"Stitching" ?

Forgive me, I haven't had my coffee yet.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 01:10 pm: Edit

Loren

I like your downgunned P-6.

I'm considering whether I'd want to see a 4 on R0, roll of 6 but I'm not sure I do.

The ability to not auto-kill a Type I drone might be important on the "play nice" front.

By Joe Gallagher (Draxdreadfeare) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 01:45 pm: Edit

John,

My suggestion is based on the assumption that X2 ships would have a considerably smaller number of phasers than their GW counterparts, but that those phasers would do more damage, have excellent firing arcs and be more resistant to being damaged themselves. The "do more damage" part I leave to other parts of the thread, I'm just musing about firing arcs and resilience here.

The idea is to move the phaser capacitors and as much of the rest of the weapon system as possible (the "phaser generators" or whatever you want to call it) to better protected, core areas of the ship. The ring contains the minimum amount of hardware necessary, mostly focus and targeting elements. So when you fire an X2 phaser, the core phaser systems generate the phased energy, and then pipe it forward to the emitters on the collimator ring.

So the emitters would be easier to repair than a "classic" phaser, but maybe not by that much. I wasn't envisioning fast repair as the advantage as much as overall resilience. If you start out with six phasers and you take a couple of phaser hits through the #6 shield, you lose the ability to fire in the LF (and possibly L) arc, but you still have six phasers to fire through other arcs the ring covers. This makes X2 phasers very resilient overall, and resistant to tactics like Mizia.

To answer your specific questions:

1. Hard to describe exactly what I had in mind without posting a pic, but I'll give it a shot. Imagine it kind of like a mauler, where you have a block of phasers in a central area instead of a block of batteries. A line connects the block of phasers to the ring, like a mauler but instead of a big pointy arrow, the collimator is a thick black band describing an arc just inside the saucer of a Fed ship (for example). The band would contain boxes to check off to represent arcs it could no longer fire through because of damage. So, for example, the ring on a Fed cruiser might have an FX arc, with three damage boxes each for L, LF, RF and R firing arcs. Knock out all 3 boxes and you can't fire phasers through that arc anymore. If you wanted, you caould say that you could fire 1/3 fewer phasers for each box destroyed, but I don't think the extra complexity is worth it, I would make it all or nothing.

2. I think I answered this above

3. Damage to the phases themselves could be done 1 of 2 ways. Method one: every third phaser hit in a volley must be marked against the actual phaser and not an emitter box on the ring. This preservers the spirit of the "bearing phaser" rule: you can't destroy any phasers if you are not bearing on some part of the ring. Alternatively, you could have the phasers destroyed on a different system, like Battery (makes for interesting tactical choices since X2 batteries are so useful) or Flag Bridge (just kidding - your ship would probably explode before all the phasers are destroyed).

- Joe

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 02:43 pm: Edit

JoeC

1) So the phaser would appear to fire as a single hard line? That's a potential description of how phasers work in Franchise Trek.

I think we'd need an implemntation that doesn't use a "ring" concept.

As well as give some thought on how this sort of thing would be implemented on other race's ships than the Feds.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 02:58 pm: Edit

John,

that is what I had in mind but also to not auto-kill using two Ph-6 against a Type-VII at R2 as well.

Using a Ph-2X doesn't work, IMO, and such a weapon would really be too powerful as a basis for the Ph-GXX. I think this weapon basically allows the same table to be used for an X2 Ph-G.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 04:19 pm: Edit

It occurs to me that by increasing the pulses and damage that a defensive phaser does, we are decreasing damage resistance. This may not be desirable.

If I have a 250-point X2 unit engaged by 2xD5K with fast drones and scatter packs on a fixed map, how much drone defense is appropriate such that the Klingons would win 50% of the time?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 04:36 pm: Edit

At least as much as X1 which is near total drone defense. It is fair to demand that X0 ships both adjust their tactics AND have some other technologies available. Internal/external armor may become general availability, fir instance. There might be a new Type-1 drone that can take an extra point of damage while not being an X-tech drone. Maybe general tech advances allow componants to be smaller allowing room for internal armor as a standard without taking up warhead space.

It makes sense to me that all technology eras could benefit from general advances in technology. It seems weird that once a new tech level is reached, nothing continues to advance for past hulls. This isn't entirely true in that we now have an official XP refit rule. I think it is fair to consider (but not rely on) XP as some measure of balance against X2.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 05:13 pm: Edit

I would consider the 12xPh-1X (24xPh-3 rapid pulse) + 2xGX ADD Racks + 6xTB found on the Federation CX to be excessive drone defense when faced with 4xB-Racks + 4xSP + 12xControl.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 05:23 pm: Edit

A Fed CAR+ would have 8xPh-1 + 2xPh-3 + 1xDr-G to deal with 2xDr-A + 2xSP-M found on a Y170 era D7K. The 2xD5K have twice the drone throw weight, so I would say preserving the balance would require no more than 20xPh-3 shots on an XCA. If the XCA has 6xPh-5, 4xPh-1, 2xGX2 and the phasers have two pulses each, then that would meet the 20xPulse requirement. More than that I would feel is unwarranted.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 05:38 pm: Edit

Tos,

What about 4xB racks and 4xC racks + SPs?

That's your true measure because that's what the Kzinti are going to be throwing at the ship.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 06:45 pm: Edit

It is perfectly legit to require that X0 ships facing X2 ships would have to adjust their basic tactics. The assumption here is that if you have the X2 ship able to totally counter the X0 drone throw weight then there is an inherrant imbalance. I suggest this is not true.

In fact, I advocate that X2 ships sould be able, as a matter of course, to completely negate the average drone throw weight of equal BPV. It makes NO SENSE that X2 would not be able to handle drones as well as X1. I don't think its reasonable to expect to balance against X0 whiel only requiring X0 to fight like it's still Y175. I don't think this is what SVC had in mind when he said X2 must play nice with X0.

SO how do X0 ships armed with drones manage against X2? Well, first of all, maybe X0 doesn't invest so much BPV into drones. Maybe it goes all Type-IVF?
Then there are adjustments in tactics. It seems everyone assumes the X0 drone ship must start the scenario by launching as many big waves of drones as it can and if the X2 ship takes those out then the scenario is automatically lost. THIS IS NOT TRUE.
I have, on several occasions, reserved my drones entirely until the mid-game. This is, in fact, a powerful tactic. By fighting a high speed saber dance, you can wait until some of the opponant drone defenses are damaged, then start launching big waves. The drone rack is a fairly hard to hit internal. Not only that, you can partially (or fully) unload your drone rack and those drones cannot be destroyed. The drone rack, if damaged, can be repaired and you still have drones for the end game. Drones in the end game can be particularly devestating. Specifically, I have done this with a battle where we were both crippled. I spent my last CDR repairing a drone rack, which I loaded with one drone. That drone won the scenario.

A crippled X2 (or X1) ship isn't going to fight very well, and will NOT stand well against a drone wave. In Tos's example the two D5K's will have twice the repair capacity, eight disruptors and a fair Ph-1 suite. I would highly recomend they reserve drones until after the mid-game and a patient saber dance, dividing damage from the X2 ship over as many shields as possible.

My point is that we will not have balance with a statistical view of tactics.

I think X2 should make drones ALMOST obsolite. X1 practically has except for X-drones. And again, I think it is fair to consider XP in the balance equasion for X0 vs. X1.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 08:18 pm: Edit

John, unless something changes during the early Trade Wars, the Feds aren't likely to be designing their X2 ships based on conflict with a pair of Kzinti war cruisers, however, the Klingons are likely to.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 08:29 pm: Edit

If a Klingon X2 ship makes drones obsolete, those pair of Kzinti CM (133) with 3 FA disruptors each are gonna have a heck of a time taking down a 266 BPV X2 Klingon. I don't think we can balance X2 if drones are designed to be obsolete.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 08:38 pm: Edit

Tos,

We don't care who the races expect to fight. We are talking game balance.

Klingons are a DISRUPTOR/drone race and the Kzinti are a disruptor/DRONE race. For Klingons, drones are a secondary system.

Does the Fed X1 drone defense give it an undue advantage over standard-tech klingons? It's an advantage to be sure, but the question is "undue".

OTOH, if you want to talk balance against drones, your mark to beat is set by the kzinti. if equivalent BPV of kzinti can't stress a Fed CX's drone defense then there is definitely something wrong.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 09:21 pm: Edit

Tos, I disagree. Those two ships will have double the power and six disruptors and a phasers. If indeed the X2 ships is 266 BPV then they should be able to handle it.

It does depend on several factors. X1 made fighters obsolete but are fighters still useful? Yes they are. Heck, we even convinced the Steves to give us X1 carriers.

Tos, did you read my alternative tactics for X0 drone ships? Your post seems to indicate you didn't as it doesn't address any of it. X2 can render drone obsolete in the same way X1 rendered fighters obsolete. That doens't mean there isn't any use for them. It means that the run of the mill drone tactics won't work anymore and new tactics will evolove. This is precisely what I hope X2 will do for all three generations of ships in the X2 era.

John, not stressing a Fed XCA drone defenses would be a bad thing. Like an X1 ship, the X2 ship should have to sacrafice some of it's offensive capability. For instance, if an XCA can take down a wave of 12 drones with GX racks and have room to spare then there probably is an issue (although any ship with two ADD-12 can probably do that). An X1 cruiser might have one GX rack but would have to spend some ph-1's in pulse mode to do it. The offensive potential is then decreased and the X0 ships are on an even level. Most X1 ships are fairly drone proof if they want to be. For X2 to make drone obsolete is just a small step, IMO, and one that would be made.

Tos's 2xKzinti CM will do fine if they adjust their tactics accordingly. If they fight like they are against a Klingon C8 then they will be in trouble.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 09:40 pm: Edit

Regarding your X0 tactics, its my opinion that a pair of saberdancing Kzinti CM won't be able to lay a glove on an X2 ship given the X2 ships likely power curve, EW advantage and reserve power. The X2 ship simply has a longer reach. The only chance the X0 ships have is to close. I discount your tactic as ill-considered.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 10:52 pm: Edit

I disagree although X2 design is still in flux so there is no telling factually.

The EW advantage isn't going to be anything beyond X1 save for S-Bridge (maybe, who knows, it's just a proposal right now). All ofthe past discussion said no one would play with X2 if it had much greater reserve power than X1 (and many wanted less). Longer reach is likely (I hope), but you have two targets and twice the shields to knock down.

The tactic comes from practical experience and I promise it wasn't ill considered.


Anyway, my overall point is that if X2 ships do carry drone defense further than X1 it will be a total joke and make no sense that ship designers would do that. X0 will have to adjust its tactical paradigm to balance with X2.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 11:37 pm: Edit

I guess I don't understand your tactics. Assuming that a Klingon XCA was exactly equivilent to a DX, and that the opposing sides dipped into range 15 once per turn, but no closer, can you explain exactly how the six Kzinti disruptors are going to penetrate the 10 ECM 1 ECCM the Klingon will be running? That gets the Klingon a -1 to hit (if you let my special bridge turn off your ECM drone) and the Kzinti a +2 to hit.

While the combined Kzinti units do produce five more power, that is more than off set by your 50% disadvantage in movement cost and EW expenditure. The Klingon will have 27 disposable power after arming six disruptors and powering EW. The Kzintis will have 12 disposable power after disruptors and 6 EW.

Obviously I'm missing some critical component of your strategy, because by ignoring drones it looks to me like the DX wins this in a walk.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, September 18, 2008 - 01:40 am: Edit

How is the Klingon getting 10 ECM and 1 ECCM?

I thought we all agreed to assume that X2 would maintain the 8 EW maximum. S-Bridge was to have NO offensive capabilities (that was the general concensus last I heard), so shutting off an ECM drone would not be part of its capabilities.

You seem to be discounting my tactics based on assumptions I've never heard of. I've never heard any proposal that would allow a straight X2 ship to field 11 EW. But even with this EW, all the Kzinti need to do is run one ECM to counter the Klingons -1. Indeed, they might as well forgo the ECCM and just run five ECM and both sides will be +2 to hit.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, September 18, 2008 - 02:34 pm: Edit

Loren

7 ECM, 1 ECCM generated

plus ECM drone

10 ECM, 1 ECCM

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, September 18, 2008 - 02:48 pm: Edit

What John said on EW. The thing is the Klingon can plot 1/1 EW (+3 from ECM drone = 4/1) in EA and suplement the rest with bats. If the Kzinti go heavy ECM the Klingon adapts. If the Kzinti go heavy ECCM, the Klingon adapts. Any way you cut it the Kzinti loose the EW game. Loosing the EW game means you loose the saber dance. YMMV.

My appologies for assuming an S-Bridge could break a drone lock on, it is unknown if that capability will make the cut.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, September 18, 2008 - 03:55 pm: Edit

I had argued in the beginning that S-Bridge could break one lock-on but the consensus was not to allow any offensive capabilities. You just pointed out a very good reason to not have that capability.

Why would you use an ECM drone (and not mention it) in this example? Seriously, the ECM drone is a non-factor in the overall balancing of ships. Both sides can use them and BOTH sides can shoot them down without any need to use scout channels or S-bridge. I'm surprised at you Tos for trying to pull such a very MJC'ish sort of thing. And to discount my tactics as ill considered using that trick is not exactly fair. I thought we had more respect for each other than that.

They way I see it is the X2 ship could run 7 ECM + 1 ECCM, and the Kzinti would run 5 ECCM and 1 ECM. The X2 ship fires even on, while the Kzinti fire through a +1. Either side could launch ECM drones, Wild Weasels, SWACS or whathaveyou, but those are just additional factors. Indeed, what if the X2 ship is actually 280 BPV and the Kzinti CM's then have points for extra stuff. At 266, did the X2 ship even have the points to buy an ECM drone? There are WAY too many factors, and too many unknown factors to use specifics to counter a general theory.

X1 has practically rendered drones obsolete already. I'm say X2 should finish the job. This does not mean that X2 will not be able to play nice with X1. X2 is not even close to being designed yet so there is nothing stopping X2 from being designed appropreately to play nice while rendering drones, from the empire point of view, obsolete in the same way X1 made fighters and PF's obsolete. It didn't make them useless, just too expensive to deploy as a main stay stratigic paradigm.

I feel pretty confident in saying that a lot of players will be very happy to see drone use be radically reduced.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, September 18, 2008 - 07:11 pm: Edit

I can't see how you can come to that conclusion. Either the Kzinti GW units are balanced with drones against X2 or they are not.

In your example, why would the Klingon not spend 1 bat to get the -1?

As for the ECM drones, they were mentioned in the S Bridge comment. That the Klingon would choose to fly a free ECM drone was omitted because I thought it was obvious. I should have been more specific.

You bring up a valid point that being allowed to turn off an ECM drone is too powerful.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, September 18, 2008 - 07:33 pm: Edit

Because he has used all of his EW. Your example said 7 ECM (+ECM drone) + 1 ECCM. That's all the Klingon can muster.

Free ECM drone? I'm lost with this one. Although, perhaps in the X2 period XO ships might be given certain grants. ECM drone may become more available and cheaper?

I think you are missing my point. The Kzinti GW units would still have drones and may even be allowed more liberal drone purchases since GW drone manufacturing can still be fully active while GW ships are becoming more few. Anyway, X2 would have excelent drone defense. This does not mean that the GW Kzintis have no use for their drones, just not the same old GW era uses. The Kzintis will have tosoften their target inorder to more quickly penetrate the X2 ships systems and take down its drone defenses before they run out of drones. They CANNOT (and should not) accomplish this by using old GW tactics of following in a wave of drones on turn one. If they reserve their drones, soften the target than strike with drones they will be much more successful (at least 50% of the time). Yes, they will have to use everything they've got, fight furiously, and get a little lucky. But I believe that they could win 50% of the time even if the X2 ship can handle a heavy wave of drones with little trouble when undamaged.

Fighters are still balanced against X1 ships even if they are now obsolete. But fighters will die quick deaths if they go on the old style attack. Fighters in the X1 period must use different tactics than in Y173-175 (for example).

Fighters and PF's are obsolete in X1. Drones should be in X2 in the same way.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, September 18, 2008 - 07:47 pm: Edit

note that X2 has fewer heavy phasers than X1.

8 P-5w tranlates to 16 P-6s, which is a lot but less than 12 P-1s tyurning into 24 P-3s.

Should that mean that X2's drone defense is inferior to X1's?