| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 03:49 pm: Edit |
John, that is exactly why I proposed a new freighter design. One that fit the new era. AND, it was an X1 ship produced in the X2 era.
The idea is that it took the right galactic situation AND the right amount of time for X1 to filter down to the civilian fleets.
There are some instances where fast freighters are important. Cheif among them is to support OpU. Any way possible to increase the speed of logisics in this case is highly valuable. And there isn't enough tugs to support THAT operation (and have any left for empire operations).
Increase of freighter speed might not match parity with warship increase as the top end of warp speed is what is limiting the warship increase (and cutting edge navigation). A freighter could double it's warp speed capabilities and simply use a GW standard nav. suite.
Still, such units would seem to be very uncommon and perhaps only become common long into the X2 era. That is, X1 should filter VERY slowly into the civilian population. Perhaps 1 or 2 percent per year per class.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 06:31 pm: Edit |
Freighters only NEED fast engines. I'm not sure they need the entire X-package.
| By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 07:13 pm: Edit |
NO ADMIRAL IN HIS RIGHT MIND WOULD ALLOW HIS ENTIRE REGIONAL FLEET TO BE COMMANDED FROM A COMMAND CRUISER.
He would if that was the best ship available.
Let's look at, oh, the Klingons in the Middle Years
Y122: Choice of D6 or the Y-tech C4 as flag.
Y135: D7 available.
Y143: D7C available.
Y145: BT available.
Y150: SC2 C6 finally available.
Y167: C8 available.
I imagine that the admirals, used to the C4's survivability and command rating compared to the D4, were really, really eager to have a DN in Y122 with such advantages over the D6. Such ships certainly would have been very handy during the Third Klingo-Kzinti War (Y123-Y131) and the Third Klingon-Hydran War (Y137-Y141). But they weren't available. The choices were a mere cruiser or an old, slow YDN.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 07:18 pm: Edit |
Well, the X-package doesn't really do that much for the freighter anyway.
They certainly could use better shields.
Alternatively, the most you see X-pirates the most companies will be interested in ivesting in their property. Since X is something that you CAN retrofit it is cheeper than replacing the old with a new. If upgrading to X-tech cost 25% to 50% as much as a new high tech freighter and you get the same thing then it certainly makes sense. Now freighter in the interior wouldn't ever be upgraded but those on the fronteer, the one most likely to be used in a scneario, would be likely candidates. Be that as it may, I still don't see very many actually making the grade. A few for sure but not many. More likely to see FTX's than F-SX and F-LX's. Even more likely to see XP on the FT's. I'm sure XP-Batteries will be in BIG demand. Eventually an owner will have XP refit his FT to the point where he finishes the conversion. Not a route the military would take but a good one for the civilians.
| By Terry_OCarroll (Terryoc) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 09:54 pm: Edit |
Some freighter companies might invest in X-refits, it depends on the value of the freight they're carrying, and the economics of the business.
I think that freighters in the core worlds might get X-refits first - competition for valuable cargoes in those areas would be more intense, and competition tends to drive innovation. That would drive down the cost of second-hand non-X freighters, so you'd probably find obsolete non-X junk freighters operating in the less profitable markets for decades after the introduction of civilian X-tech.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 10:30 pm: Edit |
Terry, you might rethink that after reading the Fed Express article in CL34.
I think such refits would be more likely to freighters and FT's in the deep reaches of the devestated zones.
| By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 10:38 pm: Edit |
Loren stated in a post "X-ships were toned down because they were too powerful within the limits of the game system."
CL#23 discusses this:
"The single greatest problem was that the overloaded phaser rules encouraged players to perform a single manuever called a "hose and close". A ship would overload all weapons and close to a range-5 (or closer)..." CL#23 was published in 2001. There is additional background information on page 16 and the article is available on this website as a PDF document.
X-ships have lost so of the their combat power. X-phasers are not so unique any more. Any ship can have them with an XP refit. It is practical to introduce anew weapon as the X-ship in module X1 would n't have it.
Instead of a new weapon create an updated weapon. Example: Gorns and PL-F carronade rule; no change to the SSD or any weapons table.
My suggestion is create a new firing mode for X-phaser 1s.
The basic outline: Any race can refit center line PH-1s (FH, FX, RH, and RX arcs) to use 2 points of energy.
One point is for the normal phaser damage and the 2nd point produces an effect like a spearfish drone.
Any damage result of four points or more causes one point (and only one point) of internal damage; use (FD14.22 to 24) to resolve damage; the firing arc is FA or RA only; use the standard PH-1 hit and damage chart; limit the refit to two forward and two aft phasers on SC3 ships; won't leak through X-shields; phasers firing in this mode are affected by all the modifiers which affect phasers.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, December 28, 2006 - 07:56 am: Edit |
• Reasons to have SC4 X ships.
Keep LRs away from convoys better than FFGs or even FFBs.
To fill slots in the Squadron.
• Reasons to have a CX leading over a DNH.
You can't lead an X squadron with a DNH.
You might not have got a DNH to replace your lost one whereas your one CX and DX your fleet could have can easily allow for the CX to become the new command ship.
• Reasons to have X freighters.
Because sometimes you absolutly positively have to get large quantities of supplies to the front even with Orion LRXs opperating in the area; A.S.A.P.!
The Military would opperate X freighters and try as best they can to use them where their special abilities would allow them to work better than simply hiring a regular freighter.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, December 28, 2006 - 02:54 pm: Edit |
Joe,
Anything that bypasses shields is *extremely* powerful and equally abusable. That's why most if not all such proposals are on the auto-reject list.
Two things to tread carefully around in this game are bypassing shields and area effects.
Besides, phasers already got a new firing mode: rapid-pulse. They don't need to be any better. You almost can't make them better without upsetting a balance somewhere.
| By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, December 28, 2006 - 03:44 pm: Edit |
John,
I just checked the auto reject list. Perhaps this is what you are referring to "Any weapon that only affects shields."
The above proposal doesn't just affect shields. Further the firing arcs are limited as are the number of phasers allowed to fire in this mode. My understanding is rapid pulse is as two PH-3 shots not two PH-1 shots (could be incorrect).
The impression I have is some think X-ships are a little weak after the changes made in CL# 23 as the game has added addtional ships. XP refits allows some power and heavy weapons refits for SC3 ships. That is why I suggested what I did. It is a starting point to maybe add something to the game; not a finished idea.
| By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, December 28, 2006 - 04:05 pm: Edit |
Hey, JohnW
I can understand your "beef" with CAX/CCXs being "outdone" by the improvements in other classes as later modules have come out (ie F-DNG has gone to a DNH), and that their needs to be a better SC3 ship out their to keep the X-Ships kings over a standard tech ship.
Won't an actually built BCH-X (BCX) serve at that level without going into the SC2 realm?
A simple table to illustrate, the Feds:
| race | CX | DNG | BCG | BCX | DNX |
| Photons | 4 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 6 |
| Drone/Plas | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Phasers | 12 | 12 | 10 | 14 | 16 |
| Warp | 42 | 45 | 32 | 44 | 60 |
| Other power | 6 | 14 | 9 | 9 | 14 |
| HK costs | 4 | 5.5 | 4 | 4 | 5.5 |
| MC | 1 | 1.5 | 1 | 1 | 1.5 |
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, December 28, 2006 - 05:10 pm: Edit |
But the BCHX is the realm of X2.
The shield by-pass capability that Joe suggest isn't really any different than the leaky shields rule. The disparity is that battle between X and GW where GW doesn't have that capability. One way to mitigate that would be to say Reiforcement doesn't leak against the X-Phaser.
I've always had a problem with reinforcement leaking anyway. It makes sense that a shield that takes one energy to raise 30 boxes might leak but when the energy is 1:1 it should hold. Also, reinforcement is taken down before shields suggesting that it is not apart of the shield but protects the shield. If reinforcement leaks it should leak to the shield.
Ah but sorry. That has little to do with the X-files.
| By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, December 28, 2006 - 10:50 pm: Edit |
Loren,
I like your idea on how to mitigate against shield penetration. I suggested the phaser efit idea partly because the CX classes are the largest historical X-ships.
I didn't think I was creating another version of the "leaky shield" rule. Another limit could be having to wait 32 impulses are firing in the two points of power mode.
Summary of idea:
Have to alocate two point during step 1.
The phaser has to cause four points of damage for the one point of internal damage to occur (this mode isn't effective beyond range 5).
Must use FA or RA arc.
As to a BCH-X; see (R0.200) XBCH ships were built with X2 technology.
Instead of BCH-X and DNX ships build a heavy strike cruiser (CHX); no flag bridge; fewer phaser but more heavy weapons; MC of 1; YIS after Y190.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, December 28, 2006 - 11:19 pm: Edit |
Quote:I just checked the auto reject list. Perhaps this is what you are referring to "Any weapon that only affects shields."
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, December 28, 2006 - 11:31 pm: Edit |
You know a Fed FFX is so much better than an FFB.
• Twin 12 point Photons every turn at R8 with a negative shift will generate 16 points of expected photon damage where as the FFB with no shift is looking at 24 points of damage, every other turn and 16 points every other turn if firing through a +1 shift which is not unheard of.
• With an MC of 0.333 instead of 0.5, the two fewer warp engine boxes are less of a problem than one might think.
• 12 spaces of drones in the racks beats 4 when looking to purchase an ECM drone.
