Archive through June 12, 2007
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
The "X" Files:
OLD X2 FOLDER:
X2 photons:
Archive through June 12, 2007
I was filling Joe in on the background.
Thye crucial question will always remain balance.
"What will the Feds give up to stay even?"
"What do other races get to catch up?"
The the Plasma Boys could get a quick arming Plasma Shotgun to deal with PFs, drones and Fighters. I'm not sure what the Disruptor boys would get though.
The plasma boys already have the PL-DX rack, which is rather effective. The poor ISC are stuck with PL-L torps. Klingon and Kzinti would just use more drones. Lyrans rely on the ESG. Tholians use web, if they even get X2 class ships. The Hydrans have gatlins and the St-XM. I'm not sure any of the other races need a lateral defense weapon. Given a choice I'd rather see 2 Photon Racks and 2 GX racks on a Fed then 4 GX racks, too much flavor lost for the Feds by going drone heavy.
"Actually our first object is not so much to make the official future history, come to fruition but rather to make X2 play nice with GW. "
Personally, I think this is a pointless goal.
An M1A2 is NEVER going to play well with a Sherman tank. The Sherman will never have a chance.
GW = Shermans
X2 = M1A2 (or at least it should be)
Basically, you're trying to make "new and advanced" somehow balance with "old and outdated". I don't understand why anyone would do this.
If you look at the shiploss rates we see in F&E in the late way, I doubt that many standard GW ships would survive even X1 + PFs. One the specialty ships, of which there are none in X1. Other than that, GW has no business on the battlefield.
Quote:An M1A2 is NEVER going to play well with a Sherman tank. The Sherman will never have a chance.
GW = Shermans
X2 = M1A2 (or at least it should be)
But that's only your opinion, and predicated on a desire to have X2 be a 'munchkin module' (and you aren't the only one, so don't feel singled out) rather than something that takes a different route.
Another (and frankly better and more interesting) way of looking at it is that X2 ships might be more advanced but no more combat capable than X1, because X2 ships are not specifically bred for combat, while X1 ships were. An X2 may have nifty new weapons, but not in the sheer amounts an X1 ship does; look at a Fed CX. It has more phasers in the saucer than any other Fed ship, DNH and BB included. Why? Because it's primary function is to fight. An X2 ship likely has a different purpose altogether, since everyone is now broke and recovering from not one but three seperate major conflicts (GW, ISC Pascification, Andro war). To continue your analogy, you might look at the advancement of tech like so:
GW: M-48 Tank (pretty basic)
X1: M-60 Tank (based on previous design, but with more bells and whistles and designed to fight a major war)
X2: Stryker (far more advanced but less armed and armored, designed for rapid response)
Just something you should consider.
Mike,
IT has nothing to do with being "munchkin". It has everything to with believing that a "leap in technology" should be that. Otherwise, how is it X2? It's supposed to be revolutionary. Otherwise it is X1 refits.
It also has to do with HISTORY. REAL history. The ntion to me that ships as old as 60-80 years old could compete in any way with X2 seems ridiculous on its face. If you don't like the tank analogy, how about real navy ships? Look at naval development over the past 100 years. Even the navy of 1980 could not contend with the modern navy, and the navy of the 50s could not contend with that 1980 navy. If X2 is well balanced within itself, and playable against X1 ships, then I don't see how it is being "munchkin".
If you want X1 refits, let's call it that, instead of pretending that this is a new level of technolofgy.
And in your example, the Styker is a BAD analogy, becuase the Stryker is NOT A TANK, for one. Your comparison is null. The M1A2 would be the nxt in that line. And the M1A1 would make short work of both the M48 and M60.
In SFB/F&E terms, the Stryker would be a "specialty ship" that would be there to fill gaps in the X2 menu. It is, after all, an APC with an array of weapons loadouts, and not a tank. It is a support vehicle.
Something YOU should consider.
I barely know where to begin responding to such an incoherent and self-contradictory post.
Quote:IT has nothing to do with being "munchkin". It has everything to with believing that a "leap in technology" should be that. Otherwise, how is it X2? It's supposed to be revolutionary. Otherwise it is X1 refits.
The arrogance of this statement appalls me. First, you clearly state you WANT X2 to be completely and totally superior to GW, so much so that they shouldn't be able to even interact. Now, how are such designs NOT munchkin? This I can't wait to hear. Also, what kind of question is "how is it X2"? X2 hasn't been designed; all that designator means is it's second gen X-ships. There's not one damned thing written anywhere that says X2 MUST be a huge generational leap over X1...nowhere. You're saying it should because it's what you want, but to claim anything less is simply X1 refits is, well, ridiculous. Have you even LOOKED at some of the stuff posted here over the past few years? None of it can be considered X1 refits.
Quote:It also has to do with HISTORY. REAL history.
WHAT history? You mean the game history? It hasn't even been written yet! And if you mean real world history, well, you might remember that it's a science fiction game!
Quote:And in your example, the Styker is a BAD analogy, becuase the Stryker is NOT A TANK, for one. Your comparison is null. The M1A2 would be the nxt in that line. And the M1A1 would make short work of both the M48 and M60.
Sigh. First, a Stryker IS a tank; it fills that role in the TO&E. I should know; I was a tank commander for 12 years. The point, which you seem bound and determined to miss, is that it's different technology. The Stryker is way more advanced than the M60 or M48, but has a different mission profile. Why? Because there isn't a need anymore for the big tank battle line. Tanks now need to be faster and easier to deploy; so, we get a Stryker. X2 isn't developed in a period of constant war, so it's not going to be designed for that. But let us use your analogy. GW equals M60. X1 equals M1. What's next? What's the newest thing we have? Stryker. Totally different, but with the most advanced tech we possess.
As I and other's have repeatedly said, X2 can be more advanced without outgunning everything on the board. SVC has said this is a mandate for the design; if you don't like it, take it up with him and quit complaining about how it's a pointless goal. We're trying to make something that works, and fits SVC's needs. Participate if you want, but if all you're going to do is complain about the ideas people put forth as not being good enough, maybe you shouldn't participate at all.
"The arrogance of this statement appalls me. First, you clearly state you WANT X2 to be completely and totally superior to GW, so much so that they shouldn't be able to even interact. Now, how are such designs NOT munchkin?"
Please explain how it does NOT amount to X1 refits if the changes are minor?
You sitll haven't demonstrated how this is "munchkin"? Do you know what the word means? If X2 is properly balanced, no matter how powerful, it will not be munchkin.
"WHAT history? You mean the game history? It hasn't even been written yet! And if you mean real world history, well, you might remember that it's a science fiction game! "
And I'm to believe that technology advances even more slowly, 200-300 years in the future, even in a game?
"First, a Stryker IS a tank; it fills that role in the TO&E. I should know; I was a tank commander for 12 years."
Interesting. Everything out there says that it is not. It carries a lot of firepower, but as you admit yourself, it has a differnt mission profile. It's NOT a tank. It's not even filling the tank role, as YOU SAID YOURSELF, in your other statements. You said quiet clearly that the MBT is "no longer needed" . I tend to think your statement is also inaccurate; it isn't needed IN CERTAIN KINDS OF CONFLICTS.
Do X2 ships have a different mission profile than X1?
"but if all you're going to do is complain about the ideas people put forth as not being good enough, maybe you shouldn't participate at all. "
So, if I don't agree with you, then I should go away? And >I'M< the arrogant one?
Look in the mirror, bub.
Well, lets look at a few things the boss has said (SVC).
X2 must play nice with X1 and GW or it's a no go. Note that he didn't go so far as to include EY and MY. But that an equal BPV of GW must be able to win 50% of the time. So if X2 can mision kill a GW ship before the GW ship has a chance to return any damage there is a problem. An example of how this bad thing can happen would be say, R12 overloads. Increased effectiveness over range is probably the most imbalancing thing yet we can work it a little. Again, a good example of a nice technology advancement proposed by this board is the Ph-5. Modest, effective and clearly more advanced.
Second: X2 ships won't have less fighting to do, they'll have more. This tells us what X2 will be in the long run but doesn't tell us exactly what the first X2 ships will be. Many of us have the assumption that after such a long period of war and the Organian declaration of the Era of Peace means that X2 will go back to a style of ship similar to a pre-GW design philosophy. I happen to think that there will be two schools of thought that will mesh into one. The first will be the optimistism for peace and the other will be those who don't think peace will last for but a few years and they'd better get prepared.
The initial X2 then will be ships capable of keeping the peace. Different races will have different views of this and the Feds will probably have a unique view by having an X2 line of ships that do exploration (optimism having a stronger influence). Klingons have always built their ships for war. In fact, most races exploration ships are converted warships while the Federation has up gunned exploration ships as warships at the start of the GW.
What the initial X2 ship should be, IMO, is a ship with much great defense of the ship against damage to the hull, protecting the crew. A long range photon aegis defense perhaps fill does this but I don't want to make a defensive weapon that will never be used because no one will ever take the target of such a weapon against it. Besides it only addresses one potential threat (one that that has been disappearing for a while) so I think the answer lays in the proposed ASIF (advanced structural integrity field) or something like it. Something that mitigates damage from any source.
The second aspect would be less weapons hardpoints but more advanced weapons. This balances nice with X1 and GW which will have more hardpoints but less effective weapons. This means they take more hits on weapons and lose less with each hit. So an X2 cruiser might have eight Ph-5 (with perhaps two point defense phasers of some type) compared to an X1 with 12 Ph-1X and a GW's 10 Ph-1. Later when it becomes clear that X2 will have the most fighting to do refits and new classes will come.
GW and X1 ships will still be part of each empires fleets which means there must be a balance. BPV cannot balance everything. R12 overloaded photons with the ability to gain a -1 via ECCM advantage and the power to use them would put the X2 cruiser's BPV at an unreasonable level. I want to see a GW BCH with a CL escort be able to stand against an X2 cruiser. Why? Because it should be a challenge. Because this is a game and I don't want X2 to be it's own game. Should we have X2 be something that meshes with the rest of the game or not?
BTW: I think the M1A1(2) are Third Generation X-tech compared to the Sherman. Perhaps you lable the Sherman tank as EY, not GW.
"But that an equal BPV of GW must be able to win 50% of the time. So if X2 can mision kill a GW ship before the GW ship has a chance to return any damage there is a problem"
Equal BPV is the key point here.
IFF the X2 ships are properly valued, there should be no issue.
"Should we have X2 be something that meshes with the rest of the game or not? "
Absolutely. But my point is, has been, shall continue to be that we should get hung up on "Hey the GW-CA has no chance against an X2-CA". Of course it won't. As you said, CAN AN EQUAL BPV OF GW SHIPS STAND UP TO AN X2 SHIP? Yes, they MUST be able to, otherwise, the X2 ships are undervalued.
I have seen many people (not everyone, and I'm not saying this particular person or that one) get hung up on the semantics of X2 CA vs. DD, whatever should be equal to a GW this, that, or the other thing. Point balance, to me, is and should be the primary consideration. Maybe you'll duel with an X2-DD or X2-FFG vs. a GW cruiser or CW, or an X2-CA vs a sqn of GW-CWs. As with X1, I don't envision X2 DNs or BBs, so it's not like your going to need 12 ships to fight an X2 ship (in my vision). Do the semantics matter, as long as the ships are balanced properly via the point system?
"The second aspect would be less weapons hardpoints but more advanced weapons. This balances nice with X1 and GW which will have more hardpoints but less effective weapons."
I think this is a good way to do it. So in those 1-ship-vs-a0sqn battles, the saving grace for the GW is numbers; the X2 ship can't hit them all at once, and the X2 ship is somewhat "brittle"l if the GW ships score some damage, the X2 ship is going to degrade somewhat quickly to balance things out
Joe: So we are on the same page and by "we" I mean most of us. It was determined early in the X-files by general consensus that most certainly there would be no match per hull class. X2 cruisers will probably out BPV even an X1 cruiser. The only way to have GW face X2 is through multi-unit forces. What we mean by "must play nice" is that due to game mechanics it is possible to devise a ship with weapons that previous tech levels cannot compete no matter the BPV. BPV only streatches so far. If X2 can mission kill destroyers in a single volley at R12 then you have a situation where the X2 cruiser is one BPV against one type of opponant and another against a different opponant. Clearly this can't work. So we have to watch ourselves.
The reason X1 is balanced against GW is because the X weapons use the same range charts. That means GW can engage X1 on the same playing field. Now X2 will be boring is it's just spiced up X1 but the room for change require even more careful attention to balance.
"As with X1, I don't envision X2 DNs or BBs, so it's not like your going to need 12 ships to fight an X2 ship (in my vision). Do the semantics matter, as long as the ships are balanced properly via the point system?"
Well, there is some issue with that too. We all agree that cruisers, probably BCH in max size, will be the top end but maybe not in the late X2 period. Lets say an X2 top of the line cruiser is 300 BPV and the X2 Medium cruiser is 240. Weapons are balanced and range factors are fair to GW. The GW opponant has probably four ships, cool. This is a nice battle as the GW can probably afford a good scout in its squadron too.
Ah, but what happens when you hit command limits? GW hasn't any chance at all. Now the same thing already exists with X1 so this probably isn't a major deal but it is yet another factor to consider. And how would you reflect this in F&E? Easy, just give X2 high compot factors except that in SFB the eleven ship X2 fleet will obliterate the GW fleet with likely no damage and in F&E there would be damage. Still, I don't think these are major problems. One might say that in F&E there are other factors, brilliant stratigy, use of terrain etc. that lends itself to the GW fleet. Maybe even some suicidal runs?
I think what SVC wants is the ability to play scenarios of reasonable size against each other so that historically X2 doesn't have to sweep away all that comes before. Interesting enough, X2 may actually eliminate the big fleet battle unless you have mixed technology fleets (yet another factor to balance).
Most of what I posted above is stuff we've established fairly early in the X2 threads. It's just burried so deep that it would be pretty hard to find.
"It was determined early in the X-files by general consensus that most certainly there would be no match per hull class. X2 cruisers will probably out BPV even an X1 cruiser. The only way to have GW face X2 is through multi-unit forces. "
Totally on the same page, here. I have, at times, encountered people that WERE arguing for exactly that; a hull match.
"Ah, but what happens when you hit command limits? GW hasn't any chance at all. Now the same thing already exists with X1 so this probably isn't a major deal but it is yet another factor to consider."
For me, this is a non-issue, for multiple reasons:
1. X2 ships, like X1 only moreso, are very expensive. In F&E terms, X-economy points (XTP) are separate from general economic points (EP). I image X2 ships would be even more costly than X1. Right now, The Roms, assuming they have not losy any of their territory at that point, generate enough XTP to build about 7 X1 ships, mostly SPX (4 of these, 1-2 FHX, the rest SKX or SEX). If you go all X2, you probably only get 3-4 ships every 6 months. It would take a LONG time to build up enough X2 ships to make an all X2 line, and in the meantime, most of the GW ships will die off due to X1, PFs, & CVBG, and economic shifting the production largely to X1 ships for several years.
2. As you said, the same thing happens with X1, so this is nothing new.
3. It stands to reason that the old outdated ships, in limited numbers due to command limits, could never stand up to a fleet of X2 ships, nor should they. As I said, I don't know how many GW ships survive into the X2 era anyway as a practical matter.
"...a hull match."
Yikes. I don't see how that could be done. Maybe they should go play FC? 
There is existing data to say that more than half the ships in Y205 are GW but dwindling.
I agree that large fleets will have to be mixed over pure GW fleets in the X2 era. And I suppose it will be self limiting. When the player trying to put together a pure GW fleet cannot make the BPV level set for the game he will have no choice but to pick X2 and X1 ships or start off at a huge disadvantage.
All I was saying is that the top end has to be considered. I don't think it's a non-issue as it is possible this can happen and we should understand exactly what happens when this does. For instance, what happens with a pure X1 fleet with an EW advantage fire 24 prox photons at R30? Can any fleet stand up to that? So S8 comes to the rescue, not BPV.
