or leave it, but they will NEVER be historical.
| By SSG Staley Aaron M. (Awwwdrat) on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 01:48 am: Edit |
SVC: Then I'm leaving it on the shelf.
I've waited way too long for a new X-module, put up with new "Conjectural/Joke" unit modules for too long, and all I'm going to get is Module X1R "Admin Shuttles at war again". You've changed history on other stuff (and called it an "error on the tapes") but when it comes to this you stand firm.
Why.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 03:59 am: Edit |
A Short List of Reasons to have DNXs and BCH-Xs.
1) Will give XCCs (especially fully refited ones ) something to playtest against in a duel (yes, it violates S8 but that BPV level needs more players in the league).
2) Some people will enjoy taking a DNX lead X squadron with BCH-X against an S8 legal 10 ship GW fleet.
3) Some people will want to play my BCH-X takes on the DWs of all the other guys (say five other guys ) in their play group.
4) SCS-Xs would seem nessesary for RTN hunting and I for one would be okay with DNXs being conjectual and with a much latter YIS SCS-Xs being real. Maybe one race built an actual DNX and knowing it could be done other races went straight to SCS-Xs.
None of the above however really demands real DNXs (in my mind at any rate).
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |