Strikes me that shuttles can't do much in the bay.

They can't lock onto targets or do a lot of things.

OUTSIDE may be a different story.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 12:10 am: Edit

Yes, I think there is a philosophy that shuttle have to take a risk of not comming back before there they can be any use.
Attrition Unit Philosphy!?!

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 01:07 pm: Edit

No.

Intelligent game mechanics.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 08:04 pm: Edit

I was thinking about why X2 might be more like MY and one reason could be the development of DefSats with increadible levels of power.

Consider Attack Satalites.
SC5 units with positional stabalizers, a 180° Ph-4, some B-racks and takes damage on the PF DAC.
Using Interceptor or even PF shields and taking the robots from computer controlled ships and upgrading them to repair robots so that the unit can have a DamCon rating, such a unit could be very good at defending planets from outside agression and cause the fleets to be very small as the planets retain their neutrality/autonomy and their taxes.


If it reminds you too much of SPACE COWBOYS then maybe we should drop it.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 05, 2007 - 09:40 pm: Edit

I've been thinking for a while.
Maybe the Hydran Fighter in X2 should be gained through miniturisation.
By taking the Super Stinger and making it a single sized fighter (maybe through remote control as well) you get a fighter that's better than the Stinger-X but not too "over the top" because it's been seen in action before. Plus with a Hellbore and Fusions, it would be a single unified design which one would expect the X2 fighter of the Hydrans to be.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 03:38 pm: Edit

We all assume that X2 tech will have fewer attrition units, an assumption I will not dispute. On the other hand races heavily invested in the fighter, like the Hydrans, aren't likely to simply stop using them. In the X1R topic there has been discussion about allowing a St-XM to travel a maximum of speed 40 rather than the speed 30 max that exists currently. There is zero chance that a speed 40 fighter might be introduced in X1R, but for X2 a limited, expensive, speed 40 fighter might be fun to explore.

As balancing factors I would start with any fighter currently traveling over speed 30 takes double damage, as it would if it had a WBP.

I'm thinking this would be limited to the St-X2M fighter, or the hellbore variant of same.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 04:38 pm: Edit

Tos, you would probably also have to limit the St-XM to ONLY speed 40 if it's "superfast." Otherwise, you'd have develop rules for exactly what impulses it would move twice.

Actually, thinking abou it, that wouldn't be too hard, I suppose. You could just subtract 32 from it's current speed. It then gets an "extra move" on the same impulses that that speed would move.

Ex: speed "34". 34-32 = speed 2. Hence, it would move twice on impulses 16 and 32.

For X-2 I'm not sure I see the need for double damage when superfast. As an alternative, I would say that the St-X2M, when superfast, cannot fire. That would help stop the "Stinger gap" tactic, which is much worse for this unit (wehre it could effectively close 3 hexes in one impulse).

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 05:04 pm: Edit

Alternately, X ships and Aegis ships could fire at Xfighters at ranges 1/2/3 as the X fighter approached. By the time the X stinger comes out the opponents should be transitioning to X ships and attrition untis anyway...

Another reason no one else bothered with X fighters.

I mean if they can shoot/ look/ shoot at range 1 why can't they take a shot at range 2 or so when the X fighter is zipping in?

Take a passel of irritating rules though.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 06:35 pm: Edit

Not no but F-no.

I think speed-40 fighters plays extremely poorly with Standard technology.

Edit: It also sets up a slipperly slope toward a general breaking of the speed-31 limit. That way lies madness, IMO.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 06:53 pm: Edit

Well, I did lightly entertain the idea that X2 might push up the tactical warp wall to something like 36. How you would do this is you create a 36 impulse chart and gray over all the added impulses. Only X2 things can utilize the gray impulses.

I've pretty much decided that it's a can-o-worms (as it would face huge resistance). It certainly would produce a very different dynamic.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 07:22 pm: Edit

Loren,

You'd have to give the speed-36 units an extra move on 1,8,16,24,32. No other practical choice.

Creating a speed 36 chart would break every game mechanic that was time-based because 1/4 turn would no longer equal 8 impulses. Nightmare.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 07:30 pm: Edit

Not if you had impulse 8 and impulse 8.5

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 07:53 pm: Edit

John, not really as all non-X2 units just do nothing on the extra impulses. Yes, that gives X2 extra active impulse, which would be for the more advanced computers and such.

Anyway, I've largely abandoned the idea.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 08:06 pm: Edit

R10 and the sabot was the time to introduce rules like that.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 08:38 pm: Edit

I disagree. It could only be be an X2 thing where there is a door for a radical change.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 08:58 pm: Edit

Radical change is exactly what we agreed we couldn't do 4 years ago. the greater the change from standard tech, the more RPS effects occur.

Introducing an impulse 8.5 runs around on the fact that SFB does sabot torps and mama dragons one way and this another, which means any X2 rules have to make sure their butts are covered for any effect that exceeds 32. I know they're not many but it's a recipe for a lot of mindless exception-handling rules and it's that kinda stuff that necessitated RISC SFB, Fed Commander.

Secondly, we're trying to keep a level playing field with Standard tech. Being able to move and/or fire when standard tech can't does exactly the opposite. It creates a strong RPS effect in favor of X2. That means everybody has to work with impulse 8.5's now.

We're adding complexity when we don't need to. We're creating a "X2 version" of the SFB game engine and trying to make sure it's backwards compatible.

Third, me-too. A speed-40 fighter creates demand for a speed-40 drone and a speed-40 ship and the moment that happens all the plasma people scream that their torps don't hit anymore so we get speed 48 plasmas, possibly speed 56 plasmas. How well does all this play with standard tech? (hint: it doesn't)

Huge can of worms here. Huge game-balance issues. Have fun. I don't think it'll get past SPP, let alone SVC.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 09:14 pm: Edit

Well, hue and cry or no, SVC won't be approving speed 40 ships anytime soon. If a single, low volume fighter breaks the limit, that's flavor, not a demand for equality.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 09:28 pm: Edit

Have fun.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 09:52 pm: Edit

Why not propose it as a "stellar shadow journal" thing for the mad scientists section?

It lets a prototype rule get into players hands, it doesnt affect the main part of the game and it comes with the usual weasel wording that it is not warranted to work with any other part of SFB's.

And if you do manage to create something that does interact well with the game system, the steves can be relied upon to evaluate it and determine if it is something that should be added to the game.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 01:20 am: Edit

John, I know what you mean but other things happened since then and SVC called for something very different.

I still hold the same values I always did for X2 but then I think SVC has a very different set of values for X2 than those we worked on four years ago.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 01:04 pm: Edit

Loren,

Then speed-40 fighter is too flipping *mundane* to worry about. We're talking about rewriting impulse procedure for sole benefit of Stinger-X's for the gods' sake.

If you want really different (please add SVC's comments to the record so people like me who don't follow every SVC post can look them over) be prepared for RPS issues magnified by the combat power of the units involved.

I don't care who says what or who wants what. The plague of a radically different X2 is going to *BE* RPS issues (RE Andros, Tholians, ISC Echelon), especially as long as you demand it play nice with standard General War tech.

Has SVC backed off on that massively gimping impediment to X2 creativity? If not, have fun.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 02:40 am: Edit

John T.,

I don't know what exactly you are taking issue with. I said from the start that I didn't want to do this. You missed the point and the proposal completely. First the point was that I worked out a system that worked but then didn't propose it because I thought it was too much. I was certainly right about the feeling it would face resistance since I'm getting a pile just for mentioning it as a non-proposal. The point of mentioning it was that just because you can create something super different that works doens't mean it should be implemented.

Second, the idea I mentioned was NOT about rewriting the impulse proceedure for the sole bennefit of the Stinger-X. I have to wonder it you really read the idea at all. Indeed the proposal had originally nothing to do the with Stinger-X or ever speed 40 actually. The idea was for ALL X2 to be able to use the extra impulses of a 36 impulse chart. All non-X2 units continue to use the regualr 32 impulses and ignore the extra impulses. There is NO REWRITING OF ANYTHING (emphasis).

I would add that I acknowledged that the idea would be very powerful, probalby too powerful. That's why I didn't propose it. It IS a workable mechanic but not a wise addition to the game. Does it play nice with GW? That's debatable but it's probably wicked powerful.

SVC hasn't backed off of anything. I'm not proposing it. OK? We cool now?

The point was you can have a system that works and still not be good for the game. Trans-speed-32 isn't good for the game IMO. It has some limited appeal but would probably be not good overall (one can be totally sure unless full playtested but the assumption here I think is reasonable that it will snap). I've made several posts saying that the Speed-40 St-XM would be a can-o-worms that would spread accross the entire game system and the history so I'm pretty much set against it.

So really, I'm on your side.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 09:04 am: Edit

I too have flirted with more impulses for X2 ships, but abandoned the idea long, long ago. SVC has come down firmly on the issue. X2 ships cannot, and should not, be able to battle at high warp. One can argue if the speed limit should be set at speed 31 or 32, but that's a discussion for a different topic.

The Hydrans use fighters, and probably always will. The St-XM was deployed in Y182. What advancement should the St-XM get after 25 years in service?

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 10:39 am: Edit

More EW and a higher EW max than 6 each of ECM/ECCM.

After all, the X-Ships can generate more total EW than non-X-Ships while the ST-X only received an EWP but still operates under the same EW max as non-X-fighters.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 11:50 am: Edit

Well, one reason I abandoned the 36 impulse chart idea was that there was practically a coup d'etat over even a ship moving speed 32, even if the cost to do so was high. Speed 30 for warp plus one for impulse is the best we are going to get. We all moved on from there pretty well I think in the years between then and now.