Archive through January 02, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
The "X" Files:
OLD X2 FOLDER:
Major X2 tech changes...:
Archive through January 02, 2003
A repost that belongs here, I think.
I'll be blunt, I want SFB to always be based on the 32 impulse chart. It's a core building block. I want SFU physics to set an unbreakable barrier at 31 for Tactical Warp. X2 ships will be faster because they will have enough power to run and chew gum. But I want to have them also have more things to spend power on.
A few things:
AWR shouldn't be obsolete. Auxiliarly power is a core concept in the Trek Universe.
The CTX has no saucer warp because it's saucer cannot seperate...it's secondary hull is rather small. I'll put up an external view later.
Increased turn mode to me makes some sense, if we go with the smaller/faster routine. Look at how maneuverable ships are in the TNG timeline; they turn on a dime. Granted, that's not something we can use officially, but I do like the notion that improved RCS systems are found on more advanced ships.
I agree on Tos's ADD chart. The other came from the drone thread, and IMHO is a bit too good.
The CTX Spec Sens are not quite the same as the scout sensors we know and love. The do {some} of the same rolls, particularly in regards to weapons...in no way should the CTX be considered a GSC. The old X1 rules considered all X1 ships to be scouts for purposes of tac intel, indicating some sort of advanced sensor technology. This is one way of expressing it, yet still letting it be "lost" as the ship is damaged.
Agreed on the CCX; it's just an optional path we can take. Personally, I like the rest of the ships with less but better phasers.
The D2X...ugly is the word. But, it's a decent 2X ship, and does represent some of the views of how a Klink ship should go. I also did it in just short of an hour; pretty fast, even for me. The first Kling BCX I posted is MUCH bigger, more like the Fed CCX. It's back in the thread, somewhere.
Oh ya, I was going to comment on that AWR thing. When a ship is in orbit or just not moving doing whatever non-combat mission or under maintainance on the engines (warp and impulse maintainance is common) the engines are shut down or generating minimal power so auxillary power is critical to Starship operations. AWR is the choice type for all races since it utilizes the same type of resources as the engines so there is a common maintainance and supply chain.
Speaking of Repair. That is another issue not addressed yet. I think that it should have only a modest increase in capability. The new standard Damage Control track should be six for all sizes. Cruisers might get on eight box. There should be no other additional abilities. Some things just stay the same. As technology get better it also get harder to fix. Then you learn better repaire routines and all in all the effect is basically the same.
Loren,
I agree on repair. I'd give cruisers an 8 just because the new 2X toys are going to have a high repair cost, such that a 2X 8 equals a 1X 6. But any additional repair abilities is too much.
Agreed, cruisers get an "eight" box.
http://sfbfog.iwarp.com/SSD/Federation/ may work better for those that get imaged blocked from my host (what do you want for nothing?). Mike, if you could mirror and index the X2 ships to your site so everything can be in one place that would probably be best. The MC on the XCC was 1.
2&3 were reasonable, but I don't like the warp boost idea of 2. A small amount of NWO makes some sense and is a likely 2X feature likely.
4 is over the top. 35 battery power? 1 is way over the top. I like 3 & 5 best.
One thing I should mention is the special rules regarding the Phaser H on version 4. It takes 2 points of power to arm, over two turns. It isn't part of the ships capacitior system, and is generally powered by the accompyning AWR. It can only engage SC4 or larger targets.
Could you keep most General War tech the same for X2 except that the new X2 ships can ignore most effects of General War technology while General War ships continue to be affected normally?
For example a GW disrupter missed at close range 75% of the time and even then does half damage while a X2 tech disrupter acts just like it does now no matter if it is against a GW or X2 ship.
Simply increasing defensive measure would change the playing field.
Perhaps this would been too simple and cause too few new rules to be written so it won't be popular.... ;-)
Something to keep in mind about improving chances to hit is that it is really an increadable thing that at fifty THOUSAND Kilometers a phaser-1 will hit a 300 meter target zipping about at trans-light speeds.
Though not a weapons expert, I imagine that's a feat compairable to hitting a house fly in flight at fifty yards with an automatic rifle and a high powered scope.
Consider, also, that a Phaser-1 at three million kilometers has a 16.6% change of hitting you with enough power to vaporize your house every thirty seconds. We are starting off with pretty powerful stuff here.
