Here's my take on counter-eggshell X2 tech. I'm sure there are details I've forgotten to mention, but this is a work in progress.

1. Advanced Drone Rack
I'm going really radical with my X2 "G" rack. The "XG" rack (current incarnation) is a three-space system that is spread throughout the ship. There's a control station and four two-drone-space cells. Each of the cells can fire X2 ADDs (CIWS) and drones as per typical rules (one drone/turn; 1 X2 ADD/AEGIS pulse/impulse).

When damage comes into the ship and the DAC result is a weapon system, power system (batteries and reactors; not engines), or combat system (tractor, transporter, scout sensor), the player has a choice of taking the hit in one of the cells or the system rolled. Likewise when a "drone" hit is rolled the player can choose between one of the cells or the control station.

If the control station takes the hit then the rack is disabled until repaired (X2 ADD function still works). If one of the cells takes the hit then the cell and its resident drones are destroyed. The cell's X2 ADD function will not work.

All of the cells draw from the ready drone storage (they use the turbolift shafts to move drone reloads through the ship). If the control station is hit then the cells can only reload X2 ADDs.

For now only the Federation has the "XG" rack.

2. Protective Battle Shunt (PBS)
This is a revised reprise of my old CPS idea.

The PBS is a stand-alone unit which is designed to protect non-combat systems on the SSD. Each PBS requires 1/2pt from any source to operate which must be allocated each turn. During the turn it sits in "ready" mode monitoring for incoming damage. When damage comes into the ship and the DAC die roll is made, the PBS provides a "last chance" for protected systems by generating a shaped deflector/tractor burst which shunts the damage out of the ship. The devices are burned out on use and can not be repaired during a scenario.

A PBS can protect any undamaged hull, cargo, barracks, shuttle, option bay (X2 NWO), lab, battery, or control box, as well as cloaking devices and UIM. During a Hit-and-Run raid, a PBS can be designated to act as a Guard (D7.83), with a -1 die roll modifier to (D7.831), for any eligible system. A PBS may act as a Guard and protect its system normally during the same turn, however once it achieves one funtion or the other it is burned out.

Additional PBS can be purchased at a cost of 6 Commander's Option (S3.1) points each for any X2 unit. X2 units are equipped with a number of PBS equal to the unit's original DAMCON rating (starbases are equipped using modified rules).

3. Shield Regeneration
For any turn where Shield Regeneration power is allocated (power equals total shield cost and must be allocated) and a shield takes damage not exceeding 2/3 its original number of boxes during that turn, 8 shield boxes are automatically repaired during the Record Keeping Phase. The shield can not be repaired to greater than its original capacity.

4. ASIF
My take on ASIF focuses on stability and recovery and borrows from Loren K.

In "low power" mode, an X2 ship can maneuver better using ASIF (still re-working that) and gains some anti-tractor. In "full power" mode it can either retain cargo and shuttles when the SSD boxes are damaged and "heal" crew/BP/DC/Marines at the end of the turn, or it can protect hull/cargo/barracks/option bays/shuttle from damage.

So long as at least one hull/cargo/barracks box remains undamaged "low power" mode can be used. If the "full power" mode option to take a damage point is used then an ASIF box must be marked off for each hit. If all ASIF boxes are marked off then "full power" mode will no longer function ("low power" mode will still work).

"Low power" mode costs twice the minimum shielding cost and "full power" mode costs twice the total shielding cost. Energy for ASIF must come from engines (warp or impulse) and must be allocated.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 07:33 pm: Edit

BTW, I finally posted the CIWS in the defensive weapons thread (19 April 2005 - 07:30 pm).

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 05:14 am: Edit

Already changed some of the above.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 06:29 pm: Edit

Feds:
• Designed tough ships with a lot of F hull.
• If any race tries to build a DN sized ship and call it an XCA, it would be the Feds. • Also, Starfleet gives its ships the best equipment available, in this case, an all ph-5 design.
• Unique gizmo: Excessive labs

Klingons:
• Lean, mean, and agile.
• Given a choice between adding 20 internals, or a 20 box ASIF, the Klingons would take the ASIF,
• They may even try to cut corners to make the XCA a turn mode A ship.
• And cut corners by using the old reliable ph-1 and ph-2, along with a couple of ph-5s.
• Unique gizmo: Disruptors that fire twice a turn.

Romulans:
• Cloak and plasma
• Improve the cloak by adding ECM to it.
• An X1 CA has 2 Ms and 2 Ss. If an R-torp won't fit without special effort, then that leaves 4 Ms for the XCA.
• Might not persue ph-5 tech at all.
• Unique gizmo: An 80 point monster plasma on some specialty ships.

Gorns:
• A phaserboat with a couple of plasmas.
• All ph-5 design.
• Unique gizmo: A range 8 transporter.

Kzintis:
• Get more drones on the board.
• A lot of ph-6s, a few ph-1s, and 1-2 ph-5s.
• Unique gizmos: Disruptor cannons that can OL, and drone racks that fire 3 drones a turn.

Hydrans:
• The only race to put fighters on their X2 ships.
• New hull designs built from scratch allow larger fighters.
• Unique gizmos: A new fighter with the mega-fighter refit built in from the ground up.
• Second gizmo: Nuclear Blaster, A bigger fusion beam.

Lyrans:
• As soon as the fleet is rebuilt, we're killing the Kzintis.
• While other races are making cheap frigates one at a time, we'll be making PFs by the dozen.
• Unique gizmo: Every X2 ship has 3-6 PFs.

ISC:
• Maybe this "enforced peace" wasn't such a good idea.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 03:13 pm: Edit

Something to consider when evaluating X2 vs. GW ships:

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/20thcentury/russojapanese/default.aspx

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 03:36 pm: Edit

Read it.

Anything you're pointing to in particular?

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 03:42 pm: Edit

Yes,


Obsolete fleet faces more modern fleet, and gets its head handed to it. (yes, training was also an issue)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 06:40 pm: Edit

That's what I thought.

Presumably the Russian fleet represents "General War" tech ships and the japanese fleet is X2, right?

Before I weigh in, I want to make sure we're working from the same beginning assumptions.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 05:50 pm: Edit

OK, we'll go ahead with those assumptions and you correct me if I have an assumption wrong.

The way the article was written, the japanese crew, took center stage as a primary factor. Japanese training methods and and pre-battle motivation compared very favorably to russian ones. Training, rather than tehnology was credited for the intense japanese rate of fire and accuracy.

Yet you're trying to downplay training and motivation and reinforce a point that your link does not make, which has to do with the difference between the technology of the Japanese fleet vs the technology of the russian fleet.

Yes, the article does mention several key technology-related advantages the japanese had, such as speed, but notably lacking was commentary on weapons and armor, which would be the prime areas of comparison for SFB.

You can get better examples of tech difference by dialing back about 40 years to the CSS Virginia's engagement with the James River squadron before the Monitor arrived. Any ironclad vs. wooden ship engagement from the American civil war would do nicely.

On a hull-for-hull basis, X2 will exceed general war tech. It's hard not to considering X1 already does. For your original post to mean anything, you must be arguing for some greater degree of dominance and that may be harder to do.

SFB is a non-historical game. It functions under some artificial limitations that don't exist in real life, negating large swatchs of comparison to real world technological change.

For X2, first and foremost of these limitations is the requirement (from SVC) that N amount of BPV spent intelligently on X2 should roughly equal that same amoutn of BPV spent intelligently on General-War-era ships.

As has been seen in SFB's history, excess of difference has the effect of creating rock-paper-scissors situations where BPV simply fails to properly reflect combat ability. That difference can be raw damage output or systems that work differently than the heavy-weapons-phasers-shields theme that alpha sector races use.

The Designer's and Commander's Edition Andromedans make a great example. They function very differently and when SFB went into its Doomsday revision, Anrdo advantages had to be reduced to bring them back into line. The older andros hit harder. There was no TRL, all andro ships had TRHs, including satships.

Andro PA panels had no degradation, allowing a a careful andro huge longevity in a battle situation, especially against disruptor-using opponents. If an enemy couldn't keep up near-constant pressure on the andro, they lost.

So andro PA panels became more sield-like in that their ability to take damage reduced the more damage they absorbed. Andro firepower was reduced by creating the TRL and putting it on satships.

Bottom line: The pre-Doomsday andros had a RPS relationship with just about every alpha sector race. They had to be reigned in before a reasonably accurate BPV value could be set.

As a result, X2 can only get so different from X1 or GW tech (in terms of different functioning systems or sheer combat power) before they become impossible to set a BPV value that provides some meaningful comparison to the General War.

By John Erwin Hacker (Godzillaking) on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 06:09 pm: Edit

John Trauger:

Your HYDRAN BB on your website cannot be seen full size. I have tried repeatedly to view it and I can't. Is there anyway that you can change this please?

Thank you very much,

"THE GODZILLAKING"

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 06:50 pm: Edit

"Yet you're trying to downplay training and motivation"

Well I DID say:

"yes, training was also an issue"


But given the ridiculous disparity in the losses, that cannot all be attributed solely to training.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 06:36 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Yet you're trying to downplay training and motivation and reinforce a point that your link does not make, which has to do with the difference between the technology of the Japanese fleet vs the technology of the russian fleet.

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 01:30 am: Edit

Joe,

Communicating via text is an inexact thing.

Your tone and context suggested you wished to set training aside for purposes of focus on tech difference, something I considered and still consider impossible given the article you cite because it was the centerpiece of said article with tech differences de-emphasized by comparison.

Simply put, an article that focuses on "people factors" isn't a good one to use to talk about tech differences.

---

Quote:

"The Russians were not so much outgeneraled as they were outfought, and they were outfought because they were lukewarm and not wrought to desperation as they had been in the Crimea and in resistance to Napoleon's invasion; whereas every Japanese soldier and sailor believed, as was indeed the truth, that his country's fate was at stake and that his personal conduct might decide the issue.". [From the New York Sun, transcribed version reprinted in The Army and Navy Register, 11 August 1906). The sailors of Admiral Togo had, in the final analysis, taken his words to heart.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 07:30 am: Edit

The actual events of that Japanese battle...and I'm working from memory so just get the jist rather than crucify the details.

The Japanese had new cruisers (perhaps early dreadnoughts) that were considerable larger than the older cruisers of the Russians (which were obsolete mostly because Vladivoskov freezes over in winter so why throw new hulls into such an enviroment).
As a rule (if you have any understanding of Froude) bigger ships find it easier to move quickly.
The Japanses also had 10" guns instaed of 8" guns which had about twice the effective range.
So the Japanses ships moved to keep their ships inside their own effective range but outside the Rssian effective range and thus slaughtered the Russian fleet.

As much as I would see this as a classic example of the advantage of technology...I would rather see an X2 where XCA captains had to actually take a risk when engaging a GW task-force.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 04:42 pm: Edit

MJC,

...which illustrates my point nicely.

This fight also illustrates the probelms in trying to fit a game like SFB into a histroical narrative or trying to make it conform to historical patterns. SFB has game-balance concerns and real life works the other way.

In SFB we need to be sure that everybody has an appropriate degree of chance or ability against each other as measured by their BPV cost. Real-life militaries labor to their best ability to make sure the enemy has *no* chance.

From what you write, Russian-Japanese fight appears like a classic RPS sort of fight. The sort of thing that SFB needs to *avoid* and the sort of thing we got with Commander's X2.

I mean if you're going to do this fight in a boardgame, who'd want to be the Russians?

This is why overload ranges don't increase past 8.

This is why we can't allow anything that has a similarly destructive effect to game balance into X2. Raw combat power and tech incompatibilty both have this effect.

Balance contraints RE GW-era tech put serious limits on the power fantasies or cool abilities that can go into X2.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 05:16 pm: Edit

"I would rather see an X2 where XCA captains had to actually take a risk when engaging a GW task-force. "

Or what about requiring the GW captain(s) to develop new tactics, and take even bigger risks?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 05:58 pm: Edit

Or what about requiring the GW captain(s) to develop new tactics, and take even bigger risks?

I always thought that was a given. It's the way it is with X1 and will be even more so with X2 no doubt. But I too wouldn't want to see an X2 ship Captain say, "Oh fine, whatever. Lieutenant, you have the bridge and call me when a real threat comes along. Commander, care to join me for a drink?"

It's going to take a squadron of GW (2 to 4 ships depending on the size of each) to take down a top o the line X2 ship I'd guess. But the whole "play nice" thing is about having a chance to win. If Feds can OL out to R12 and rapid load 16 point photons then add to that self regenerating shields and expanded repair capabilities then it won't matter what you bring from the GW fleet, command limits will make you lose every time. Other things like R6 transporters mean that you can board them with no chance of them boarding you. Or R4 tractors on a ship with lots of power, etc.

Play nice means that X2 must continue to work within the mechanics of the game and those mechanics will continue to be based on the GW period.

X2 will need to be very refined because to be different it must press those mechanics pretty hard. You have to surpass X1 in some way but again, being different might aleviate that pressure. X1 was about maximizing combat power but if X2 can find its path slightly to the left of that goal then the pressure on the game mechanics might be eased.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 11:34 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Or what about requiring the GW captain(s) to develop new tactics, and take even bigger risks?

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 11:42 pm: Edit

Joe

Ken Burnside covered the problem with forcing captains to adjust their tactics. It produces large amounts of whining and hue and cry. And Ken's experience wasn't the first time SFB saw it. I know the ISC echelon provoked its share when it was introduced.

You can't just say "tough it out and adapt". Not in the short run.

There is also the question of how you know your technology is balanced if you rely on players developing unknown new tactics to even things up again.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 12:08 am: Edit

Ken Burnside covered the problem with forcing captains to adjust their tactics. It produces large amounts of whining and hue and cry.

It is completely unreasonable to expect that everything added to the game, especially new, "breakthru" technology, to not require some adaptation. Otherwise, what, exactly, is the point? Everyone grab a tourney cruiser, and have at it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 01:36 am: Edit

Joe,

I'm with you on that point but I also feel for the business end of the game.

Early in the X2 discussion I rambled on about how I'd like to see X2 require new thinking and to have a different feel for playing so that we (I) could have new ground to learn, new tactics and a mess of new term papers.

I got a few Here-here's but then there was several people who turned back on that a bit and basically stated they wanted X2 to be the same but different. Shrug.

Like for instance, I suggested that perhaps the X2 big cruiser could be Move Cost 1.25. With those big X-engines the cruiser could certainly handle the energy cost and we could see a somewhat larger hull (like the Trek trend). But the biggest response was "No! MC1.25 is a light drednaught and you can't have X-drednaughts. Even if you could you can't call it a Cruiser because it's a DN. 1.25MC = DNL, final answer."

Or

I suggested calling the big cruiser an XCC but the reply from a few was "X1 cruisers already have a CR or 10 and they are just CA's so you can't call it a CC because you can't have a higher CR and CAX's are already command crusier but not call that so you can't call an X2 cruiser a command cruiser."

My idea was the XCC would take on the role of the GW DN as a fleet flagship. In the rules it states that the BCH could not be upgraded to X-Tech but eventually the limitations were overcome and that what X2 was. But we wanted to shy away from just producing tons of bigger ships and walking wide-eyed into munchkin land. BUT, X2 does beg for a bigger ship, at least one class. So we produce the X2 big cruiser based on the BCH level design and I called it an XCC since it was a fleet command vessel. The workhorse vessel would be the XCM which would match the GW refitted CA internal count and weapons points wise (but with bigger engines). Then you'd have various XCL and XDD (some combat variants as needed) as line ships (the XCL not being produced until later in history). The XFF having been phased out of line combat (too vulnerable) becomes a pure support variant hull (with no basic combat design).
The XCM and XCC would be multi-role vessels designed for power and exploration/science (handling many mission types like the pre-GW Fed cruiser). The XCC would be rare and have (S8) limits on the number available in a fleet.

These were my early thoughts but somehow they represented too far of a departure from the norm and would somehow ruin SFB (some said they wouldn't buy X2 if it was done thise way). Some agreed with parts of it. Most were cool with the idea that the big X2 cruiser would be limited in number (which wasn't my idea but a group consensus).

Anyway, my point is that there are some who want a fresh new thing for X2 and SFB but other, who are louder, want it to be more of the same with pretty new pictures and more powerful weapons.

The one thing that gain wide consensus was the Phaser-5 and it was a very fine accomplishment by this BBS, IMO.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 01:52 am: Edit

---

Quote:

But the biggest response was "No! MC1.25 is a light drednaught and you can't have X-drednaughts. Even if you could you can't call it a Cruiser because it's a DN. 1.25MC = DNL, final answer."

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 02:08 am: Edit

To some extent I think we have things arse-about.
Surely the idea is that X2 ships develop new tactics to deal with massed/humungous GW ships.
It's only then we need new GW tactics to deal with X2.

On no combat version of the XFF. I would like to say that I disagree mostly because of the fact that if an XFF is (IMHO) 130 BPV, it becomes a cool opponant for a single NCLa+ which would make a good duel.
Furthermore, if it really is worth the 130 BPV then it should be able to stand up in a fleet battle like an NCLa+ and thus wouldn't be phased out due to being too fragile...an effect that is made stronger by the fact that the General War II did't errupt at the end of the Andro war.

There is a certain degree of consensus that although these ships got more powerful due to their advanced systems, they also had the problems where the near bankrupted ecconomies of the galactic powers forced those empires to throw XDDs into battles that would be suited to a CX or an XFF where a DDX would be the alternative.
This upward climb against MONEY forced battles that were somewhat more of a challenge to the glactic powers captains because the admiralty just couldn't say to the fleet captian;" Hey it does't matter if you take a lot of losses, you'll be getting a new DW and a new CW next week so the thing that actually counts right now is getting today's victory!"
The requirement that the captain of an X2 vessel be a careful steward of the assets placed in his hands will create the dyamic that X2 ships might have FIREPOWER-GALOR but they can't be lost like a GW ship can.
Conversely the old and obsolete nature of the GW ships still in service will provide a dynamic where the GW ships can be crippled (or a little worse) without it being the end of the captain's career or indeed the battle.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 02:24 am: Edit

---

Quote:

X1 I thought was a great product. The X-ships are substantially more powerful, but playable against GW; they are excellent in F&E as well, and once X-ships come out (and PFs), everything else is useless junk.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 02:41 am: Edit

To a degree there's a whole bunch of missions that don't need the full movement capasity or the full firepower of an X2 (or even X1) vessel.
• Convy escort.
• Smashing (or threatening to) a planet back into the stone-age.
• Hunting Orions (especially if chasing between the hammer of your GW ships and the anvil of your X2 vessels) in particular hunting GW pirates.
• Rescueing ships that have been damaged by storms and asteroids.
• Servicing bases with new crew supplies and helping in the control and organisation of traffic (especially in areas where there will be a large amount of traffic but for too short of a period of time to warrent the building of an actual base).
• PR and diplomatic activities.
• Holding large numbers of ships in your core systems so the enemy doesn't suddenly come to the conclusion that sending an X2 squadron straight to your homeworld for a "coup de grace" as the first act of GWII.
• Scientific exploration and dealing with monsters.