"There is existing data to say that more than half the ships in Y205 are GW but dwindling. "
In the fluff, or based on games played? I imagine it is the former. In F&E, we saw the ship-kill rate go from 30/turn (6-month turn) galaxy-wide to over 300 very rapidly, as X-shps and PFs were deployed, and economic exhaustion played its effects. No one wants to repair their BH when they can use those points (and the salvage) to convert a SK to a SKX
"For instance, what happens with a pure X1 fleet with an EW advantage fire 24 prox photons at R30? "
Valid point, but isn't that even an issue with GW
ships? Massed prox photons are pretty devestating. Hence the Kaufman retrograde.
The thing you call fluff we refer to as published rules and published historical background. The fluff and what SVC has added to these conversations have shaped all that has been designed here.
Relax, Tos. Obviously, you knew what I was getting at. And I was thinking only of the historical stuff, not the rules themselves. Rules are never "fluff".
I don't consider the historical record of the SFU as published in the core SFB rulebooks 'fluff'. Insightful that you do.
Tos
I don't know why you seem want to take this personally.
Joe: Well, 1-4 is a lot better than 1-3. It may not seem like much but nothing can match it. Usually EW on the enemy fleet makes R30 prox's a pretty tough shot but X-ships generate EW well and can generate more so not only do they overcome all EW but get a -1 too. The GW fleet rarely actually gets a clean 1-3 R30 prox shot.
BTW: I think X-photons get R40! Were it not for S8 this by itself would be "not nice" against GW.
I think I can explain. There is a core group of players who have been actively attempting to put a box around X2 for over four years now. There hasn’t been much to go on, but we have been offered clues along the way.
There are the published rules and historical background. There is the debunked experiment of Supplement 2, from which we have learned what not to do. There are the few statements that SVC has made to guide the topic: SVC has stated that the conflict in this period is called the Trade Wars. SVC’s prime directive is that X2 must place nicely with GW ships.
You’ve joined the conversation and decided that we should ignore the published history, ignore what we have created so far and build M1A1 style super ships. You feel this is warranted by an advance of technology and can be balanced with BPV. You are within your rights to believe this, but for right or wrong the consensus of the group has moved away from that approach.
To us old timers the path you have advocated brings us right back to the debunked Supplement 2, violates SVC’s edict that X2 play nice with GW, and cannot be adequately balanced with GW BPV. You are suggesting that all three of our core assumptions are wrong, a position to which I take offense.
I do not control the X2 topic nor do I have any more of a say than the next guy. If you wish to make a proposal that X2 should be based on different assumptions and follow an M1A1 approach then I invite you to create a topic for that purpose. There are a huge number of posts in these folders and we have no clear idea if or when X2 will ever see publication. We’ve worked hard to keep our posts on topic so that they can be found and referenced when inevitably the conversation circles around right back to where we began. Discussing the overall trend of X2 in a photon topic is a guaranteed way to have the conversation lost.
"You’ve joined the conversation and decided that we should ignore the published history, ignore what we have created so far and build M1A1 style super ships"
If you look closer at my conversation with Loren, you find that we are not as far apart as you are suggesting; beyond that, you are also mischaracterizing my posts, even though I've clarified myself more than once.
To give more useful information:
The economy shades into larger and larger percentages of X-points until the entire economy is converted in the early Y200s. X-points do become plentiful over time.
Contrary to this, GW ships never go out of style, perhaps owing to the expense of X1 and X2 ships.
SVC has said that the GW time period is the core time period of the game. He does not appear ready to abandon GW-era ships or make them across the board obsolete in later time periods.
In your tank analogy, you miss a crucial point of SFB, if you consider the shields to be equivalent of tank armor: A machine gun and ablate away the armor of tanks (starships) in in SFB. You comparison does shade towards apples and oranges when you consider the game mechanics of the real world vs SFB starship combat.
Finally, too much tech difference or too much of an increase in combat power destroys balance. You cannot make an uber-ship, give it a monstrous BPV and expect it to balance. Our classic example hereabouts is how many EY cruisers it takes to make an even fight for one X1 cruiser. The short answer is more than the BPVs indicate, because the tech differences make it really hard for those old EY ships to compete.
Things like extended OL range or superior reinforcemet ratios are out because The commander's X2 module shows us how broken they are as compared to earlier ships. We therefore had to make a decision to tone down both the raw power of X2 ships and altered capabilities as compared to a GW reference point.