So, while GW, X1 and X2 have increadable computers and ultra accurate sensors to aid it's targeting, let's give a nod to what we are really talking about. It is easy to forget this when you think of extending the range of some weapon just three hexes. But that is 30,000 KM further.
I'm not knocking anything just sharing a thought to help keep us grounded. (If that's possable 
)
That's very true, but it seems that most players prefer to have a modest increase in damage and a better chance to hit, rather than a much greater damage potential. So far, no one wants to keep the old phaser-overload option...but no one wants just plain-jane phaser 1's, either. I think Tos's phaser V is a good start.
Seems like we've gotten a few votes on which way to go, with most being either 2 or 4. It's sort of funny, though...most objections about option 1 are that it's too big and powerful. But if you really look at it, 1 isn't much more than a big 1X ship. Out past range 15, it's pretty toothless when compared to these others. It also has less reserve power than some of the others, and is by far the least maneuverable. Doesn't mean I vote for it, just that it can't be claimed to be the most powerful one.
So, the next step would seem to be to decide what it is about 2 and 4 people like, and why. Then we can worry about modifications and design tweaking.
The question, then, is this: What is it about those two choices that people like for 2X? And, if changes are necessary, what are they and why? A few I know of: ADD tables are a bit too good (they were taken from the drone conversation), 5 point batteries may be too much, and improved firing arcs may not be kosher. But there needs to be some agreement on these before we can move forward. I think everyone agrees that the ADD table on Tos' ship, for example, is the best option.
There is a discussion in the Speed Limit topic. Lets first nail down the speeds we are talking about since they will affect everything else.
So go in and put your Opinion/reasoning in and we can nail this sucker down flat pretty quickly. So go put your vote up.
I have been reviewing Module X and my recently aquired 1985 X2 rules. There are a lot of paralels going on here. Many of the things being proposed are in one or both modules. Such as ATG being standard on drones. D'Oh! That is the current rule for the Type VII and Type VIII. In the X2 rules the same is true for the Type IX and Type X.
There are many others. I very strongly recomend that every one contributing to the X2 discussion review the current Module X and the erratta in CL 23 Pg.16. The errata is also available on this website. I will soon post a report on the paralels in X2 and post some comments on the "Trade Wars" (the background is in X2). It will have much to do with the ship designs. I understand that a lot of the X2 background may change but I will assume that the basic elements of the "Trade Wars" will remain the same.
Stay Tuned....
Ok, I'm going to give my 2 cents...(never looked at previous X2 rules).
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), MAYBE 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.
Okay, there's been a lot of discussion about a way to make 2X ships more damage resistant, without making them monsters. One of the ways put forward by several people is the structural integrity field. I think, if it's worked properly, that such a thing could really be a good 2X addition. The question is, how should it work?
I made up a very basic one, which basically works like a sensor or scanner damage track. It requires power to keep it up (figure 2 points for a cruiser) and will absorb any hits on the DAC that result in hull or cargo. It would have to be powered up, of course, for this to work. The track boxes can be repaired for 4 points each. Once destroyed, damage taken to the ship proceeds normally. How many boxes you have on the track depends on the size-class of the ship; figure 6 for a size-class 4 ship, and 8 for a size-class 3. IF a size class 2 ship every comes along, it would have 10.
Now, this is all VERY basic, but I think it might be on the right track. It's simple, doesn't break the game, and gives the 2X ship a good bit more resiliency than it would otherwise have, without making it a huge SSD. The questions I have about it are these:
1: What on the DAC should it protect, if anything, besides hull or cargo?
2: Should it be vulnerable to H&R raids, like UIM or a cloak?
3: Is the repair cost too high? Not high enough? This based on a 2X cruiser having a top end Dam Con of 8 points (this only because many 2X systems will have pretty high repair costs, at least I'd think so. I can't see a 2X photon being repaired for the same cost as a normal one.)
So, how about it? Opinions?
With that repaire level it would be easier to repaire shields.
Is it restricted by the CDR maximum? If so repairing it would be an option for me except between scenarios.
Mike: You'll have to explain that again, I'm afraid. It looks as though you're just giving a cruiser 8 more cargo/hull boxes that
1) Have to be powered
2) Are much more difficult to repair (hull & cargo cost repair cost is 1)
3) Are no use for storing cargo or accomodating crew
Which is presumably not what you mean at all.
Jim,
You're right, I didn't explain it very well. The system outlined above I know would protect cargo and hull; the question is, what else will it protect? Cargo and hull can't be all, but I hesitate to use it as a blank check, and protect everything. My feeling is that, in addition to cargo or hull, the following could be protected by it, as well:
Lab
Control Spaces (bridge, flag, aux, emer, scty)
APR/AWR
BTTY
Note that warp and impulse would NOT be protected, nor weapons. I think Loren is right, that a repair cost of four is too high; so, let's change that to a repair cost of 2. Now, for 2 points of power, the ship has these eight points of structural integrity that will protect all the above from damage until "destroyed". Does that sound more like it? Should have mentioned that hull and cargo weren't all I had in mind, but I was in a rush to go to my folks house with the family for dinner.
I would propose that this discussion take place in the hull topic.
In my version of the SIF it would only protect hull and since cargo is a different form of hull (as I see it anyway) that too. The SIF is a result of an effort to protect the lives of the crew but by default also protects other systems by absorbing more hits on the DAC. Other system like Control, power, weapons and systems are suseptable to electronic burn outs which is the majority of what the damage to those system consists of. Sure there is a physical level to the damage but hull, cargo, and excess damage are the primary represenatives of actual physical damage (destroyed plating and broaken gurders etc.) Hull and Cargo are ships structure. Excess damage would be protected but if your ship takes excess damage then all your hull and cargo are destroyed so it isn't represented. In my system the SIF is destroyed with the last hull/cargo hit and must be repaired separatly after at least one hull/cargo is repaired. It is not suseptable to hit and run as it is spread evenly through out the ship. There is more details of my system but I just put this here as suggestion to Mikes system.
Mike, since in your system you have to repair each extra hit then it should cost no power, I think. Have it be apart of life support. Yours is a set system with a set number of hit it takes. If you have to power it and pay dearly to repair it for just a few extra hits I'm not sure it would be worth it.
However, you could make it a POWERED ARMOR, then your system, as is, would make more sense (to me) and could protect everything and should cost to repair and require power. It would be hit under the Armor rules which is very effective against the leaky shields rule! (and repair it under the shield repair rules(concurrently with shield repairs), and require one point of energy for every 1-4 armor.)
Well, we could have three different levels of play, and choose the one that people think is best for play.
If we have an overloy complicated system then the EA form may need several new lines or even a scrap of paper to work calculations on.
1
We could have a blanket SI field value ( listed like the cloak cost and sheild cost ), which would make all Excess damage, Hull, Cargo ( and Barracks ) and armour boxes require two points of damage to destroy each ( or one if it's the last point in the volley ).
2
We could have a value based on some multiplier ( 0.5 points of power ) and then multiplied by all the boxes on the SSD that suit a particular set of box types ( the list above ) and then have all those boxes take double damage.
Paying the power cost of all or none at all.
3
We could make each kind of box to be hit, have it's own cost to apply the SI Field and then multiply by that number, with a letter for each box kind, listed in the Notes section of the E.A.F. as to which will take double damage.
All the boxes of a particular kind of Box must be protected by the S.I. Field or none at all.
Say...
| BOX TYPE | POWER PER BOX | LETTER USED IN NOTES |
| Control Boxes | 0.1 | F |
| Lab Boxes | 0.2 | L |
| Hull Boxes | 0.4 | H |
| Barracks Boxes | 0.4 | B |
| Cargo Boxes | 0.5 | C |
| Excess Damage Boxes | 0.5 | E |
| Armour Boxes | 0.5 | A |
The real question is...will the more flexible system be worth the book-keeping.
I think that it should be vunerable to H&R but not as vunerable as a Cloak.
If we limit it to:-
When half or more of the ( Non-Flag ) control boxes are destroyed then the S.I. Feild can no longer be generated because the spacialised computer control facilities have been destroyed.
This way H&R can remove it...eventually.
Or perhaps the letter of the type of hull listed in a particular Control Box on the SSE, and when that one is hit that type of box set looses it's ability to generate the S.I. Feild.
Well, I suppose I could say that an uncontrolled ship could not opperate it SIF. That makes sense.
I'ld like it to happen before uncontrolled status, bit since it'll be easier to tie it to uncontrolled status, then I wouldn't oppose it.
For my two cents,
If it requires bookeeping, it fails the KISS test.
Option 1 is the only option that doesn't require bookkeeping.
Something else I think an SIF should do that isn't hard to justify; improve breakdown rating by one while in operation.