Until SVC determines just how powerful X2 ships should be, we're going to keep having arguments about that. I believe Joe Stevenson and also Michael John Campbell have both argued for X2 ships that are substantially more powerful than X1 ships. but I think Tos is clearly right that these ships are under BPVd.

Also, Jeremy, you didn't state arming costs for ph-5s, and whether they can be rapid pulsed as some type of weaker phaser. I recall some discussion regarding whether ph-5s should arm for 1 power or 1.5 power and there was also, I think, some discussion of a "ph-6" which was basically the X2 counterpart to the ph-3.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 01:46 pm: Edit

Regarding mauler shock - an even more radical (and probably unacceptable) notion would be that at X2 maulers don't shock at all if fired only on battery power.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 02:05 pm: Edit

I've been thinking that perhaps X2 should veer away from drones and have energy based drone defense that is superior to X1.

Perhaps a shield that deflects kinetic energy or solid units. It would be effective against asteroids, stop crash landings by shuttles, lessen the effects of other terrains, and heavilly dampen the effects of drones by keeping their explosion further away when they detonate.

A drone detonates in near proximity to a ship as I understand it; perhaps a hundred meters? What if this defelctor keeps things with mass further away, maybe two hundred meters making a drone only do 1/4 damage.

The deflector would be directional of course. The SSD would have a small chart where you would mark the direction of the defelctor (and you would announce it). You could change its direction one sixty degree facing per 4 impulses. It would be powered during EA and remain effective for the remainder of the turn. A more advanced version might later be introduced that can be powered by reserve power.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 02:10 pm: Edit

I could live with a shock only if the power through the mauler exceeds n. I'm thinking n is 15 power. Combine this with a low shock rating between 8-12 and you will see some different tactics.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 02:11 pm: Edit

Alan, I agree on the issue of "how powerful". We could go round and round on that and probably never come to agreement on it without some decision from somebody in a position of authority. Based on past comments from SVC, I doubt that is about to happen. I know these 2X ships are more powerful than some, but I've also seen some far "worse". I attempted to temper their firepower, which is admittedly substantial, with comparatively limited resources. In that, I may or may not have succeeded. It is what it is I guess.

As for the ph-5s, I was and remain torn. I think my preference, given these ship designs, would be to make them 1.5 armers with an option to fire as either a Ph-1 or two pulsed Ph-3 for 1.0. I'm not crazy about going to a 3xph-3 pulsed mode (smells like the old overloaded phaser thing - not going there). I'm also not using anything like the "ph-6" as a stand alone weapon, so for simplicity I've ruled that out.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 02:12 pm: Edit

If there is renewed interest in X2 (the posts on the board (all areas) seem to have fallen off some of late) then might I suggest we post our comments in the appropriate existing threads?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 02:16 pm: Edit

My concern for all these ships is that they're going to fall into the same "eggshells with sledgehammers" issue that Old X2 fell into.

Shields and internals are a little higher but damage has gone MUCH higher.

In real-world warfare the accent on offense vs defense swings wildly back and forth. A game can't afford that or you end up with Battletech (I love the game but it's broken, broken, broken).

Ships need compensatory ability to take damage if they are going to dish any more out. I think this is why X1 generally looked to expand firing opportunities more than raw damage (plasma being the big exception, dones somewhat as well).

This topic saw a lot of these sorts of debates 4 and 5 years ago. Newcomers might de well to poke around.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 02:27 pm: Edit

John, I fully understand that concern - I'm not new to this discussion. In at least the Federation and Klingon case, these ships do have enhanced ability to take damage in the shield regenerator or shunt.

I think its unavoidable that the firepower/protection ratio on some of these ships is going to change to a degree. Otherwise, there is not a lot of point in even having an X2. Despite the changes made to X1 (which I very much like and helped to playtest), the ships of the era don't have the same ratio of firepower to protection that GW ships have anymore than GWs ships do when compared to EY ships. It needs to be tempered of course, but if all things are going to remain equal, just build bigger or more powerful ships with X1 tech and be done with it.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 02:40 pm: Edit

BTW...nice to see I've managed to stir the stagnant pot!

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 03:17 pm: Edit

And you did it with style.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 05:24 pm: Edit

Jeremy,

Apologies. I was combining two things at once without being clear. I am aware that you have been around here before and was not attempting to imply *you* were new.

But I see a lot of new names and they might want to push through those discussions.

I think there's a point in Damage:Protection ratio where inflating damage breaks game balance.

Reminder: SVC has stated that X2 must fight GW-tech on an equal-BPV basis. That means your Fed CXX would need to break about even in a fight with two CAR+s or be worth about equal to two CAR+s to the Feds.

The fact that X2 will have to "play nice" with General War tech, suggests a cap on increased damage. Building X2 just to fight X2 and X1 is different than building X2 to fight General War tech as well.

EY
If you want to talk about BPV parity, EY is, IMHO, broken when compared to General War tech. I don't think x BPX of EY is an even fight with the same BPV of General War tech. It's certainly not even with X1. EY's Damage : Protection ratio is broken. Damage is too small in EY's case. But it's only broken when compared to an opponent that EY tech never faced. I'm sure EY works resonably well against MY.

How would EY change if it had to maintain BPV parity with GW? The ships would have to be better than what they are.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 06:37 pm: Edit

John,

I'm not convinced my ship proposals are in any way "the answer". The main thing I'm championing is that the ships be very different from each other. I'd like to see things like the S-bridge, big hard hitting weapons, rapid fire weapons, advanced ADDs, etc, etc spread around, rather than common across races. So while one race might have a few "eggshells with sledgehammers", it would not be the norm if I had my way. I can see why some folks can see the Fed CXX I proposed that way, and all I can say is "guilty as charged". In a way, that is kind of the norm for Feds already, even in the GW. But I don't think the Klingon or Rom designs are necessarily the same deal, or at least that was not my intent.

If X2 needs to have a high BPV to play nice with GW-tech, I'm fine with it. I'd rather see the ships be expensive but meaningful. I agree with you on the EY to GW point, but I simply made it because I'm certain the "intent" was to make EY play nice with GW too, and that isn't reality, depending on what "play nice" means. From experience, a Tholian PC will kick the snot out of a Klingon D4 (a ship I actually think very highly of). The Klingon DX is a butt kicker compared to a Fed DNG too (I'm O-3 against the DX in a DNG). I've never been totally convinced that the "play nice" argument means "can win 50% of the time". "Play nice" might simply mean "die with some dignity".

I'm entirely open to a different BPV on the three ships I submitted. What do all of you guys think the BPV should be, based on the ships as designed? Its important to me to understand where you all think they stand. Just because I think something is right, doesn't mean it is.

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 06:37 pm: Edit

X2 is one of those things that I wonder if I'll see in my lifetime, but I like the direction Jeremy took with this. These could be fun to playtest. I certainly like the diversity of design, in that each race took a different development path.

As for X2 fighting GW tech on an equal BPV basis... well, EY certainly doesn't match GW tech on an equal BPV basis, and I'm not sure about GW/X1, but be that as it may. The BPVs on these may need a boost then... again, would be fun to playtest.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 07:25 pm: Edit

Jeremy,

SVC's stated goal for X2 is BPV-parity: Equal BPVs have about a 50-50 shot of winning, if players are similar skill. That's what "playing nice" means.

If the Klink DX wins 3/3 against the Fed DNG (I assume the two are close to the same BPV, don't have materials in front of me) and your opponent is generally as good as you, then X1 is not "playing nice" in this matchup. if this is symptomatic of X1 as a whole then X1 isn't "playing nice" with GW tech.

Odds are the DX has been under-valued and/or the tech difference creates some inherent RPS issues.

Certainly in your PC vs D4 matchup there is some definite tech-based RPS.

X1 may have some RPS issue with GW tech. X2 can't but make this worse.

While SVC might accept "die with dignity" as an outcome, I don't think he'll accept it as a mark to shoot for. I am not either Steve and I'm not often on the same creative wavelength as them. I could be wrong. I'm just going by what he has said int he past.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 07:41 pm: Edit

Fair enough. For now at least, the ships I posted are what they are. I hope they provoke conversation, it least in their parts, if not the sum of their parts.

I do genuinely want to understand what folks really think they are worth. Given the radical mixes of technology, I struggle to understand exactly how to point them. I think they need to be playtest both against each other and against earlier tech. If the Fed CXX I posted turns out to be a 400 point ship, I'm OK with that, as long as the reason is valid.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 10:18 pm: Edit

Point costs don't address RPS. A ship can simply be too powerful.

OTOH, consider 20-point photons, the compormise we reached. Otherwise, it looks like a decent entry.

I'd suggest ditching the NWO boxes but I have no logical reason to. It's merely a personal prejudice of mine. For some reason HDWs always rubbed me the wrong way so I detest NWOs.

Question: Obviously the shield regenerator helps the ship recover defenses after taking a punch. Does it have any systems that help it *take* a punch better?

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 10:26 pm: Edit

If X2 ships "play nice = 50/50 wins against equal BPV", that will be the FIRST time that has been achieved across tech gaps that I've seen.

I'm sorry, but everyone knows you cannot take two 75 point YCLs and fight a 150-point General War CC. You'll die. Likewise, I doubt two Fed NCLs can handle a Fed CX. It's not just the firepower; it's the speed and EW.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 10:40 pm: Edit

And yet we have to try. That much is a guiding principle.

We know X ships never made up a majority of fleet. That means in Y205 when X2 shows up, about 70% of your foes are circa Y180 GW designs. We have to play nice with these.

Furthermore, the working concept of the Trade Wars is multi-generation combat. This could all change, but building cross generational compatability needs to be a goal.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 11:29 pm: Edit

A couple of observations:

X-ship production: In module X1R, page 30: Most (but not all) starship production after Y195 consisted of X-ships. While there will be many GW non X-ships, few remain as front line fleet units as X2 appears. My perspective is: The best of these remaining fleet elements would be used for Operation Unity. So the initial X2 cruiser could be analogs of the Fed CA and Klingon D7, as was suggested earlier.

Phasers: The ring-firing phaser is what be used on X2 ships (phaser array rather than single phaser mounts). It appears most X2 designs could acccept at least an FX arc and some 360. The limit then is how many shots per impulse (4?) and per turn (6?); narrow salvos verse single shots at multiple targets. If X2 used double capacitors, like X1, then the (assuming a P5 at 1.5 points per shot) phaser array capacitor hold 18 points of power.

The defensive phaser could be standard PH-1s tied into limited X-Aegis, which can rapid pulse fire against SC 5 and smaller targets. The defensive phasers are on there own capacitor system.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 09:12 am: Edit

Dale,

The play nice is a SVC directive. Now EY era ships simply don't play nice with MY/GW era. If I had been involved with Y1 I would have brought that up. But EY is a specialty category that I wouldn't worry that much about. Even NG ships are dead meat in equal BPV battles with MY/GW navy ships. Simply due to the disparity in operations. But this supposedly will not happen with 2X.

SVC wants even battles so thats what he will get or we wont have X2.

Personally I'm in the camp that X2 ships need to be more powerful. But this doesn't have to be a huge increase. If anyone cares they can look at my posts on why I think limited P5 with 1.5 power is the way to go.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 09:51 am: Edit

Having built a few X2 SSDs, if we include half the tech we've been talking about, its very difficult to make an X2 ship weaker than an X1 ship. Try it some time. Its just too easy to tack on more.

Here are ten designs where I set out trying to build a ship equal to its X1 counterpart. I expect what I ended up with was more powerful than X1 across the board. These are old designs where I played around with different concepts, so don't take any of them too seriously (for example, some use a non-standard P5 chart, which will need to be replaced).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 12:16 pm: Edit

Tos,
I don't think our buying audience will accept your ships. Players expect a cruiser to at least incorporate the MY cruiser paradigm: 4 heavy weapons and the equivalent of 6 to 8 heavy phasers.

JoeC,
Correction, most of an empire's econ points will be X-points. It does not automatically follow that empires will choose to spend those points on X-ships.

In fact, SVC has maintained that GW tech, as the core of the game, will continue into the Y200s. this is *why* X2 needs to play nice with GW tech. It's not going away.

Dale,
This is the difference between EY tech and X2 tech. There was no GW tech around to fight EY so the incompatibilities between the two aren't important. There's no compelling requirement for parity. There is a compelling requirement for X2.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 12:29 pm: Edit

SVC has posted his thoughts on this stuff in a locked topic near the bottom.

also the

X2 Library (for posting tables and ships, not comments)

topic has become a collecting point for important SVC comments. I would suggest everybody read/reread these topics. They're both very short.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 05:11 pm: Edit

If you assume that 1) you want a ship of equal battle power, and 2) you choose to upgrade photons to 20 points, then you get less photons. The only way to get the same photons is to keep them as 4x16 pointers, which is fine, but how is that different? X2, IMO, should make some effort to be tactically different.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 06:00 pm: Edit

I think attempting BPV parity with X1 is an unnessary restriction.

What we want are ships the provide new tactical challenges. X2 is an opportunity to build a 2.0 upgrade for each race.

We're almost rebuilding whole new races that co-exist with the ones we know.

Then again, X2 could be a bridge too far--Too many different capabilities give us one kind of RPS problem. Sheer compbat power gives us another kind.