Dealing with monsters and performing rescues might be a job for an X2 ship, depends on the amount of time available and if the X2 ship can make it to the scene.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 05:30 am: Edit

True but then the Fed SC is still really good at dealing with monsters.

By Larry E. Ramey (Hydrajak) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 11:22 am: Edit

What if an X2 ship took 2 command slots because of increased DataNet requirements?

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 12:15 pm: Edit

Larry,

If anything, it should take LESS..... the advanced computers and all.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 12:31 pm: Edit

Command slots aren't about maintaining control of the ship during combat but are about the whole big picture of logistics, battle planning, communication, command codes etc. Command slots determin only what you can bring to a battle and do not interfer with the battle itself. That's why if you lose your CC leading nine ships and the next highest command is six there is no penalty. SVC said this on the BSS and to me. Command points only determin what you can bring to a battle.

Now, if an X2 ship is in a fleet it is most likely it will be either with other X2 ships or will be the command ship. So taking two slots isn't an issue (unless you are saying two slots of an X2 command ship or any ship). It is possible you could have an X2 light cruiser in the mix under a GW DN (of some type) and along side a couple X1 units too.
X1 is a high technology ship but I've always envisioned X1 to be less refined than X2 and if the complexity of X1 doesn't require two command slots (I.e., due to the need for special supplies which are even more rare in the X1 era than the X2 era and for more complex codes, different timed computers etc, etc.) then I just can't see X2 requiring such a penalty.

X2 is more advanced and refined and backward compatability through data streams is super easy to do even today and X2 supplies should be easier to obtain that what X1 faced in its early days.

By Larry E. Ramey (Hydrajak) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Advanced computers take MORE bandwidth and infrastructure.... not less.


Who cares? I'm making a big handwaving reason that you can only have a limited number of X2s. That would give GW era ships a chance...sort of.

I mean Honestly, 3D5X and 3FX are going to have their way with a Fed CVA group even if there is a CLC and 2 NCA+ supporting that group. I guess if you max out the derelicts... er GW ships MAYBE they could take 6 X2s. In any world that makes sense to me the GWs would die horribly.

You don't might an M1A1 with a Pz-Ib and expect do well... even if you bring 10000 Pz-Ibs.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 02:28 pm: Edit

Well, this game doesn't lend itself to off hand handwavium. Naturally there must be some but it must also be consistant.

I also have to disagree that Advanced computers will take more bandwidth in order to operate. The background makes it fairly clear that the computers of the era have little troubel communicating with less technological devices. Backwards compatability in the Trek or SFU universe is fairly well established as a non-issue.

Besides, S8 will work fine in the same way it does for X1. Sure, the upper limits of a maxed out X2 fleet will probably be beyond what GW can field but that's not what the concern is. First of all, it would be a BPV between one and two thousand points and those battles are very rare. I think the main focus for the "Play nice with GW" statememnt is for duels and squadrons (3 to 4 ships). And the primary concern of "play nice" is in the realm of game mechanics.

Why would fleet Admirals tollerate a ship that took up twice the command slots for half the value. Remember, you said X2 takes up two slots. So if I field an XDD it takes up two slots where a BCH would take up one.

It may be handwavium but it's illogical to me on many levels.

And BTW, bandwidth has nothing to do with command points.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 09:26 pm: Edit

HMmmm...if we pick my super high BPV values...

An X2 squadron of 3 XCAs and 3 XFFs would come in at (3 x 330 + 3 x 130) 1380 BPV in an unrefitted state and (3 x 410 + 3 x 170) 1740 in a fully refitted state.
Is this really beyond a full DN + 10 ships, fleet?

Even maxing out the hulls for 3 XCAs and 3 XDDs you'ld have a battle of ( 3 x 330 + 3 x 170 ) 1500 BPV and in a fully refitted state ( 3 x 410 + 3 x 240 ) 1950 BPV.


I suspect full GW fleet ships ( particularly if using one SC3 X1/X2 ship and one SC4 X1/X2 ship) will still be a threat to an X2 squadron.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 09:41 pm: Edit

Joe,

You put out an article with no explantion. The only explanation you provide when asked is "Obsolete fleet faces more modern fleet, and gets its head handed to it. "

Any wonder that you're still getting replies assuming you want munchkin ships?

If you aren't arguing for massive combat superiority to General War technology, then what he hades ARE you arguing for?

Rather than post historical articles of dubious applicability and nitpick or reject 5 years of dedicated thought put into the question of X2, sit down and write up a proposal.

Put cursor to document and spell out in concrete terms what you DO want because right now, nobody knows what you want but you.

Fresh ideas are always welcome and they will get a fair hearing. I hope you'll come up with something truly interesting.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 10:21 pm: Edit

"they will get a fair hearing."

Of this I have serious doubts.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 10:28 pm: Edit

For what it's worth, I think there is an inbetween ground between being better than the X1 ships and being in a position to break the game with thresholds.

Perhaps I'm just still messed up from being in a battle between a Killerhawk and a K7R Vs a CB, NCA and CARa+. Those guys knew the principle of combined fire so my K7R got clobbered.
Still we knew the concept of combines fire, so the CARa+ got left with just three SSD boxes inside the outline. All this by Impulse 20 of turn 2!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 10:38 pm: Edit

Joe:

To a certain degree you have to be bloody-minded when people tell you that something is broken. Either bloody-minded or willing to capitulate.
Just be willing to say "Playtest be the Judge" and be willing to do playtesting and you'll get by.


Put forward some specific ideas rather than general desired appeal ( BPVs for example are much more understood when you've got an SSD link for people to look at ) and you'll get some more direct respeonces. There's a bunch of people who make a bunch of generalistic comments without a road map to get there (and no desire to construct one) and I think you might be getting flack on the assumption that you are one of those people.
Partly the comment, "X2 should be able to blitz the enemy" is a comment that comes up a lot and then doesn't actually go anywhere because the poster doesn't want to go throught the work of actually building a ship that is on the upper edge of what can be feilded without breaking the game.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 10:45 pm: Edit

Like MJC says, just post an SSD of what you think a typical light cruiser is and we have something concrete to debate.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 10:47 pm: Edit

I should say I think we have built ships that do have the power to blitz the enemy but have their own internal draw backs.

Both the HULL box doubling and the shield between the A and B collums on the DAC create ships that are rugged and yet still vunerable to A3, A4, A10, and A11 results on the DAC. The reduction to 8Ph-5s also makes those results on the DAC quite a bit more important than they are on an X1 vessel.

Similar developments along the those lines with other weapon systems ( the Photon instability rule) and other systems (The S-Bridge reduced rates of drone knockdowns) should allow an X2 ship to be a troubling experiance as you might have huge amount of power but you have so many choices to put it.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 10:50 pm: Edit

Or a different take on it. The massive difference between this and what Tos posted indicates, if anything, just how wide open X2 probably is at this point.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 10:53 pm: Edit

Tos:

Your ship is a pussey. Everybody knows you need to have a refit putting the BTTYs up to 5 points each.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 10:58 pm: Edit

J.G.:

Nice, very nice....although could I commend having an ASIF? I'ld go with a lower level of Regeneration (3 like you'ld get from DamCon) to help pay for the ASIF.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 11:06 pm: Edit

I went pure shield regen rather than an ASIF, just to show an alternative. This ships is intentionally a little conservative to make up for the hard hitting photons. Ph-5s are also limited - allowing X-Ph-1s to become the new defacto Ph-3. Just something different to think about.

I'd really like to see widely varied technologies in X2, getting away from the some vanilla commonaility of X1. Unusual mixes of ph-5s and Ph-1s (along racial lines), varied darivatives of the disruptor, advanced carronades for the Gorns, a SFG-based weapon, etc. I think X2 offers the opportunity to explore a whole new set of rules and game dynamics that could get missed if we just go the route of a bunch of very similar superships.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 11:10 pm: Edit

Okay, cool.
I just felt there was a desire to avoid the eggshells with sledge hammers effect so I brought it up.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 11:52 pm: Edit

Jeremy, the version I posted was meant to demonstrate the error of going overboard with X2. Your version is more inline with where the discussion has been. As MJC has noted, nice.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 08:21 am: Edit

Jeremy,

I like your CXX. Couple of thoughts on 2x - wouldn't turn modes improve somewhat, I'm thinking one level. So, your CXX would be TM C and a DXX would be TM A.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 10:09 am: Edit

Do we want to give everyone an across the board turn mode upgrade? That's something that will have to be carefully considered. How much of racial flavor is tied up in turning like a pig? There's a chance it might do more harm than good, though I'm open to the idea.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 10:31 am: Edit

I never wanted to see basic turn mode changes but rether a new powered maneuver such as the impulse turn. Basically an 60° HET using one or more points of impulse with no break down requirement. That sort of thing.

Any such basic improvements need some sort of cost like a power requirement, IMO. X2 ships I expect will have a fair amount of power and it would be good to have thing tax supplies in some way. One of the great things about SFB is that ships generally don't have enough power to do everything. X1 almost does and X2 seems to be heading there BUT if X2 can do some new stuff, and it should, and it costs power to do it then maybe the choice factor will remain.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 01:49 am: Edit

Joe,

You can doubt all you like.

Bottom line regardless is that it's easy to express vague thoughts that nobody can pin down to anything concrete.

It's easy to sit back and poke holes in other people's stuff and never put yourself out on the line.

Step up to the plate if you think you have all the angles covered. Show us you've got some thought and concepts to back up what you're saying.

I have a web page devoted to collecting X2 stuff. If you don't have hosting space, I'll display your stuff, put it side by side with everybody else's on an equal footing. I won't treat you better or worse than anybody else.

If your trust doesn't extend that far, I'm sure Mike or Tos will do you the same favor.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 04:12 am: Edit

I too would like to see the micro-HET come to pass.

I could also see some kind of improvement to turn mode ( like powering the turn control super computer (for a point (in life support))) say for a turn mode of 1 table improvement but with a limitation that when opperating, you can't use the ASIF.
That could make things interesting.