Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through April 09, 2003	25		04/09 03:54pm

In the X-Plasma thread I proposed a way to make the Gorns and Romulans differ in weapons arrangements.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 11:07 am: Edit

On the subject of Caps-to-SSReo, I would actually like to see the power go from the caps to one other system, another systems that's pretty instantainious when it's used.
I wouldn't mind the Mauler to be able to use power in the Phaser Caps...I think only the Roms should get it...an X2 Mauler is pretty hard core ( especially if 5 point BTTYs ever come to be ) and I actually think that'll be good, the Roms want a fantastic Direct fire capasity, and that's DEFINATELY one of those!!!

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 12:34 pm: Edit

Is there anyone else in this discussion that likes the MJC's idea of "Caps-to-SSReo", giving phaser capacitors the ability to be drained for shield reinforcement?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 01:54 pm: Edit

Let's put it up for a vote.

By Robert Eddy (Tar_Zhay) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 03:58 pm: Edit

Improvement of the cloak how about adding multiple activations and deactivations per turn.
1X would be 2 activations and deactivations for no extra cost. (16 impluse delay)
2X would be 4 activations and deactivations for no extra cost. (8 impluse delay)

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 08:04 pm: Edit

Phaser capacitors drain to shield reinforcement? You've got to be kidding! Sorry MJC I honestly don't see a justification for it. I know it's different but I think the concept is wrong at a primal level. Why not go ahead and drain capacitors into anything else? I think it's a broken idea and would vote no.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 09:50 pm: Edit

Bordie,

Nobody else did either.

The idea is dead.

See the "Some Kind of Reinforcement" thread archives. It's one of the few discussions SVC weighed in on.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 06:39 pm: Edit

Okay read it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 01:58 pm: Edit

X2 ISC idea: So here is my proposal for how to handle the ISC in the X2 era. First I'm going to assume that they are a bit slower in developing technology. Not because they aren't as smart but because they are a little less motivated than the more desperate races to the west; also because they test the heck out of everything resulting in a slower R&D phaser but better equipment in the long run.

The typical ISC ship might be a little bigger (5% at tops), it would have modest power improvements, some shield improvements and straight up X1 weapons with the following exceptions.

Phasers: Mixed bag, with forward-most phasers being Ph-5.

Plasma: Full range of X1 plasma and maybe just the next larger size per hull class.

PPD: THIS is the area of advanced development. The ISC has figured out how to tie in the ships main targeting computers with the wave-lock feedback data that maintains the wave-lock. The result is one cumulative ECCM point against that target per impulse of wave-lock.

Small ships will have a Wave-Lock device added to their plasma weapons and cost 2 points arm above the plasma cost. If used the plasma must be bolted or launched during the wave-lock period or the weapon must wait until the next turn or eight impulse minimum. It is NOT required to have wave-lock to use the plasma.

The bonus ECCM applies to all weapons on the ship. If wave-lock is broken the ECCM is lost and starts over if wave-lock is reestablished.

The bonus ONLY applies to the wave-locked target and only during wave-lock. It is cumulative with any ECCM generated by the ship.

If not using EW then simply apply a -1 for each three impulses of wave-lock (not per two because without ability to counter that would be too much).

Wave-Lock systems on Plasmas can be over-loaded for two additional points and gains an additional two impulses for operation. The Wave-Lock system has the same myopic zones as the PPD.

A PPD's Wave-Lock system may be used without firing the plasma system.

Ships with PPD-s were not fitted with additional plasma mounted Wave-Lock systems.

Plasmas with wave lock devices must be Type-G or larger (not F or L) and are designated with a WvP-(plasma Type).

[Notes: With patience and a bit of luck (and a chunk of power) an ISC ship should be able to attain a -2 to hit on a regular basis and a -3 is in the realm of possibility. An ISC player will have to act carefully as this device will make it hard to not focus on one individual in a squadron or fleet action. The wave-lock system has the distinct disadvantage of giving warning to an enemy ship he is about to be hit (hard). It had the distinct advantage, beyond the hit bonus, a warning the enemy he is about to get hit (which could be just a trick to discourage an over-run).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 02:02 pm: Edit

Note: The Wave-Lock system does no damage.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 11:55 pm: Edit

I'm not sure if the ISC should have yet more advanced and somewhat bigger ships.
I think they'll be pretty heavily hammered by the Andro (being the key power when the Andro arrived) and thus they shouldn't have great shipyards.

Even just the standoff ability of the Ph-5 and the padding of the ASIF should be all the ISCs want from X2 so maybe the Plasma and PPDs stay with X1 abilities ( although with reduced to X2 numbers ).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 01:25 am: Edit

I didn't say the ISC would get an ASIF. They already know how to get X-Tech on big hulls.

My proposal above is the whole proposal for the ISC.

Yes, it's a different X2 pardigm than the other races.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 01:47 am: Edit

Sorry my thinking was that the ASIF would be universal for GP races.

I would also say that I think the ASIF is a system the ISCs would look to.
Once their weapon were good at stripping ships of weapons whilst leaving the rest of the ship ( and the lives of the crew ) intact...now they're ships will lose weapons whilst keeping the rest of the ship ( and the crew ) intact.
I think the ISC would go for the ASIF in a big way.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 02:11 am: Edit

That was my thinking too but with some exceptions and with this proposal I intended to leave it out.

The ASIF would be developed as the key system that makes X2 work (namely putting X-Tech on large hulls which was a limitation of X1). But the ISC already had that handled by something that was intinsic in their design. So they aren't driven by necessity like the other races were and they were separated during this time by the attacks from the Andros.

Of course, the ASIF was applied to smaller ships once it was developed because of its obvious utility and the freedom of design it allows.

Having the ISC operate in a way like I propose above eleviates some of the cookie-cutterism some people are concerned with.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 02:32 am: Edit

Yeah...when people say the ASIF is intrinsic to X tech I think it means S-Bridge and Pan-Warp and X2 straegic warp speeds and the like, rather than allowing X1 DNs (DN-like vessels) to be feilded.

As much as it seems like cookie cutterism, I think the ASIF should be universal for all GP races and all X2 hull types. To some extent the choice to not power the ASIF and the differing races structural design philosphies ( The Feds large forward hull Vs the Klingon small forward hull for example ) as well as the low and high powered settings for the ASIF should create enough racial flavour to offset the cookiecutterism tag.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 11:07 am: Edit

I don't care for the idea of having one system be automaticly part of a technology. I think the ASIF should have a set purpose and then be applied where it fit. Which on most races vessle it would becuase that is how they get passed the X1 design limitations.

But I maintain that the ISC probably aren't faced with those limitations and it's just as well too. ISC ships can get a bit of a BPV break by not having it. Their ships are actually tougher by not requiring it and don't need to spend energy using it. Ultimately they would just operate differently - a good thing.

I didn't put an ASIF on the Imperial Eagle because the background I wrote for my proposal is that it was a Reman Shipyards comeback design not fully backed by the other Romulan houses. It used a different kind of powered armor that could be regenerated by mater-reformation systems built in. But this was a one class difference and allowed it to be introduced before the first major X2 Romulan hulls. It was similar to the King Eagle with bigger engines, the new armor and TWO Type-M torpedoes. (Some people said the Eagle class has to have the bi crunch torp but what isn't big crunch about two type-M's?)

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 11:15 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I'm not sure if the ISC should have yet more advanced and somewhat bigger ships.
I think they'll be pretty heavily hammered by the Andro (being the key power when the Andro arrived) and thus they shouldn't have great shipyards.

---