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Basically, you're trying to make "new and advanced" somehow balance with "old and outdated".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.
1) What about 12 Shermans Vs 1 M1A1???
2) Steve Cole has said that it must play nice or it will never be published therefore it will play nice first and foremost.

Otherwise, how is it X2? It's supposed to be revolutionary. Otherwise it is X1 refits.
But it can be revolutionary without being a nightmare:-
A Fed XCM with four 24 point photons (which arn't much better than 12 point fastloads except for the added CRUCH-POWER) and 8Ph-5s and 2 GX-racks isn't much better than CX.
A Klingon XD7 with 12Ph-1s and 2GX-racks and four Disruptors that have built in UIM/DERFACs, Disruptor caps and a six impulse double broadside penalty, isn't much better than a DX.
But give either or both of those ships; ASIFs and regenerative shielding and S-bridges and six extra shield boxes on every shield and 8 extra warp engine boxes and suddenly you're in a whole-nuthah ballpark.
Those little ancillary adjustments suddenly put the ship as a whole in a new league even though the raw firepower is about the same.
The XCM will be better than the CX.
The XDD will be better than the DDX but probably not better than the CX.
The XFF will be better than FFX but probably fall short of the DDX.
So we get ships that are advanced and push further. The problem occours when we start demanding that an XFF can beat a CX purely because high-tech is unbeatable (tell that any F-4 Pilot who got shot down over North Vietnam).
If we put a Fed XFF somewhere between an NCLa+ and a CARa+, we can get some great match ups that are as fun as a Fed DDX Vs a BCH.

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.
I'ld like to draw your attention to the techlevel tables in GPD.

Contrary to this, GW ships never go out of style, perhaps owing to the expense of X1 and X2 ships.
I wonder if one could argue that the large number of GW vessels still opperating in the official history and the large number of GW ship losses in F&E can be explained by saying that some of the F&E losses are in fact representative of the sale of obsolete ships to newly neutral worlds? Thus the remaining ships in the fleets are representative of the structure of fleets but not representative of all the ships in the universe.

The short answer is more than the BPVs indicate, because the tech differences make it really hard for those old EY ships to compete
I think a lot of that is to do with the BPV of the EY ships being too high. A Fed FF is 71 BPV but would probably cream a 75 BPV D4 five times out of six. It just has to make sure it never gets clobbered by that forrest of Ph-2s.
We need to do a better job of matching our X2 designs against known GW (and X1) BPV measuring points, rather than just following the BPV formula. To a degree a lot of things in SFB are multiplicative (an extra "Torp" will not only let you do more damage but also slow down the rate at which A3 DAC hits reduce your ability to make those killing blows or extra warp power lets you either overload to a greater extent or move to a loser ranger increasing the damage output but also meaning the ship takes more internal damage before being destroyed) and thus additions create a somewhat parpabolic increase in the offensive-utility of the ship.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 09:44 am: Edit

MJC: 12 Shermans wouldn't even know where the twelve shots that killed them came from. I don't think the Sherman is GW compared with the M1, more like sub-light.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 11:38 am: Edit

Can we get back to a X2 Photon discussion?

the proposal on deck (at the moment) is still Tos's modification (for simplicity) called the Photon Rack.

IIUC, it is a 4 charge photon rack (using photon charges, not dissimilar to those in use on Fed A-10 assault fighters shuttles), the 4 charges have seveal possible options that we havent yet resolved:

1. standard photons, doing 8 points of damage each, the ROF (rate of fire) proposed includes 1 charge fired per turn, not within 8 impulses (1/4 turn) of a prior shot. (other optional ROF limits suggested, but not discussed) include allowing the photon rack to fire off all 4 charges within 1 turn in a faster rate than suggested above.

2. a modified photon round that behaves similar to the way type VI dog fight drones do, in that they do only 2 points of damage to ships and size class 4 units, and more damage to smaller sized units (such as fighters and drones).

3. Warp energy charge for the "photon rack" also have seen a number of ideas...
A. photon charges (standard warhead) require 2 points of warp energy for 2 turns, and result in a staisis charge that requires an energy holding charge.
B. staisis photon rounds, (such as fighters are equipped with) require no holding costs (too small to track on the energy allocation sheet of a star ship) and are handled in the same way ADD rounds are.

4. the photon rack is (IIUC what Tos suggested) is intended to be a rear arc "point defense" thingy similar to the way the ISC mounted rear firing plasma F torpedos. the idea is to provide Federation star ships with a supplemental point defense system that will protect the ship from having PF's and fighters.

5. The original proposal was intended to be an additional firing mode for the regular photon tube launchers that would allow 2X fed ships to power and use standard photons at a faster rate without resorting to fast load rules.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 12:09 pm: Edit

The trouble is WWI tanks.

I actually think the Shermans can win, in the right terrain ( a city ) if they're willing to lose a few in the battle.

Which is a lot like the GW ship using the right tactics to beat an X2 vessel.

By Larry E. Ramey (Hydrajak) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 01:47 pm: Edit

"I actually think the Shermans can win, in the right terrain ( a city ) if they're willing to lose a few in the battle."


ROTFLMAO!!!!!


you are kidding right?

In Desert Storm 1 an M1A1 lost a tread or drive wheel or something that meant they had to leave it behind. Not wanting it to get recovered by the enemy (we didn't realize how bad Iraqs army was at that point) they decided to kill it.

3 or 4 point blank (well as close as the other tanks wanted to get) shots later.... it was still salvagable. They decided (I think) to burn the engine and drop thermite or something inside the take and just drive on.

A Sherman, even with a long rod penatrator like the Germans used, is NOT going to do more than piss off a M1A1.

GW ships, should not be able to hurt X2 ships. Even though the Virginia class SSN is a massive stepdown from what a Seawolf SSN promised us, it could STILL sink an entire WWII battle line while never being in danger itself. Note the Virginia is a response to shrinking budgets with a need for multirole flexibilty. (Honestly a VA class is more like a HDW, but that is a different issue)

By Larry E. Ramey (Hydrajak) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 01:50 pm: Edit

# ^ Halberstadt, Hans: Desert Storm: Ground War. Motorbooks International, 1991. p.111. Quote: One of the M1s is hit and disabled. The crew is extracted safely and the tank left behind, not before it is destroyed by the task force commander who fires two rounds into it. The first bounces off, the second penetrates and set it on fire(...) The terrain is still causing problems. On the attack several vehicles get embedded in mud and can't be extracted. The problem is complicated by enemy missile and machine gun fire. Two tanks and two armored personnel carriers are destroyed and discarded.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 01:52 pm: Edit

The only way the Shermans could win is if there are more Shermans than the M1 has ammo and then only if the M1 give up out of being so irritated by all the banging on the hull (and only if the M1 was out of fuel, it's probably twice or more as fast).

The M1 can engage the Shermans before they can even see the M1 and from WAY out of the Shermans range.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 03:34 pm: Edit

Which would be about as much fun to play as an EY Cruiser against an X2 Cruiser. Whatever we design has to be compatible and fun.

By Larry E. Ramey (Hydrajak) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 05:33 pm: Edit

Why does X2 have to play well with GW?


How many EY sublight ships can 1 PF flotilla blow up?

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 05:36 pm: Edit

Because SVC said so. That's the gold standard.
regards
Stacy

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 06:48 pm: Edit

IMNSHO, I think SVC has this vision of of the Major Powers having small-to-medium size X2 fleets (with some old X1 'combat only' ships mothballed away for a rainy day), and the Smaller Powers (all of the new 'independent systems' brought about by the shrunken borders) using old GW warships they bought at the fire sale when the Andro War ended.

So you have LOTS of GW ships floating around, a few X1 ships that get sold off to Very Friendly Client States of the Major Powers, and the Major Powers keeping a lock on X2 tech.

As for the Pirates, their Enforcer ships would have X2 tech (and there should only be ONE X2 enforcer ship per cartel), the rest of the cartel gets SOME X1/XP, and the independents start off with GW. Considering most civilian vessels will get XP at BEST, I think it should still be possible for a stock LR/CR to make money in the Trade Wars era.

This means an X2 CA should'nt be invicible compared to GW tech, just very, very dangerous.

Net effect, anybody can fight ANYBODY.
Want to fight a Klink X2 D8 vs some GW Gorn ships? Just say the Klink is punishing a system that bought a bunch of old Gorn ships at a discount. And its all 'historical'.

And then the Xorks show up.

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 06:58 pm: Edit

When the Iowa (And New Jersey and Wisconsin) were relaunched during the Reagan administration it was after some pretty significant upgrades to compete with other more modern ships. What we ended up with was fairly respectable.

I think this is the route to go to bridge the gap between GW, X1 and X2. I doubt that we WILL but truly it seems the logical course of action.

regards
Stacy

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 07:25 pm: Edit

SBB,

X2 era refits for GW ships makes sense, and is more realistic

Also, as EvilMike said, it's the lesser powers that have GW tech, so would it not stand to reason that it would take many to deal with an X2-CA?? Not a ridiculous amount, but many.

