Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through January 21, 2003	25		01/21 06:08am
	Archive through February 25, 2003	25		02/25 11:40am
	Archive through March 08, 2003	25		03/08 07:18am
	Archive through May 12, 2003	25		05/12 11:15pm
	Archive through August 07, 2003	25		08/07 06:54pm
	Archive through August 11, 2003	25		08/11 10:46pm
	Archive through February 05, 2004	25		02/05 12:27am
	Archive through March 13, 2004	25		03/13 09:28pm

MJC brings up an important point, but there is only one answer.

XP cannot require an outstanding crew.

An outstanding crew should be able to get most of its advantages on an XP ship.

That said, depending on what X we allow on XP, perhaps some of the Outstanding Crew/Legendary Officer abilities may not apply.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 11:23 pm: Edit

Outstanding Crew is an open issue, and a dangerous tangent for the week we have left. I will simply note that the effects of an OC need to be determined through playtesting.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 01:08 am: Edit

Outstanding crews become good crews on X-ships because these ships are so different. If any race were to put a plane good crew on an X-ship they might have to be clasified as poor for a while.

XP would be almost the same. An outstanding crew would have enough to hassle with that they would lose their status when moved to the new ship (remember, experience counts for the class of ship you gain it on, IIRC). But it isn't so much as to pull a good crew down, particularly since it is still their same ship. Crewman Gilly still has his Vuronika Carlile posters on the wall, if you know what I mean.

SVC has said he will consider OC for late era X-ships someday. That would tell me that the above is basically true.

I would think that a Ship with an OC, that is upgraded to XP would have their status temporarily reduced to good. Their experience level would be somewhere in the upper levels of good and they could regain their status in the refitted ship in time.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 02:06 am: Edit

On X2 Electronic Warfare.

I find that the Fed FFX and the DDX have engines that are just too small to generate 7 ECCM against an enemy GW vessel of equal BPV ( this is something that also came out of debates about using the E4 in Y121 against Y ships ) or atleast to small to generate it and the overloaded weapons they need as well.

Will the XFF and XDD be the same!?!

I would like to put forward this idea:-

Sometime in the late X1 period ( if X1R hasn't be printed yet ) or at the start of the X2 period a new system of electronic warfare was developed that allowed smaller ships to take advantage of their smaller hulls, projecting their electronic signatures scores of metres away from their hulls instead of hundreds. This then allowed the smaller vessels to save energy whilst projecting said false signatures.

Thus all X2 ( Although Small X1 vessels need this ability and so it should be given to them ) vessels of Size Class 4 ( Smaller units can't capitalise on the ability because they use a cutdown version of the sensor suite of cruisers where as FFs and DDs don't ) can generate one points of ECM ( but not ECCM* ) for 0.5 points of power. *They can generate 1 point of ECCM for 0.5 points of power if directed at a target that is an SC-4 vessel generating 1 point of ECCM by spending 0.5 points of power.

Also scouts need to beam the false signatures ( even if they are "tightly" packed together ) over such a long distance that they can not take advantage of the energy saving. X2 Scouts can generate 1 point of ECCM for 0.5 points of power if the target is one of these SC4 vessels generating it's ECM at half price.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 02:32 am: Edit

Notes for above.

Any X2 vessel may generate ECCM for 0.5 point ( per point ) in order to direct it at an SC4 target that is generating its ECM for 0.5 point of power per point.

If an SC4 vessel generate even so much as one point of ECM at the lowered rate then ships generating ECCM against it may use the lowered ECCM rate ( irrespective of the number of lowered ECM point ).

If a vessel generates 1 point of ECCM ( for 0.5 points of power ) at an SC4 target that is generating no ECM then it can not gain from a -1 shift.

If a vessel generates ECCM at a lowered rate and finds that it must generate ECCM at the higher rate it may either direct more power into each point of ECCM ( from BTTYs ) or it may drop some of it's ECCM ( or ECM if SC4 ) by rerouting the power that was going to generate that droped EW into "strengthening" the ECCM.

By Ed Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 07:43 am: Edit

Michael,

Several times we have experimented with allowing ecm points generated to be based on the size class mvt cost. ie DD would generate 6 ecm for 3 power, and a BB would have to spend 12 power, eccm would stay the same. We base our thoughts on the size of the ship and the power output that the ew has to generate. It seems to work fairly well, it penalizes large ships for being large and sometimes tends to limit the number of size class 2 ships played, also give the smaller ships a chance to survive.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 11:36 am: Edit

MJC;

I don't think I agree with your reasoning on this. No, an FFX can't routinely generate 7 points of EW, due to power limitations. But it has a BPV somewhere in between that of a GW War Destroyer and War Cruiser. A War Cruiser might get away with always generating 6 points of EW, but it's iffy. A DW that tries to generate 6 points of EW every turn is probably going to get squooshed because it will be moving too slowly, or have too few weapons armed, or lose the tractor auction, or whatever. EW is not a mandatory energy cost, it's an option you might or might not spend energy on depending on what else you need the energy for.

Now let's consider the case of the DDX. The nearest GW-tech BPV equivalent among Federation ships would be a CB with fast drones in the G-racks. Which of these two is better at playing the EW game? Well, the CB generates more total energy, of course. But it has higher HK costs and, more importantly, pays higher movement costs. So the relative EW capabilities of these ships depend partly on the speed of the fight. Given that X-ships also exist in the era of Fast Drones/Plasma Sabot/PFs/Megafighters, a fair percentage of the fights these ships are involved in will be fast fights.

Suppose the tactical situation is such that you think you need to be moving at speed 15. After paying for movement and HK, the CB would have 19 points (not counting reserve power) to divide between weapons and EW (and anything else it might want to do) but the DDX would have 22. Neither of these ships could arm all weapons and generate max EW under these circumstances. But the DDX is better off than the CB. And the advantage shifts more heavily to the DDX at higher speeds. At speed 25 the respective numbers are 9 and 17.

Not all fights are fast or even medium speed fights. And the advantage shifts to the CB during a low speed fight. But the general proposition that a DDX is intrinsically worse at EW than a GW-tech CCH seems to me unsupportable. It depends on the secific tactical situation.

And this doesn't even consider the issue of reserve power. Let's go back to the issue of an X-Frigate compared to a GW War Destroyer or War Cruiser. Most X-Frigates have 3 batteries/9 points of reserve power while a DW or CW will typically have 2 or 3. So the DW/CW has only a limited ability to change its EW settings after Energy Allocation. But the FFX can, if, it chooses, wait until after EA and allocate reserve power so that it uses its EW points with maximum efficiency. Obviously, if the FFX does this it has less reserve power for other uses. But it is an option that the X-ship has and the GW-ship does not.

For a Fed FFX or DDX to always generate 7 or 8 points of EW, just because it can, is as big a mistake as to always fast load the photons, just because it can. Both of these are options, to be weighed against other uses for the energy. But as long as the Fed makes good choices about when to exercise these options and when not to, the FFX and DDX are, in my opinion, better than comparable BPV GW-tech counterparts at playing the EW game. They just have to shape the fight more carefully, but they also have better tools for doing so.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 08:04 pm: Edit

E.C.:

I see what you are saying, I guess it also depends on whether or not the map is fixed or floating.
I'm also opposed to using BTTYs to swing EW for X ships as for the FFX it's a one time proposition or else it set the arming cycle back a turn to reacharge.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 09:51 pm: Edit

We experimented with allowing all XFF's to have the EW benefits of "nimble" status. The rationalization was a small-ship construction technique that doesn't scale to larger ships.

I still kinda like the idea.

I don't think XDDs need the help.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 10:52 pm: Edit

Well if we move to where I stand that XDD are infact SC3 and XCAs move to SC2 then the XDDs that make that move would fall out of the ability by the above rules to generate low cost ECM.

I think I'm the only one who wants an SC shift for X2 vessels though.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 11:17 pm: Edit

All I can as is I'm NOT in favor of a SC shift.

Not a chance of that in hades as far as I'm concerned.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 02:33 am: Edit

Actually I was just thinking, perhaps a probe ( say 2+1 arming ) or a type IX drone with special warhead could be able to generate the more focused false signatures and thus gnerate ECM that protects SC4 and smaller units without also giving larger units free EW.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 12:54 pm: Edit

I have to agree on no SC shift. The sheer capabilities of these new ships will make them in effect the next class higher even though their hulls will remain basically the same.

I'm getting close to presenting my Integrated Proposal for my XCA (delayed by about a month now grumble grumble). I've BPVed it at about 280. My target was about 230 but I just couldn't justify that. It's a classic CA sized ship, but it can fight like a BC and survive like a DN. The XDD and XFF are forthwith thereafter.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 01:06 pm: Edit

Looking forward to them.

RE: Size Class shift for EW. In RL a ship would have to expend more power at a larger size to generate roughly the same amount of protection. (Mostly reflected by the size of the EW installations.)

But remember in the SFU even a ship as huge as the B10 is considered miniscule by the size of a single hex. So even the abiliy to hit at all should be considered as nothing short of incredible. So without complicating the game even more SVC decided to keep things simple in regards to EW. I really dont think we need to really get into complicating the EW situation even more.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 01:24 pm: Edit

I plan to complicate it a bit more with my proposal, but in terms of new capabilities (e.g. ESM) rather than rules jumbling.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 08:19 pm: Edit

If all XFFs are nimble that should solve the promblem, especially if X2 EM ( as I proposed a while ago ) gets more ECM for EM than regular ships.

Perhaps something simple like type IX drones can have a special warhead to generate ( say 2 points of ECM that doesn't exceed the 8 point limit ) for units of SC 4 ( and smaller ( but only single units, not groups of drones )) and then just leave it at that.

In that way the G-racks can launch a drone that can protect the XFF by saving 2 points of power ( in EW games ) but can't do much more than make EW cheaper.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 08:31 pm: Edit

I would like to say that 8 points of power is massive for an XFF.
Sure with three 3 point BTTYs it can be don't but how do you recharge that, your weapons and still move!?!

The FFX has 16 warp, 3 Imp and 1 AWR for 20.
My XFF would have 20 warp, 3 imp and 2 AWR so even though it's not as bad as the FFX when it needs to find 8 ECCM ( or ECM ) she still bites off a huge chunk ( 32% instead of 40% for the FFX ) of her availible power to generate the EW.
And my XFF is considered fairly heavily powered by most other XFF designs.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 08:44 pm: Edit

The way I'm working on X2, XFF's can generate 8 EW with some efficiency.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 12:52 pm: Edit

Even so, I don't mind giving the FF a defensive edge. I'd still suggest the nimble thing.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 01:06 pm: Edit

I agree completely. My XFF is nimble, I'm just still working on the "how" part.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 10:54 pm: Edit

Okay, if you guys think Nimble-EM is the right solution then I'll buy that.