Archive through December 08, 2005
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 Shields: Archive through December 08, 2005
By George M. Ebersole (George) on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 09:49 pm: Edit

If it kills the PPD, then I'm doubly for it.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 09:52 pm: Edit

I know you don't like the ISC but they're a part of the game.

Can't destroy their ability to fight, sorry.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 10:02 pm: Edit

J.T. & L.K.

1) Any ASIF that stops damage between the A collum and the Sheild is another sheild and shouldn't be counted as an ASIF.

2) If 36 points of damage are fired at a ship that take 6 points of damage between the A & B collums out per volley then.
A 36 point hit will inflict 30 internal box hits, including 3.33 Phasers, 1 Torp and 1 Drone hit.
A pair of 18 point hits will take out about 28 internal boxes including 3.5 Phaser, 2 Torps and 2 drones.

Regular mizia would be 36 internals four 4 Phaser, 1 Torp and 1 Drone or a pair of 18s for 4 Phaser 2 torps, and 2 Drones.

Volley 36 2 x8 percentage increase 36 ASIF 2 x18 ASIF Percentage increase Respective Difference
Phasers 4 4 0% 3.33 3.5 5% 5%
Torps 1 2 100% 1 2 100% 0%
Drones 1 2 100% 1 2 100% 0%

Net result is that although the ASIF stops internals between the A and B collums that effect causes players to be more willing to priorites the Mizia effect and the fact that the Phaser hits on B3 and B10 are less commong than those on A4 and A9 means that the ASIF actually makes the Mizia attack even more effectual than without the ASIF.
Simply put the ASIF makes the mizia ever so slightly more effective, coupled with a reduction of weapons over X1 levels and the increase in the player desire to use the mizia based on the fact that Phaser hits in the B collum are much harder to get and the Mizia attack becomes quantifiably more common under X2 than any other era.
About the only thing offsetting the Mizia is the higher battle speeds of X2s and there are a bunch of poeple who don't wantto see an increase in battle speed.

By George M. Ebersole (George) on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 10:11 pm: Edit

John; no one's destroying their ability to fight. Think of it as a new opportunity to tweak the ISC. You're assuming the PPD (if it's still allowed) will somehow not evolved or not work with the HS concept. I understand the concern, but also think that's not being very forward thinking. A better question to pose might be what new weapon, or combination of weapons/systems, would be used by mainline ships to overcome a hard shield. I'll also add that I don't really hate the ISC so much as I dislike the psychology behind their conception. I wrote extensively on the topic under an ISC thread and Jeremy's GW Campaign thread.

mjc; I'm not following your logic. The purpose of "Mizia" is to get the "good" hits by spreading out fire over a series of impulses to take advantage of the volley rule. I don't see how your chart and reasoning shows an enhancement of that. Or rather I see your perspective, but I don't think it accurate.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 10:17 pm: Edit

Absorbing the first of every four (or three when reinforced) hull or cargo actually does little against A column Mizia but it does not make it worse. It does prolong the life of the ship (and primarily the warp) by adding to the hulls durability.

Reguarding comment #1): I disagree. A PA pannel does exactly that but IS NOT a shield. Armor does that too and that is way not a shield.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 10:25 pm: Edit

George,

No I'm not assuming the PPD hasn't evolved.

X2 is required by SVC to make sure that X points of GW-tech has a 50-50 chance against the same points worth of X2.

You can find SVC's comments under the topic, "Link to CL23 X1 changes".

Hard shields tend to make for situations that are difficult to balance against GW tech such as PPDs, disruptors, hellbores (if all shields are "hard") and prox photons, to name a few things. Anything that delivers light damage is at a disadvantage vs hard shields.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 12:24 am: Edit

Maybe HS could be a "close-in defense" where a ship's shields switch to HS mode on an impulse where a potential attacker is within (for example) 8 hexes. So long as no potential attacker is within this range, the HS shields won't raise. Sounds screwy but it's an idea.

Maybe someone can help me here, but why do X2 ships have fewer weapons than X1 ships? This doesn't make sense to me.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 01:48 am: Edit

X2 ships have fewer weapons because X1 ships tend to appear overgunned.

I for one wanted the X2 ships to be about the same as their pre-GW equivalents. So a Fed X2 CA would have 8 ph-5, 6 in the saucer and 2 in the back.

Also, the weapons themselves are more powerful, so you don't need as many. Compare 8 ph-5 vs. 10 ph-1.

By George M. Ebersole (George) on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 02:17 am: Edit

John; maybe the new PPD can degrade a hard shield. I don't know. I think it's important to think of all (or most) of the possibilities before passing judgement on a concept. That's part of the purpose of this thread :)

I'm not really for the concept as a standard piece of X2 equipment, but I like it all the same because I think it's unique. As I stated earlier this year I think an X2 cruiser aught to be able to manhandle a GW cruiser, and this may be one of those technologies that helps achieve that goal.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 06:14 am: Edit

Quote:

mjc; I'm not following your logic. The purpose of "Mizia" is to get the "good" hits by spreading out fire over a series of impulses to take advantage of the volley rule. I don't see how your chart and reasoning shows an enhancement of that. Or rather I see your perspective, but I don't think it accurate.


A blockage between A & B collums makes the B3 & B11 Phaser hits harder to get, consequently a play considers the option of the Mizia more.
Some players don't Mizia because of the threat of a Het, by making the B11 and B3 excuss harder to justify the ALPHA you push [players into going for the Mizia more.

The Mizia is a little like a Old Coke...do we really need to make it taste better so that MORE people will buy into it!?!


Quote:

Reguarding comment #1): I disagree. A PA pannel does exactly that but IS NOT a shield. Armor does that too and that is way not a shield.


Armour is so way LIKE a shield that to my mind it is a psuedo-shield.
Other ships have 30 Shiled boxes on the Number #1 but not the WE, it has 25+5 shield boxes...the Difference to 30 shield boxes on the #1 is measurable but the similarlities are gerater than the differences.
An ASIF that functions between the A COllum and the Shield could only be different to a shield enough to be not a Psuedo Shield is if the Ship has armour and that is not many ships.


Quote:

X2 ships have fewer weapons because X1 ships tend to appear overgunned.

I for one wanted the X2 ships to be about the same as their pre-GW equivalents. So a Fed X2 CA would have 8 ph-5, 6 in the saucer and 2 in the back.

Also, the weapons themselves are more powerful, so you don't need as many. Compare 8 ph-5 vs. 10 ph-1.


Hey you're not just preaching to the converted, you're preaching to the Arch-bishop.

But I'm still saying that the combination of higher damage weapons and fewer weapons will result in making the mizia a more appitising selection.

A Three 24 Point Photon Fed XDD with 6Ph-5s and 2 GX racks, may have a BPV close to a Fed CX but it'll take punishment a lot more poorly.
It's a thing about the game that 1 A4 Phaser hit kills a Ph-5 just as dead as it does a Ph-3, maybe even more dead because the CDR cost will be so high.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 02:23 pm: Edit

Believe me. ANY tech that changes shield operations is a VERY complex undertaking.

I've had SPP showing me just how complex while doing some stuff for the "Shield Galaxy" E-Module. Any change in the basic shield dynamic can be exceedingly complex and difficult to write rules for and balance.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 02:56 pm: Edit

Thats why I like the ASIF. I can only speak for my version but the advantage gained if faily predictable and thus easier to balance. It's use directly translates to added internals and added repair capability.

Indeed, a ship equiped with my ASIF would be at a disadvantage if it wasn't used.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 08:42 pm: Edit

Quote:

Thats why I like the ASIF. I can only speak for my version but the advantage gained if faily predictable and thus easier to balance. It's use directly translates to added internals and added repair capability.

Indeed, a ship equiped with my ASIF would be at a disadvantage if it wasn't used.


The realtively paper thin sheilds of X2 might not be a bad thing as we don't want the D4 Vs YCA at R3 thing going on...if only because it's been done before.
Plus a BTTY improvement over X1 would also go towards effectively tweaking the shields upwards a bit.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 02:29 am: Edit

George,

I think it's important to think of all (or most) of the possibilities before passing judgement on a concept.

I agree. That's why I pose problems and shortcomings of the concept.

A hard-shields concept that works best might be something that works on a per-impulse basis. Say 5-10 points simply batted aside per impulse, regardless of the number of weapons, regardless of the number of vollies, no matter how many shields are hit.

The smaller the damage packets you work with, the more potentially unbalancing the defense becomes. To go to the opposite extreme, 5 points deducted from every single weapons hit would make the ship invulnerable to standard disruptors, PPDs, Prox Photons, P-2's at most ranges and P-3s at all.

If the 5 points is taken for each shield separately, the ship would be able to shrug off overloaded hellbores if it had balanced shields.

Which all means you don't want to take damage on a per-weapon basis and need to think real hard about treating each shield separately.

Even on a per-attack basis, I should be able to muster the damage necessary to crest the hardness, but forget the mizia if I have to do it every time.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 06:32 am: Edit

Yeah, it'ld have to be one shield ( or split between sheild on a point by point basis ) and that ammount of damage protecting each TURN or else you just elimiated the MIZIA attack from the X2 playbook and or EPTs and HBs!

If that were the case why no give the ship more BTTY power!?!

I wonder if we can link the 4th and 5th points of power in a BTTY to SSReo & GSReo only!?!...personnally it makes me think Caps-to-SSReo was a good idea and we all know SVC thinks that that way lies madness.

Over X1 levels of BTTY should stop the X2s from be stuck with ) realatively speaking ) paper thin shields.

In my playtest battle the CX didn't get past pushing the XCA down to it's last shield box in a single high impact turn of fire and it still had some BTTY when the DDX fired.
The lack of HULL made ASIF less like-able and the lack of BTTY made the facing shield have trouble with an R1 DDX.
But the point is that the BTTY did a pretty good job of covering for the shield inadequicies that didn't realy exist.
The shield were weak compaired to the firepower being deployed but they were a different flavour not a bad taste...there is a difference.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 02:32 pm: Edit

MJC,

Let's not make batteries more complex than they need to be. You want dedicated shield reinfocement, create a shield capacitor for it, which is where "Caps-to-SSReo" attempts to return again from the dead. Sorry, but it's still not a good idea, IMHO and it has been nixed by SVC himself.

Let it stay dead, please.


All,

My opinion is that ideas that attempt to stave of those first internals are wrongheaded. You create ships with crunchy outer shells and soft creamy centers. Play balance becomes difficult and a small miscalculation can result is a big advantage.

I thought that it would be better to give a XCA more durability than better defenses against that first internal. Find a way of giving an XCA the durability of a DN.

Since that really comes down to padding the hull with boxes that just absorb damage, you can see where both Loren's and my ASIF come from. Loren's gives a ship additional virutal hull boxes and mine shields each column of the DAC. (there is also a proposal for having hull boxes take 2x hits to destroy, but there was no easy way of recording it that didn't bloat the SSD or look really bad)

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 08:34 pm: Edit

Quote:

I thought that it would be better to give a XCA more durability than better defenses against that first internal. Find a way of giving an XCA the durability of a DN.


Take one X1 CX, add 4 R Hull boxes, pay about 6 points of power to double the HULL boxes via the ASIF.

Now that power could have been spent on SSReo but inorder to have the same unidirectionality of the ASIF we would consider it GSReo.

Bingo...you now have 17 extra HULL boxes ( which offset those horrible 7H hits ) and thus have a ship that can take a pounding not entirely unlike the ones a DN can take.

A Fed DNG will have 30 hull boxes and an XCA will have 40 ( 20 without the ASIF ) and a Fed DNG will have 45 Warp Engine Boxes which the XCA will have 48. So these ships are comming close to DN levels of Durability ( the drawback being weapon numbers ) and with 48/40/40/40 on the XCA and 45/38/36/36 on the DNG and only 6 BTTY on the DNG to the massive 15 ( or 20 or 25 ) BTTY of the XCA and the XCA stand to be able to withstand a hit pretty well against a DN.
Four 24 point Photons are slightly better ( because of the Proxi and Fastloading advancements ) than 6 GW Photons.
8Ph-5s are are pretty equal to 12 PH-1s so the 2Ph-3s of the DNG push it over the line.
2 G-Rack Racks and 2 B-racks is a little ahead of 2X2G-racks even when launching Type X drones.
It's the extra two points of swing EW and the ability to capitalise on a negative shift that really sets the XCA apart!


Simply letting the XCA withstand more damage by doubling the damage inflicted count per hull box hit will give the XCA the durability of a DN, we don't need to go to upping the shields fantastically well to offset the DEEP DAC HITS because they won't be all that forth comming...assuming the ship is flown cautiously:- Four 12 Point fastloads and 6Ph-1s at R1 against a ship that's spent all of it's BTTY will STILL hurt bad from the act.


Quote:

(there is also a proposal for having hull boxes take 2x hits to destroy, but there was no easy way of recording it that didn't bloat the SSD or look really bad)


Yeah, there is...you just need to forgo the idea that the ASIF get's cheaper as your ship gets beat up and suddenly, it's a matter of...did I put enough on the EAF...YES...great each Hull box counts as taking two hits to destroy except the last hit which always destroys something...no need for "Crippled Boxes" and no need to differentiate between "on and off boxes" because they're either all on or all off.

By forgoing the fewer boxes you have left the cheaper it becomes theory you create a new tactical dynamic, one that already exists with the 4 impulse delay but gets strengthened and that is you need to prepair inorder to work the equipment, so too with a the effienciency getting worse the more damage the ship's hull has taken, you need to be especially pre-emptive, you need to guess which volley is going to be the one to score internals and how many internals and then dicide if it's worth the low power cost of the ASIF to "bulk up" your hull.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 09:26 pm: Edit

One of the things I felt was important was that the damage process not be changed alot. That is, how damage is divided up as you roll the dice. Secondly, my original intention was to protect a 1.5x warp by bolstering the hull and cargo (which is the basic structure of a ship that is hit first so it seems logical that that is what would be protected by a Structural Integrity Field). Still, X2 ships will throw out a lot of damage and these need to not be paper tigers so the ASIF still is needed (unless you want to just add a bunch of real hull boxes, which I don't want to do).

So, thats why I went with the incremental damage absorbtion of "First of every four hull or cargo" (first of three when reinforced) and applied various repair bennifits as well (this is a real reason to power the ASIF and not just put the energy into shield reinforcement). I would also point out that my ASIF rule is most useful when using the Leaky Shields rule as that leak point might not do anything at all. (I play Leaky Shields and against the DAC Column ASIF I would whittle it down with several small strikes from a distance).

What I didn't want to do is directly protect weapons (which, understandably, others do). This goes to how I see X2 play taking place. Instead of toothless and dead, X2 ships will still be rendered toothless but will not be dead. Instead they will have power and maybe even some hull. If they can pull away they can conduct repairs and remain in the fight. Otherwise they disengage. The X2 era should have less blown up ships. This would be the entire motivation for creating a ASIF. To preserve lives and/or the ship (priorities interchangable depending on race!).

I had hoped that with my ASIF I had created something that one would have to work to use. Something whose benifit must be garnered.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 09:43 pm: Edit

What is ASIF?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 09:48 pm: Edit

Ships have a force field system that holds the ship together to endure the increadable stresses place on it during normal use. These ships do move pretty darn fast. This is typically refered to as a Structural Integrity Field (SIF).

What is proposed is an Advanced Structural Integrity Field (ASIF) that would have added bennifits under unusual stress, such as combat.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 10:56 pm: Edit

yup.

7th shields, essentially.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 12:33 am: Edit

Quote:

What is ASIF?


Advanced
Structural
Intergrity
Field

( Hey I just realised that you could pronounce it AS IF rather than A-SIF...but the term's been around for over a year so I must be getting slow ).


Basically you can use the difference in the location of the nuclius of an atom and the electron orbiting it and a focused electro magnetic feild to push a whole lotta atoms towards the incomming blast when an attack strikes and thus deaden some of the blast's destructiveness.

Or you could use any other technobabble that takes your fancy.

By Aaron M. Staley (Aaron_Staley) on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 03:30 pm: Edit

K, apparently you've already thought of the 7th shield idea that I thought of last night. Basically, instead of making the shields bigger than the 1X shields, add a 7th shield that is 360 and must be powered every turn by a generator box on the SSD. Is this essentially what ASIF is? Has ASIF already been disapproved?

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 04:21 pm: Edit

Other than XP nothing has been cleared or shot down YET!:)

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 01:31 am: Edit

I think I've settled on the following ideas:

Main Shields - no thicker than X1 or GW (For the XCA, this means the larger of the CX or the BCH.) X1's designs reached the limit on main shield strength.

ASIF - Shielded DAC, but without an A-column (which is nothing more than armor). Repair cost 4 points of power per box (just as shields can be fixed for 2 power per box.)

Swing shields - A 4-6 box shield between the main shields, which can be counted as part of either (but not both) shields. If the main shield is down, swing shields cannot cover the hole, but you can always take damage on a swing shield before losing that last main shield box.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation