Archive through December 29, 2002
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
The "X" Files:
OLD X2 FOLDER:
X2 Speed Limit:
Archive through December 29, 2002
I think it is important that the ships be able to move full speed with normal power generation. Normal operations (anything non-combat and high warp travel) wouldn't require taxing the engines. Increasing the power out put for combat would increase maintainance but that wouldn't be reflected in the game. This also lends to the fact that the engines under normal opperations require less maintainance. But that's really just butter.
It could just be that the X2 engines naturally produce more power, like going from coal-fired to oil-fired boilers or from there to diesel power.
Loren: I can't imagine any situation where a captain wouldn't "double" engines under these rules, except when he knows he's going to take a big volley through a down shield on impulse 1.
Let's imagine a ship with 32 warp. Doubling both provides 16 more power. At the very least, this provides 8 points of GSR. So he'll take extra damage only if he takes 8 warp hits after reinforcement.
As only about 1/3 of the internals are likely to hit warp, he'll take extra damage only if he eats 24 internals, ie an impulse 1 volley of 32+.
Now consider the situation where the shield isn't down, so you can use Specific reinforcement, and the requirement goes up to something like 50 internals.
One of the problems with the old (Sup2) X2 was that the ships died too quickly once internals came in, but were essentially unhurt until then. This small-engine lots-of-reinforcemt proposal will have exactly the same effect. I admit that it's not as bad as Sup2, in that there are probably better uses for the extra power than reinforcement (HET, EM, EW, OL, Trac, etc), but you will get the same effect.
Now you could say that this is a good thing, in that different dynamics (fight until hurt, then run away) is a good thing. OTOH, as you're killing the engines, you prevent running so it won't work.
I think the size of the engine should be directly related to its physical size.
24 warp on a CA engine is a huge engine.
15 warp but 1.5 power per box is the same size as an X0 CA engine, but a more efficient.
maybe 18 * 1.5? A little bigger, and a lot more efficient?
Quote:What I am saying is that if you allow trans-32 units, you have the opportunity for ships to avoid seeking weapons all together. Remember when you faced Speed-20 drones? If your ship was sufficiently quick, you could, even on a closing course with the drones, maneuver around them and still close with the target vessel. And I won't even state the obvious about any drone on an oblique or pirsuit course with a ship.
Uhuhh...so drones become again that which they have always been.
Drones don't have to hit to do their thing...they simply create terrain.
With nifty modules like Ph-1 swordfish, you can even generate a little damage in your attack.
Quote:Where is all of this snowballing going to end? We're churning out designs with more power, more speed, more offensive firepower, heavier shields, 48-impulse charts, 64-impulse charts -- what's next? A 256-impulse chart?
No...it'll always be the same old DAC and the same old 32 impulse chart.
It'll just be more powerful and more deadly with heavier sheilds.
Quote:Maybe the solution is to look at energy efficiency in weapons designs as opposed to more raw ship power. It would certainly cut down on the size of the SSDs and large numbers to crunch. We need to keep battle speed relatively constant, not keep increasing it, since that is where I feel that we are going massively off-track here...
Stop a moment and think about the implications if heavy weapons cost 25% less energy to arm. What about a 33% reduction in required energy? Try a 50% reduction.
Now let me see if I've got this right.
Disruptors will cost 1.5 points of power and 3 points to overload.
Photons will inflict 1 point of damage per 0.375 (3/8) points of warp power applied to it.
Hellbores can be loaded for 3 + 1.5 or overloaded for 3+3.
PPDs cost 1.5 points of power for each pulse.
Fussion beams cost 1.5 points to load, 3 to overload and 5.25 to S.O.L.
Plasma Torps will cost 1.5 + 1.5 + either 2.25 ( G ), 3 ( S ) or 3 ( M ) or 3.75 ( R ).
ESGs cost 0.75 point of power for every point in the ESG cap...what are they suddenly Andro?
Type VIII drone in X2 will only consume 1 space in the racks!?!
And Jeff though that remembering the ED period was only 12 impulses and minimum sheilds is 10 boxes, was tough.
Quote:Now put those on an X1 hull and what happens to your battle speed? It will go up. We don't need to add massive amounts of power to hulls to make them more combat effective -- all we need to do is tweak the energy efficiency of the heavy weapons systems.
It sounds to me like you're in the X1+ crowd.
Quote:Loren: Can you explain why the 1.5 power thing is needed again? It borders on an auto-reject idea and I can’t grasp why it would be necessary.
What we need is racial flavour.
Some ships should have 60 warp engine boxes outright
Some should have 40 and generate 1.5 points of power ( the double damage thing is just lettus in the hamburger ).
Some should have 30 warp engine boxes and Orion warp doubling.
We can balance these varrying durabilities with:-
Different BPVs.
Differenet numbers of AWR and IMP boxes.
Fewer rear and Flank sheild boxes.
Fewer defencive weapons.
More restricted Firing Arc of heavy weapons.
I suspose it would be possible to go to a smaller SSD.
If a Y SSD, had.
Add boxes take double damage to destroy.
SSReo costs 0.5 points of power to generate.
All phasers have double damage at double range.
All Heavies do double overloaded damage for overload power cost.
What would the BPV be...around that of an X1 or X2?
Jim Davies: If you start to run too late you don't get away. There will be oppertunities to protect you warp to a degree at the sacrafice of other options.
I want X2 to be interesting. You should have to learn some new ways of doing things. I certainly want it to be compatable with all the other parts of SFB but I would like something to work so new brain muscles as well. 
I don't think it will be the same old thing as X2, which, by the way, I just got in the mail from a friend. I use it to make sure I (we) don't reinvent the square wheel!
About engine size: I rather like the idea of 16 point engines. Eighteen would be an engine based on hot warp (well it wouldn't have to be but game wise it would be implied). I'm for 16. Two boxes wide it will be easy to quickly visualize how much extra power you can generate after you take damage. Note!!! You can run one or both at 150% or neither.
RE: Racial flavor. Since every race has observed the Orions doing what they do every race is naturally going to be looking into it and would easily come to the same design. Racial flavor can be found elswere easy enough. Please MJC, no offence meant. I hear you on the need for that. There has been a tendancy to make all the races have the same thing but some basic stuff can be. But the ships over all need to be unique from race to race.
MJC:
"Uhuhh...so drones become again that which they have always been.
Drones don't have to hit to do their thing...they simply create terrain.
With nifty modules like Ph-1 swordfish, you can even generate a little damage in your attack. "
Since you're such a proponent of "racial flavour", you try telling that to the angry 2m tall kitty who has just had a very large percentage of his offensive firepower rendered impotent.
"Now let me see if I've got this right.
Disruptors will cost 1.5 points of power and 3 points to overload.
Photons will inflict 1 point of damage per 0.375 (3/8) points of warp power applied to it.
Hellbores can be loaded for 3 + 1.5 or overloaded for 3+3.
PPDs cost 1.5 points of power for each pulse.
Fussion beams cost 1.5 points to load, 3 to overload and 5.25 to S.O.L.
Plasma Torps will cost 1.5 + 1.5 + either 2.25 ( G ), 3 ( S ) or 3 ( M ) or 3.75 ( R ).
ESGs cost 0.75 point of power for every point in the ESG cap...what are they suddenly Andro?
Type VIII drone in X2 will only consume 1 space in the racks!?! "
What I was suggesting was to look at the energy costs fo these weapons and adjust them downwards to free up more power for the hull. Looking at some of your numbers, they would have to be tweaked a bit, but you have the general idea. Also please note that I did not say *anything* about ESGs *or* Drones. I was referring only to heavy weapons.
Of course Drones wouldn't shrink... a 2-space drone is still a 2-space drone. ESGs could get an increase in efficiency or range to compensate.
"It sounds to me like you're in the X1+ crowd. "
To some degree, I am. I am not here to advocate smaller ships, but I'm not here to advocate monsterous behemoths either that can take on a B11 either. My vision of 2X is to slightly enlarge a 1X hull, introduce some energy efficiencies and severely upgrade the defensive capabilities of the ship. I fully suppord Loren's idea of a SI field. I support increasing the battle speed of 2X. I just don't agree with the concept of "Bigger is Better".
And as to my comments of flying a 1X hull with these changes, it was a suggestion for people to playtest these proposals of mine to see how well they work.
"What we need is racial flavour."
And how does reducing drones to "nifty terrain" instead of a weapon improve the racial flavour of the Kzinti?
I've got to go for tonight but let me leave you all with this. As X1 was based on the CC let X2 be based on the BCH. A little bigger but not a behemoth. Then eliminate DN size hulls and make these ships the Capitol ships. Let the CL size ship be the work horse suppored by the slightly less capable DD class (second horse so to speak). Frigate hulls would be totally specialized ships built mission specific like todays Navy FFs. I suggest that there be no vanilla combat version of the FF except for Police duties. Probably wouldn't fine a torpedo on a FF (except, like I said, for the Police version).
Ooops: OK one more thought. X2 battles will probably be a mix of X2 and X1 with the X2 ship as the Flagship.
I'll leave you with the opposite thought. By the time X2 rolls around there are plenty of X1 ships flying around carrying the flag. Building X2 capital ships during the first period of general peace was considered wasteful by the exhausted empires. X1 cruisers with the expertly trained crews would continue to act as the flagships and X2 will be FF, DD and CL class ships built to replace the worn out GW era ships.
Quote:Please MJC, no offence meant. I hear you on the need for that.
Hey even I'm finding myself repetative.
I still think Engine outputs should be one of the areas with racial flavour.
There's a whole bunch of things that will stay the same over all races.
Top Speed.
Accelleration limits.
Number of mid-turn speed changes per turn.
ED period.
Number of Het Bonuses.
Lots of special abilities...like being able to access the Phaser Caps for Specific Shield Reinforcement...or the SLIP, that some people want.
EW Levels.
Quote:Since you're such a proponent of "racial flavour", you try telling that to the angry 2m tall kitty who has just had a very large percentage of his offensive firepower rendered impotent.
In case you don't recall, the situation we're talking about is analogous to a D4 Vs a Fed CA.
MAYBE THE X1 SHOULD LOOSE.
Or may the X1 will just have to be a little more devious, and a little more subtle and a little more skillful.
Lowering the enemy SSReo with his high speed will improove your phaser suite...it will work.
The Kzinti Anchor will work!
Ph-1 Swordfish drones will work!!
Getting the enemy to move where you want him ( into disruptor range ) will work!!!
Quote:What I was suggesting was to look at the energy costs fo these weapons and adjust them downwards to free up more power for the hull. Looking at some of your numbers, they would have to be tweaked a bit, but you have the general idea. Also please note that I did not say *anything* about ESGs *or* Drones. I was referring only to heavy weapons.
DRONES and ESGs are heavy weapons.
They're just not DIRECT FIRE ENERGY WEAPONS...but then neither are Plasma Torpedoes.
All I'm saying is that with a lowering of the energy costs to arm, we run into the problem of WHICH weapons get lowered by how much to retain balance. When you invent a new rule for every weapon that isn't inventing something new ( like a hyperload that does double Overload damage at 2.5 times the power ) then you've got the grounds for:-
Confussion...I though that applied to X1 ships after a certain date.
Racial abuse...My Lyrans didn't get power saving heavies.
Manipulation...boy don't those hydran hellbores have a lot more availible energy during their attack run than they used to, compaired to everybody else.
Quote:Of course Drones wouldn't shrink... a 2-space drone is still a 2-space drone. ESGs could get an increase in efficiency or range to compensate.
So drone stay the same size and ESGs get longer ranged...on top of the longer range they'll be getting for the Tractor beam range extention!?!
Look at me...I'm flying a gas giant.
Quote:To some degree, I am. I am not here to advocate smaller ships, but I'm not here to advocate monsterous behemoths either that can take on a B11 either. My vision of 2X is to slightly enlarge a 1X hull, introduce some energy efficiencies and severely upgrade the defensive capabilities of the ship. I fully suppord Loren's idea of a SI field. I support increasing the battle speed of 2X. I just don't agree with the concept of "Bigger is Better".
I think it would be FUN and attract more players if we were to follow the FEEL of the movies, by making X2 ships as much bigger than X1 as the Enterprise-B is over the Enterprise-A.
Quote:And how does reducing drones to "nifty terrain" instead of a weapon improve the racial flavour of the Kzinti?
Obviously, you've never been hit with the Kzinti Anchor.
Do you fly Kzinti's before Y178? How do you get those speed 20 drones to hit!?!
Hell, how do you get your Type Vs to hit?
Do you use externally armoured drones against hot warp GW ships?
Just because on a closed map, GW and X1 drones will eventually strike or be shot down by, the ships they are chaising does not mean that; every module must be played that way.
Quote: Ooops: OK one more thought. X2 battles will probably be a mix of X2 and X1 with the X2 ship as the Flagship.
Until the advent of the X2 Squadron Theory.
Quote:I'll leave you with the opposite thought. By the time X2 rolls around there are plenty of X1 ships flying around carrying the flag. Building X2 capital ships during the first period of general peace was considered wasteful by the exhausted empires. X1 cruisers with the expertly trained crews would continue to act as the flagships and X2 will be FF, DD and CL class ships built to replace the worn out GW era ships.
Until the Xorks invade when suddenly X-cruises will be needed for real fighting, ranther than just as SUPER SURVEY VESSELS and UBER SCOUTS.
In the After the GW Period DDX will replace CAs where as CCXs won't replace DNs...until there's a war...for excatly the same purely ecconomic reasons that during Peace time the Admirals are on CCs and not DNs.
Mike Dowd,
I'm really aginst lowering the energy cost for weapons even as we increase their capabilities and the power curves on the ships they will be mounted on. Just seems like a bad idea.
Ditto. I think it's much easier to simple increase the ships power supply than it is to make the weapons cheaper to arm.
I'm beginning to lean toward the idea of a larger ship for 2X; sort of size class 3.5, if you will. Bigger engines offset by a higher move cost gives the 2X ship plenty of power and the illusion of durability (more engine boxes to destroy) but doesn't provide a huge power curve, since the higher move cost offsets it. If you took a 2X cruiser, with a move cost of 1.25 and 50 points of warp power, it will take 38 points to move full speed. That leaves 12 points of excess power...only 2 points more than the current 1X cruisers have.
Call me a stick-in-the-mud, but I prefer a CA to be MC 1. It's been a standard from EY through X1.
Especially considering light Dreadnoughts, increasing a CA's MC begins to blur what is a CA and what is a DN.
Lets keep the X2 CC at about the size of a BCH. That way it stays MC1. Along with being strong weapon wise cruisers are a favorit because they are simpler to fly. No having to do any fractions of consult a chart for anything movement is one of the reasons cruisers are popular. We could go a little bigger and say that X2 engines are able to move a little more mass efficiantly. Lets no go hog wild but I think there can be some room to grow without going to MC1.25.
I'll be posting some stuff that may serve well as a guide regarding some stuff I have aquared. I have to do some work then I'll get to it. I promise!
OK, I can see resistance to my ideas, and I freely admit that I was starting to lose my cold, clinical detachmemt when discussing them.
MJC: Let's *both* calm down and stop to consider the other's viewpoint before dismissing it out of hand.
I'm willing to playtest some of this experiment if you are.. OK? Truce?
ALL:
I see no reason why an MC 1 vessel can not be SIZE CLASS 2 and have as many boxes as a BB.
If we are allowing for a new method of travel PAN WARP or TRANS-WARP or Something then why live within the old MC, SC, Boxes per; rules.
WHO balances scenarios on Size Class and not on BPV???
Sure X1 has some Size Class based squadron rules but X2 can have new rules to adjust those. Hell X1A must or we'll never see the DNX or XFLEETS which is something everyone who wants X1+ wants to have.
S8.33 & S8.48 will undoubtedly get their own X2S8 rules and XAS8 rules in the appropriate modules.
We can say it's the size of the Excellcior and has a warp output of 60 points and an MC of 1.
We just have to CHOOSE to do so and bear the BPV cost.
MC 1 and DAC balance are the reasons why people like cruisers.
Why else would people resently DEMAND an NCA varrients R module, if not because MC1 is easy and cruisers ( Unlike Frigates ) don't loose all their weapons to a double 18 mizia attack!?!
M.D.:
Yeah...I wasn't sure if you were warming up to a flame war or not...but I'm calm.
I would consider Lower arming costs, for a game for myself, but constantly changing all the weapon arming rates for every advance in technology, whilst logical, will ultimately create confussion.
It is better to say that the MORE POWER aspect of the ship isn't more power but the culmination of the fact that everything is more efficent and running off the same power.
What would it matter if the enemy is using 28 grams of anti-matter per second in his reactor and you are using 1, if you can stop all his damage with specific shield reinforcement and he can stop all of yours, whilst still opperating both reactors within the design limits?
What would it matter if he runs his vessel from power derived from a decaying hypermass and you from deterium fussion, so long as you both winde up with game parity???
I would like to voice my support for trans-32 speeds on X2 ships. I think it would add an interesting tactical dynamic and make older ships obsolete without requiring ridiculous weapons or bigger ships. (Yes, I am in the camp that believes that X2 should be a big leap forward. If not X2, then there should be an X3.)
The problem with uber weapons is, whoever fires first wins. The problem with bigger ships is that it slows down the game -- EA takes longer, damage allocation takes longer, keeping track of all of those weapons takes longer, etc. But faster maneuver changes game dynamics while keeping the game playable.
As far as the rules, I would like to point out that trans-32 speeds are already in the rules -- I believe (C3.45), but I don't have my rulebook in front of me. There is already a speed-64 plasma (the Probr HEAT) and a speed-128 drone (the ultrawarp missile).
Basically, you would have units moving more than one hex at a time. No new impulse charts. No changes to the SOP. Speed 40 means you move every impulse plus twice on the impulses speed 8 (40-32) moves. Yes, this means you may miss firing opportunities -- combat speeds increase, but there are limits to how fast the beings running these starships can react, anyway. I don't see the big deal about having to fire on seekers at range 2 or 3 -- advanced ships are firing p-1s instead of p-3s, anyway, and there is very little difference between range 1 and range 3 for a p-1.
Ships would enter and leave prime firing ranges more quickly. If you-re not careful, you could end up jumping past your ideal position. We already have situations like that with sub-32 speeds, e.g. two units closing on each other jump from 4 to 2, etc. New advantages and limitations. New tactics. Less time spent getting from A to B, quicker engagements.
Even on an open map, flying X1 (or GW or even Y1) ships against an X2 is not hopeless, with proper scenario design. Remember, if the enemy is in range, so are you, regardless of how fast you are moving. It may be more difficult to get drones to hit, but that doesn't mean that speed-32 drones become useless, any more than speed-20 drones are useless against ships that can go 31. Balancing a battle between ships of different tech levels is tricky, but not impossible.
Logically, every race would be trying its hardest to break the 31 speed limit because of the huge combat advantage it would give. It seems hard to justify why they would not succeed, especially given that these ships can go faster than 31 at the strategic level already.
One thing to consider is what happens when a X or GW Frigate slaps a Tractor on a 33+ CCXX.
I have three ideas.
1) Catch a cannonball in a baseball glove style impossibility.
For the X2 to tractor, it can not unless it drops below 32.
For the GW, both ships take damage, like running into a web, but the tractor link is broken.
2) Type II drone style, the GW ship just get's carried along at what every speed is correct based on the calculations of the game.
3) Calculate on some other basis.
If we calculate tractored speeds on Effective Watrp Power rather than warp power, we can say that although each point of movement above 31 cost that ship ( say ) 5 points of warp, it'll only count as 1 point of effective warp power.
In this way an MC 1 CCXX moving at 35 ( using 1 imp and 50 of her 60 warp ) is tractored by an MC 0.33 FF, then the two would move at a speed of ( 34/1.33 + 1 ) 26.
This could still have problems if the frigate is generating her own movement in the same direction as the CCXX.
Anyway it's not a discission that needs to be made until after we decided whether or not to have speed 33+.
Andy
Quote:Logically, every race would be trying its hardest to break the 31 speed limit because of the huge combat advantage it would give. It seems hard to justify why they would not succeed, especially given that these ships can go faster than 31 at the strategic level already.
strategicly the ships move so much faaster then speed 31 that there's no comparison.
'standard' operational movement on the strategic map is ~speed 22,000 hexes/turn (and can be done with just impulse engines)
fast strategic movement (dash speed, F&E strat move, retreat, etc) is ~speed 512,000 hexes/turn
combat warp movement is done with completely different engines which is why it's limited to ~speed 32
I disagree that; that technobable is correct.
I would say rather that the raised sheild of the ship creates a distortion in the warp feild of the vessel forcing the vessel to be required to spend almost unlinmited power to travel at speeds beyond 31.
Remove the shield and the ship is free to jump up to higher speeds.
Unfortunately with this technobable it becomes a tactic to drop shields, jump immence distances and thus be out of range ( Disengagement by accelleration!?! ) or jump into range ( the Picard manouver ) and simply let your hull and armour boxes protect you from weapon's fire.
Perhaps at that speed, damage will create unbalanced photonic-drag that will cause the vessel to spin so rapidly as to break apart, causing SVC's "one phaser hit will kill you" comments???
Still it's just technobabble.
Ok, I'm going to give my 2 cents...
After re-reading the designer notes from X1 and X1, I've got a better idea for X2.
X2 ships are primarily BCHs (consistent w X1 p15), DN and BB.
I think it will be ok to have X2 ships move in the 32-48 speeds (at X2 Warp cost) will be OK if the following weapon changes occur:
A) All phasers banks have backup emitters. Each Bank (group of more than 1 phaser) has an extra box which does not fire (no capacitor either) and is scored on the first point of damage to the bank. This can only be done on BCH class, DN, and BB. This limits the mizia capabilities of X-Ships.
B) Labs are automatic out to range 4(a +3)? and go to range 10 (except for X2 PPTs). Each X2 lab has 2 chances. (note: An X2 counter to this is a restricted external 1ps concealment armor module developed by the Kzinti/Wyn, which hides what the payload is... a lab will get an answer: payload is hidden.)
C) 2 drone speed upgrades for X-Drones. speed 48, speed 64
D) The invention of the XID (Advanced Interception Device). Replaces ADDs. Range is now 5 [or as standard ADD if ship speeds don't change] 1-6 at 5 (-1 to hit each hex closer). Range 0 hits result in colateral damage. Effective vs plasma if 0.5 added for each firing(BATT usage is required here). Effect is a ph-3 fired at range 0 if it hits (note this is ineffective vs ships, because it is a chemical reaction from the ADD rounds hitting the plasma). XID ammo can fit in in a Gx rack. The Feds and Kzinti were first to adopt this technology.
E) Plasma M and L Plasma have 2 new modes:
[NOVA Mode] They can move at speed 48(or 36?), but 1 hex range counts as 3(2?) or they can fire at [LONG LANCE MODE] Extended Range(range up to 50. Note a scout channel is necessary to guide ) at speed 32, losing 1 range per 2 hexes moved, but half warhead str (Those Plasma X-Starbases got a little better). Both modes are vulnerable to phasers at 1-1 damage AND roll for misfire.
E) Batts hold 4 power.
All these advances come after the Defeat of the Andromedans.
Actually, if you want some protection from Mizia fire, you may want to check out the Microthin Neutronium Armor from E2, the Triangulum Galaxy playtest module for ideas.
Adding armor would be a potantially bad choice as it would begein to make Paramount edgy.
Enterprise and Voyager (in its series finale) use various forms of armor and we would have to take extra steps to make sure they wouldn't thing we were poaching on the Franchise's territory.