Not really much different than the B10 vs. a bunch of smaller ships.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 08:13 pm: Edit

'Not really much different than the B10 vs. a bunch of smaller ships.'

Or the ever-popular MY CA vs EY squadron during the transitional years around Y120-140.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 09:25 pm: Edit

Well to a certain degree a bunch of lesser ships needs help fighting a single ship (exactly how many Fed FFGs does it take to bring down a B10?) so it would be better to develop it as the X2 smaller ship fights the full GW cruiser.
It becomes a drag when you've got to pay for EW and active fire control and shields and life support and movement and hold a weasel; for each and every ship.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 01:01 am: Edit

Simply eaccept it: GW and X2 have to be BPV balanced. GW will continue to have a presence in SFB. That is SVC's final word on the subject.

Also accept that piling on large BPVs also does not acheive balance. Of the older people on this topic, only MJC hasn't quite gotten that point down.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 01:17 am: Edit

"GW and X2 have to be BPV balanced. "

Yes, BPV balanced. All that means is that an equal BPV of one fleet has to have 50/50 odds of beating the other, all other things being equal (player quality, etc.).

That does not, in any way, dictate the size of either force that should be required for one side to have a chance against the other.

"Also accept that piling on large BPVs also does not acheive balance."

I submit that if it doesn't, than the value has been improperly assessed.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 07:38 am: Edit

BPV is notoriously unreliable as a measure of equality across generations. Take a CX, and then put together a force of EY destroyers of equal value, and try playing it. The CX will mop the floor with no trouble. That's okay, because X1 and EY weren't meant to play together; no EY ships exist by the time X1 comes out. That won't work for X2, though, because per SVC, GW ships will still be the dominate force in the game universe, and will have to interract with X2 in a meaningful way. This lesson has already been learned with Supplement 2, and no one wants a repeat. Nor is anyone going to want X2 frigates with 500 BPV's, and cruisers with 750...which is what you can get if you start piling on lots of highly effective advanced goodies.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 03:48 pm: Edit

I had been staying out of this discussion. But I think I want to expand on what John Trauger and Mike Raper have said, and also explain why I think Joe Stevenson and MJC are mistaken, or at least too optimistic, if they believe it's primarily a matter of getting the BPV right.

First, a couple of commonplace observations are in order. In a game as complex as SFB, you're not ever going to have a BPV system that works with complete accuracy. You have many different races with racially unique technologies. You have units ranging in size from single-seat fighters to battleships and even star bases. A battle could encompass anything from a duel between two small ships to a massive engagement with a dozen major warships and several dozen fighters on each side. There will inevitably be RPS issues and scaling issues that will result in some even-BPV fights being tactical mismatches. What we can reasonably expect from the BPV system is that if the BPVs are close, most of the battles should be at least close to being balanced, while recognizing that there will be occassional exceptions.

But if the mismatches are too frequent and too extreme, then at some point we would have to say the BPV system is broken, that it doesn't give even minimal confidence that an even-BPV fight will be remotely close to balanced. That's a problem!

So far, I've just restated the obvious. I presume that most of the people here would agree with most of what I've posted above. But there is another point which I don't think is as well appreciated. When you have units with vastly different characteristics, which "play a different game" to put it colloquially, it will tend to aggravate the RPS and scaling issues and increase the risk of breaking the BPV system.

Let me give an example, which I freely acknowledge is ridiculous in some ways, to illustrate. We'll start with the Klingon F-5, an efficient little ship but not a powerhouse by any means. How many basic (no boost packs or megafighter systems) Hydran Stinger-IIs can the F-5 fight in "open space" (i.e., floating map, no time limit)? Assuming the initial positions don't doom the F-5 from the start (by surrounding it, for example, or starting the fight with the fighters already at very close range), that F-5 could eventually defeat 10, 100, 1000, or any number. All it has to do is generate enough ECM to ensure the fighters have a +1 modifier while still moving fast enough to ensure they can't reach range-10, and it is invulnerable. The Klingon will also be shooting against an ECM shift, of course. But unless the Stinger-IIs can force a +4 modifier (they can't) the disruptors will still occassionally hit in the 11-15 range bracket in which the Klingon will be fighting. It will take an excruciatingly long (and dull) time. But if the Klingon doesn't make some blunder, and if the fighters don't disengage, they are eventually toast.

That horde of Stinger-IIs will, however, kill a star base. A lot of them will die (especially if the star base has a minefield). But they will kill the star base.

Taken like this, in vaccuum, it is impossible to set "correct" BPVs for the units involved because their enormously different operational characteristics have such extreme RPS implications. Now I've already admitted this example is ridiculous in some ways (start with a battle force consisting of 1000 Stinger-IIs and nothing else...) but I used it because it is such a stark illustration of a situation in which BPV is meaningless as a measure of force effectiveness.

To take a less preposterous example, a similar dynamic, though far less extreme, is why MJC is wrong about the problems between EY and MY ships being simply a matter of BPV. In his 04:57 am post from 13 June, he suggests that the problem is that EY BPV are too low. But it would be more accurate to say EY BPV are about right, or only a little bit too low, against some MY opponents but far too low against others. BPV is never going to work well (barring major rule changes, which I assume are not forthcoming) for EY versus MY because the different capabilities create major, intractible RPS issues.

And this is why I think Joe Stevenson is way too optimistic when he assumes (if I am properly understanding his posts) that X2 ships can be vastly powerful combat monsters and if we set the BPV correctly it will be fine. The more powerful X2 ships are relative to anything else, the more "exotic" their capabilities, the more they vary from the operational characteristics of X1 and late-war standard tech, the more likely it is that they will dominate some GW or X1 opponents much more than others and end up breaking the BPV system in a way similar to the EY/MY break. This is the dilemma of X2. We want cool new "stuff". But if it is too advanced it becomes more likely that it won't work with the rest of the SFU. I would also submit that we are still haven't come close to considering all the implications of this.

Just my .02 quatloos worth.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 04:00 pm: Edit

Additional comment specifically for Jeff Wile.

Jeff has been laboring valliantly (though without much success) to bring this discussion back to the proposed "photon rack". But I believe he labors under a misapprehension. Discussion of the photon rack hasn't ceased because people are talking about how powerful or advanced X2 ought to be, but because no one has, at the moment, anything interesting to say about the photon rack, that hasn't already been said. Jeff is right that, as a matter of form, the discussion of just how powerful/advanced X2 ought to be belongs in a different topic (probably the "X2 BPV" topic). But moving it there won't revive discussion of the photon rack. What will revive that discussion is when some one has something new to say about it, and others find the new post interesting enough to merit a response.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 04:26 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor:

Thank you, but I do understand that off topic comments happen, heck, I have done it myself a time or two!

That said, I still hope that we can get a bit of "closure" on the X2 photons (at least as far as the "rack Thingy" is concerned!)

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 04:47 pm: Edit

Should a photon rack be allowed to fire at X-Aegis targets more than once / turn? If so, with what delay?

What would the BPV of such a weapon be?

Is it possible to charge a photon rack that is partially discharged?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 06:28 pm: Edit

In my opinion, the Photon Rack is an X2 tech, therefore, it should be an able to fire at X-Aegis targets, at the max rate allowed under the X Aegis rules.

No clue what the BPV would be, but my "gut" instinct says that it should be a 16 BPV system if it can fire 4 times per turn, 8 BPV if only 2 shots a turn, and "just" 4 BPV if it can fire 1 time per turn, and I'm assuming it is a RH firing arc rather than 360 degree.

IMO the photon rack cant be reloaded if its partially discharged... either you "eject" the remaing rounds in the clip and start a fresh load or you have to use the rounds in combat before you can "reload".

Of course, this begs another question... the original proposal called for 16 points of warp energy for 2 turns to load 4 charges... unless we go with somebody's idea earlier (was it Tos?) who suggested that such charges could be stored without requiring an energy hold cost and kept in a magazine such as ADD rounds are.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:00 pm: Edit

Certainly, even if it only shoots once per impulse, it should have the option of shooting on the second aegis step.

since X-aegis is pretty much limited aegis that can engage PFs, the question is one shot or two per impulse. You are not emptying the magazine in one impulse.

I'll give it the two.

What's its firing rate against larger ships? That's a more serious balance question.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:14 pm: Edit

AUGHHH!!!!

I just realized, while reviewing this topic, that in my 03:48 pm post in which I discussed why I thought MJC was wrong about the EY/MY BPV disconnect being simply a problem of EY BPVs being too high (rather than the RPS issue that I think it is), that I actually referred EY BPVs being too LOW! EY BPVs are NOT too low. I continue to believe that it is an RPS issue that can't be fixed simply by reducing EY BPVs, because they are correct or slightly high against some MY opponents but much too high against others.

But saying EY BPVs are too low compared to MY? Major polarity error!