• 10 points of power iun the phaser cap' beats 5.
• 9 points in the BTTYs beats 2.
• Can get outside of jamming range and call for help much faster than an FFB.
• Can capitalise on a negative shift ( with phasers as well as the aforementioned photons).
• Can detect trouble comming from much further out.
Basically if you have Frigates of some kind still opperating in your star fleet, you'll want to swap as many of them for FFXs as your construction rates will allow.
I see lots of FFX being built.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, December 29, 2006 - 09:26 am: Edit |
I don't think X ships need any new phaser improvements. They get X-aegis already, they carry more phasers than most ships a size class larger, and the have the double caps. A Fed CX has 12 phaser-1's, with more in the saucer than even a battleship. The phasers are fine.
X1R would be nice if it had the completed XP rules, some new historical X1 ships (including an x-mauler for the Roms, a Fed CSX, and some other "mid size" X-ships) and perhaps some conjectural/impossible stuff like a couple of DNX's just for fun. I don't see any need to revise X weapons at this point.
| By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, December 29, 2006 - 09:42 am: Edit |
If you revise X1 weapons you've just killed X1R. The idea is an SSD book with some new ships. Plus maybe a few "minor" rules. Weapon changes are major rules tweaks. Anything major would need significant playtesting. Putting X1R even further from release.
Frankly I don't see X1R as anything more than say an R8/9. Not a R10/J2 where a lot of new rules got included.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, December 29, 2006 - 10:51 am: Edit |
Since the X-rules were revised I wouldn't mind if the 9 pages of X-rules were integrated and reprinted in X1R. Since this was already done for the MRB there should be little effort involved, but it will help those who don't have the MRB. Same thing for the MSC. Since so many X-ships changed their BPV I'd like to see all X-ships included on the X1R MSC.
I think the revised X-rules are just about right. There are still some things I disagree with, but things are so much better than they were that I don't want to rock the boat now and put X1R at risk.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, December 29, 2006 - 12:06 pm: Edit |
Ultimately I agree with Tos and Mike.
I don't think some small rule like what was proposed would kill X1R but it's not a priority. I don't think X1 is lacking. I only was pointing out that the leak proposal wasn't all that major of a deal (it wouldn't break anything). I don't think it's needed.
I would very much like to see X1R clean up the entire X situation. A clean set of rules, new MSC, XP, and many new ships. That would make me very happy.
| By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, December 29, 2006 - 10:41 pm: Edit |
John T, Mike R, Kenneth, Tos, and Loren:
Thanks for the responses. I achieved what I wanted. By proposing a change to the phasers the comments in essence said; that X1 ships and weapons are fine as is. I accept your collect game known and experience.
The points that are common are:
A clean set of rules, which include the final version of the XP rules.
New MSC (all X-ships included on the X1R MSC);
New historical ships: These range from an x-mauler for the Roms, a Fed CSX, and some other "mid size" X-ships to RTN hunter ships.
Conjectural/impossible "fun" ships.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, December 29, 2006 - 11:20 pm: Edit |
Quote:If you revise X1 weapons you've just killed X1R.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 12:19 am: Edit |
It seems to me that the problem with putting "X2 stuff" in X1R is that most of the X2 stuff has never been adequately playtested. I realize that several people on this board have playtested their personal interpretations of what X2 ought to be. But as far as I can tell from the posts, this has mostly been in solitaire play. I playtested some ideas I had for X2 web casters and snares that way, but I have never tested my ideas against another player.
I mean no disrespect to anyone here when I say that I don't believe solitaire playtesting is sufficiently rigorous to be a reliable guide to whether an idea "works" or not. It's a useful first step. But it's not sufficient to determine whether the idea in question is ready to go into a finished product. At some point it has to be tested against other players, who may use different rule sets (fixed map or floating, EW or not, etc.) or have different assumptions about tactics.
I'm not categorically opposed to including some X2 stuff in X1R, perhaps as "testbed ships" or something similar. But I believe this should be done only if the X2 ideas have been playtested more rigorously than I believe them to have been tested so far.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 12:22 am: Edit |
No. No. No and no. No X2 stuff in X1R. Nonsequitor, nada, icky yuk patooie!
This is one thing I know for sure.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 12:37 am: Edit |
Publishing anything about X2 in X1R backs us unnecessarily into a corner. Bad idea.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 01:00 am: Edit |
Well to some extent the time frame of X2 makes the S-bridge too late so I would like to see the S-Bridge be a late X1 development. I would only like to see a very small amount (probably just S-Bridge) of X2 stuff there.
Also X2 stuff doesn't paint us into a corner...if we get reports that they stink, they'll get called a failed idea and thus not installed in X2 ships. The worst it'll do is make the playtesting take longer.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |