OK. Now I'm confuised.

I thought we were discussing Stinger X's going speed 40.

I thought Tos was saying we could do an "impulse 8.5" as a way of handling speed 40 in a 32-impulse system. That's the context for my "rewriting impulse procedure for the benefit of stinger-X's" reply fits in.

I thought Loren was defending the speed-40 idea as an X2 thing where we can do "radical change." which he underscored by saying that "things had chanced since then and SVC has called for something very different."

At least to me, my comments make sense when viewed with these comments in mind.

Forgetting theory and stuff, ARE we talking about speed-40 Sitnger-X's? If so, I reiterate the fact that this is a terrible idea because runing them the same as speed-40 plasma plays abysmally with Standard Tech and the only suggested fixes I've read require special exceptions added to the impulse procedure rules.

Never mind the tactical implications of Speed-40 where these fighters would get to use Andro maneuver tactis to end-around Speed-32 drones and outrun even sabotted plasma.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 02:26 pm: Edit

Loren and Tos were pointing out that it is possible to do things to the impulse chart to allow faster moving ships, not making recommendations. Speaking for myself I most certainly am NOT advocating that a St-X2 be able to move on impulse 8.5. A discussion of what is possible got mixed up with a discussion of what's desirable and a proposal. The pieces aren't supposed to fit together.

As I pointed out the St-X2 should improve in some way over the St-XM after 25 years of deployment, a statement I expect most here would agree with. One proposal was to allow it to go faster than speed 32. You disagree with proposals that increase the speed of any (non-sabot) unit beyond 32.

As far as I understood things Loren was never proposing that faster units should use a modified impulse chart, he was stating only that doing so would be possible.

The balancing factors (other than BPV) that I remember being actively proposed for a speed-40 St-X2 was that if the fighter goes any speed over 30 it takes double damage from weapons, ala Warp Booster Pack. There may have also been a proposal that any fighter moving > 30 could not fire weapons. I'd add that it can't HET and give the thing a nasty turn mode (6?) too. There may have been something else said about allowing only speed 40, not 31-39, which might simplify the equation some.

---

Quote:

Forgetting theory and stuff, ARE we talking about speed-40 Sitnger-X's? If so, I reiterate the fact that this is a terrible idea because runing them the same as speed-40 plasma plays abysmally with Standard Tech and the only suggested fixes I've read require special exceptions added to the impulse procedure rules.

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 03:57 pm: Edit

Range 3 --> range 1

Not a problem if a plasma does this. In fact it's potentially desiraable. Much better than Range 2 --> range 0

Big problem if a stinger does the 3 --> 1 jump.

The comparison to plasma are apples/oranges because singer's aren't seeking weapons. It only appears to track because stingers need to get close to be truly devastating.

Also you haven't addressed how the proposal is balanced with respect to GW-era seeking weapons.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 12:40 pm: Edit

*sighs*

I think a Stinger-XM IS 'X2 tech'......

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 12:52 pm: Edit

Sadly, a Stinger-XM isn't that much better than a Stinger-2M.

Just the EWP, Ph-2, and +2 damage points.

In the base versions (St-X vs. St-2), the St-X is superior since it has 12 damage points (so a T-Bomb isn't an auto-kill) and is speed 20.

Adding the megapacks to each, the St-2 now gets 12 damage points and becomes the same speed as the St-XM.

Really, only the Ph-2 makes the St-XM stand out over the St-2M (since the St-2M can afford EWPs itself and probably has a St-EM which the St-XM doesn't have supporting it). The 2 extra damage points are nice, but with megapacks they're both over the critical threshold of 10.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 01:04 pm: Edit

Also, Stinger-XM doesn't have Howard Stern on it.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 01:38 pm: Edit

Tos, what a speed 40 Stinger shall gain over a 40 speed 40 plasma is truely 8 extra hexes per turn. A speed 40 plasma shall usually get a bonus of 3-4 extra hexes per turn (only a Plasma-R sabot launched from extremely long range will get all of the bonus hexes).

A speed-40 Stinger-XM will get 4 extra hexes of movement between impulses 1-16, and then another 4 extra hexes of movement between 17-32.

Comparing Plasma Sabots to Stinger-XMs isn't really fair, because we all know that the plasma has to 'close' with it's target, as they are seeking weapons. The Stinger-XM doesn't have to close at all, it can 'circle' at the best weapon range (say 10 to get it's first shot), and then close/retreat at the best opportunity to strike with it's phasers without getting killed in return.

Or course all the while a RNX, LBX, or LNX is out their, doing that voodoo that they do so well.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 02:08 pm: Edit

Gary Bear,

With respect, I don't think you're giving the Stinger-XM's EW advantage the weight it deserves. Since a Stinger has no drones, adding an EW pod reduces the speed and dogfight rating. I don't care much about the dogfight rating personally. But the speed reduction is more significant. The internal EW pod on a Stinger-X doesn't effect speed. So a Stinger-XM is speed-30 even with its EW pod, while the Stinger-2M with external pod is not.

Also, the phaser-2 is not a trivial upgrade. It's not crushing. But it's not trivial either.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 02:18 pm: Edit

The difference is speed 29 for a St-2M (with 1 external EWP) and speed 30 for a St-XM for the same EW. 1 point of speed is a minor difference.

The difference is speed 14 for a St-2 (with 1 external EWP) and speed 20 for a St-X for the same EW. This 6 point difference is much more significant.

Nobody cares about dogfight rating and it took a nose-dive due to the megapacks, anyway.

The Ph-2 is very nice. But it's not nearly the difference that you see between comparable X-Ships and non-X-ships (like a RANGER vs. a RANGER X).

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 02:28 pm: Edit

Gary,

But, at least as I understand it, fighters aren't supposed to be as improved by X-tech as ships are. That was a deliberate SVC decision. You needed something larger than a fighter, or even a PF, to take full advantage of X-tech upgrades. And that's why no one but the Hydrans ever bothered to make X-tech fighters. They didn't think the degree of improvement was worthwhile. To be consistent with that storyline/background, a Stinger-X shouldn't be as much superior to a Stinger-2 as a Ranger-X is to a Ranger.

By Lewis M Maskell (Stnylan) on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 02:41 pm: Edit

Surely though the minimal increases between the St-2M and the St-XM is a fairly reasonable way of representing that the limits of fighter construction had been reached for the GW/X1 time period? It's not so much a problem, as a piece of SFU historical flavour.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 02:53 pm: Edit

Oh, I don't have a problem with the small difference between the St-2M and the St-XM. (Other than not getting Howard Stern.)

I was just making the point that a St-XM isn't "X2" since it actually is less of an improvement over the St-2M than the difference of the base models.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 03:25 pm: Edit

The point was that a speed-40 Stinger-XM would be X2. who knows. That one might get Howard a bonus weapon system.

I see a speed-40 fighter as too unbalancing to seriously consider but that's just me.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 05:06 pm: Edit

Would a decent compromise be that the Stinger XM gets speed 36?

So they get SOME speed benefit...

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 05:53 pm: Edit

We have 40, 36 and I'll add 32 to the mix. Which speed gets the nay-sayers on-board?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 06:20 pm: Edit

I could live well with 32 for ST-XM but I don't really see much advantage unless they are just trying to outrun fast drones.

An X2 Hydran fighter doesn't HAVE to have extra speed to be powerful. Why not have self-charging weapons? Say, if the fighter flies at half max speed it can recharge one fusion charge for one turn or half a Hellbore charge. If it flies at sublight or zero it can recharge two fusion charges or one fusion and one-half a Hellbore charge (Hellbore charges always take two turns).
So a Stinger-XX would slow to speed 7 to charge one fusion and a Stinger-XXM would slow to speed 15.
Phaser usage and charging would not affect heavy weapon charging.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 07:34 pm: Edit

I like that. Not so much the speed thing, but recharable fusion beams in general I like. Good X2 tech without breaking the speed 32 barrier. See, I knew we could come up with something.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 07:50 pm: Edit

I figure that the reducing speed in half is where the energy is coming from. Of course it doesn't work to try and calculate the actual energy spendatures. Move cost to energy required to load a fusion type things just don't work.

But there should be some cost to being able to recharge those weapons.

Here's the thing though. The new X2 Stinger can now generate considerably more power but it still cannot break the Speed 30 warp barrier. The weapons recharge does require a lot of power, enough that you have to tap into the engine power. Otherwise, when not recharging the extra power is just not generated.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 07:56 pm: Edit

I'm a little dubious about allowing hellbore-armed fighters to recharge in flight, however. My "gut feeling" is that rechargeable hellbores have a greater potential to cause game balance problems than rechargeable fusions do. But of course I have no actual data to support that.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 08:11 pm: Edit

Alan, well remember that the fighter, per the above proposal, would have to fly at half speed for two consecutive turns in order to recharge ONE charge.

It would probably do better to land on the carrier and pickup a charge. If you can recharge a fusion then I can't see not allowing the Hellbore recharge. However, I made it pretty hard to do; harder in most cases than landing on the carrier.

But I'm also talking the X2 period so the balance can be worked in.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 08:28 pm: Edit

It's the X2 period but per SVC's edict it can't be overpowering against standard tech. The question (assuming SVC and SPP accept the idea of rechargeable X2 fighter weapons at all) is whether allowing rechargeable hellbores in addition to rechargeable fusion beams makes the game better or not. If the answer is "No", then you can invent some technobabble reason why fusions are rechargeable, but hellbores are not.

As stated, it's my gut feeling - but only a feeling - that allowing this for hellbores makes the game worse.

One point regarding X2 fighters in general is that they need to be good enough that the Hydrans would rationally decide to actually build them, but that other races could rationally decide not to do so. If they are too good then other races would also build them. If fighters can recharge hellbores, then why not photon torpedos? And if fighters can recharge photons, even at the cost of only moving half speed, it becomes difficult to rationally defend a Federation decision not to field huge numbers of photon-armed X2 fighters. That's a road I personnally would prefer not to head down.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 09:05 pm: Edit

The slow down period is exactly what makes it play nice with GW.

...then why not photon torpedoes?

Because the extra power isn't the right stuff? That is easy to explain for photons (not warp) but a better question would be why not disruptors and for that I cannot say.

But how can one say that fusions could rearm and hellbores cannot? The energy required to arm a fusion is the same as one turn of hellbore. I think that it's fair to say the the system would not deliver warp plasma. Also note that a Hellbore fighter could not rearm in any sort of speedy fashon. One HB charge in two turns at half speed or one HB and two fusions at speed 1 in two turns. That's a pretty serious limitation, one that in the height of battle would mean certain destruction.

By Lewis M Maskell (Stnylan) on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 09:12 pm: Edit

Well, there are two possible approaches to that question I would think. One is that the Hydrans made a technical innovation that the other races didn't that enabled them to use rechargeable weapons. Given that the Hydrans are already the only ones who attempt to upgrade their fighters into the X1-tech era this is quite plausible that they alone would have sufficient knowledge to make the X2 upgrade.

Another consideration is that Hydrans, for their own historical and cultural reasons, might well be the only race who consider putting all this time and effort into fighters to be worthwhile.

Not saying that there are not gameplay implications to consider, just to suggest that there are in fact reasons why fighters would not have be adopted by other races.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 09:38 pm: Edit

The St-X doesn't have a hellbore, so there's no issue on letting hellbore fighters recharge.

Now, if you're proposing a new X2 Hydran fighter that does have a hellbore, then it does merit discussion.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 09:42 pm: Edit

Gary, for the current rules that is a very good point but I know there is a proposal right now for a Hellbore ST-X for X1R.