The system I'm working on needs to be balanced with everything else. I was too difficult to present my ideas separatly since they all work together as a whole.

Thanks for the thought about the Particle Cannon. I will consider it. If I get you right it might be something like the Tholians had this great cam and lifter technology but left crank and piston technology behind. Thanks to the Seltorians they regained that basic tech and started to rebuild the system.

That got me thinking that some side note might be written that they also attempted to re-engineer Seltorian DNA taken from captured bugs but were unable to create a passive clone. Unfortunatly for the Tholian plans to regain their past glory the Seltorians had considered that danger and engineered percautions into their DNA. Any attempt to change DNA codes breaks the molecule down to componant parts. This rendures them imune to cancer BTW and evolution from the secimines is not possable either.

OK, back to the X2 Ph-1 discussion.

By Darin Smith (Dsmith) on Friday, December 27, 2002 - 07:24 pm: Edit

As I have been posting elsewhere,....make defences better rather than making just bigger numbers for X2 tech.

GW phasers are less accurate against X2 electronic warfare. With even 1 ECM up GW phasers fire as if their range is doubled. X2 phasers are not affected in this way and act normally against ECM.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, December 27, 2002 - 10:57 pm: Edit

I am uncomfortable with any rule that penalizes GW-era ships.

The poor things are going to have a hard-enough time as it is.

Besides, 1 ECM against does not and should not mean a loss of lock-on and that's what doubling the range would mean.

X2 ships aren't THAT good.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 09:54 pm: Edit

Even a single hex of extra range can make a huge difference tactically (especially considering that X ships have movement precedence over non-X). Anything better than the Ph-2 to Ph-1 improvement would be overkill IMO.

Simpler perhaps to build in the -1 EW shift that X1 ships can currently get to the weapons tables, then have them use EW normally (no getting the shift). This would give them a 3-3-2-1-0-0 table at 15 hexes for the Ph-1, which is the same as X1 gets but far more resitant to EW.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 11:14 pm: Edit

The ECM shift should be bad enough. I'd prefer to revisit this only if we feel the need to increase the impact of ECM.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 01:20 am: Edit

X-ships have built in ECCM and will have some sort of Special Sensor ability. Also, most seem to like the Ph-V which is a great balance between the Ph-1 and the OL Ph-1 (which was determined to be too powerful). It has a good reach and good flexability.

Adding weapon based EW complicats things I think. Each improvement to the ship design improves the whole design. Improve everything a little and it will be too much. Are we trying to out perform old X2?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 03:23 pm: Edit

Loren,

On EW: We should either give built in ECCM or expanded EW capability, not both. We discussed going to sensor rating +4 (10 total). X1 dumped auto-ECCM. X2 probably ought to as well.

I really think giving line ships a sensor channel is a bad, bad idea.

I like the P-5. We may not want to do overloads for phasers. X1 deleted them because it produced 1-dimensional X1 tactactics.

I think X2 was way overblown, a munchkin's dream but boring as Hades. We should not try to equal X2 let alone surpass it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 07:05 pm: Edit

On EW: We should either give built in ECCM or expanded EW capability, not both. We discussed going to sensor rating +4 (10 total). X1 dumped auto-ECCM. X2 probably ought to as well.

Agreed. I forgot that it was dumped. I hadn't got to reviewint the X1 changes. I'm about to again.

I really think giving line ships a sensor channel is a bad, bad idea.

Why? I think these ships will be working alone a lot and will fit there missions to have them. But I don't like multiple Special Sensors on all ships. ONE Special Sensor is not that powerful but right handy. I would think that all the remaining ship Captains would be begging for this. That's why I suggested the "Special Bridge". This give the abilities of ONE Spec. Sens. and is destroyed with the last bridge box. (Must be repaired separatly after one bridge box is repaired).

One Spec. Sens. give all the abilities most people want with out the complication. Special Bridge only appears on ships with out Special Sensors. So a fleet scout would be very rare. With this ability there would be only standard EW generation. No extra rules. A cruiser could raise 6 EW by standard ship rules and 6 more via the Special Bridge ability. If you want to use the SBridge to tell three seeking weapons to go away then go for it. Your max EW will then be 6.

That doesn't sound too powerful to me.

I like the P-5. We may not want to do overloads for phasers. X1 deleted them because it produced 1-dimensional X1 tactactics.

I think X2 was way overblown, a munchkin's dream but boring as Hades. We should not try to equal X2 let alone surpass it.

Agreed! The P-V was designed to be a compromise of the Ph-1 OL. It also has better reach fitting the tactics of the era better. OL the Ph-V. Oh no way! Definatly not. It's perfect the way it is.

X2: Like I have said, as X1 is based on the CC make X2 based of the BCH. It's a small but effective step. BCHs are not THAT much bigger and they are still MC1.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 08:34 pm: Edit

Loren,

These ships will not always be operating alone.

In a squadron setting, masters forbid a fleet setting, I'm afraid those sensor channels will get downright obnoxious.

Operating alone, a X2 ship will likely be dealing with other X2's operating alone so it will be a non-advantage except against X1 and GW ships where they will have a hard-enough time dealing with an X2 ship that can generate 10 points of personal EW. They don't really need to deal with a X2 that can lend itself EW and have 16.

It just seems excessive, and a pain in the butt if firing anything more powerful than a P-3 will blind the sensor. Most of the time, the sensor will be blind from weapons fire so why, again, is it there?

It's always nice to have a sensor channel but really, what need does it fulfill for a single ship? It would serve to assure an X2's EW dominance, but then 16 EW vs 6 or 8 will do that.

Why else would a line sip have a sensor channel.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 09:30 pm: Edit

The only problem I have with making the 2X ships better with phasers solely on the basis of an EW shift is that not everyone uses EW rules in play. We need something that isn't dependent on the EW rules to make them better. I think the Phaser V is a good start. Why shouldn't a 2X ship have better phasers? Per SVC, they're the next quantum leap. I think the Phaser V, if used in moderation, will do just fine. No overloads, of course.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 09:40 pm: Edit

I neglected to mention that the Special Bridges functions will not be blinded. Sorry. That is one of the main points of the Special Bridge and that it separates itself from Special Sensors so as not the change any Special Sensor rules.

I don't see these as line ships only. These ships will have a similar role as the first CAs. They will not be designed purely for combat(though they should be good at it. Real good!) Even the Klingons will have expanded rolls. I see that as a given with the current lay out of history up until 205+. And yes, I see squadron level combat replacing fleet combat. No one would risk a real fleets worth of ships as even a win could damage to over all Empires ability to stave of an attack from another Empire.

So, there is the Fleets pride orbiting some planet in contest in the neutral zone. It is making a Trade deal that will have many ramifications. Suddenly something is detected moving in at high warp and about to drop to tactical. How far off do you want them to be so you can finnish loading your goods and prepare for battle (or scram if the force is too big)? Do you, as an Admiral, want to ever hear that one of your prize "Gems" was surprised and destroyed?

With the Special Bridge you wouldn't hear that and in the first case you could be ready. You would not get surprised easily and would have an advantage for weapon status.

X2 vs. X2 wouldn't just cancel each other out. Maybe if you have multiple SS but not with just one. SS has many functions, each of which take the place of another. So how do you choose to use them. Maybe you could influence your opponant to use another function then you would have the EW advantage.

I think the Special Bridge has tactical depth with out putting fleet scouts everywhere. It's a compromise down from putting multiple SS on as a standard. And it is simpler. Every one know what a Special Sensor can do. So the Special Bridge rule would be about one paragraph.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 10:02 pm: Edit

It's the EW function that bothers me.

The other SS functions don't. Pull EW generation/lending from the mix and I don't see a problem.

Otherwise, like I say, you have a ship that can do really obnoxious things with EW.

And sooner or later, Loren, there will be a full-fledged X2 fleet engagement. if nothing else a warlike power will do it because nobody else would expect it...a kind of blitzkrieg. if it kills more enemy ships that the empire loses (and when the best it's facing is a squadron of 6 ships vs 9 that's likely) it will net an attrition advantage for the empire fielding the fleet and set the stage for other X2 fleets.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 10:06 pm: Edit

I just made a post in the X2 BPV thread that may relate to the X2 Ph-1 analog design.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 10:08 pm: Edit

Well, people will play them.

Pulling the EW factor might not be a bad idea. But I thought that people wanted X2 to generat 10 or 12 EW. In part, mine was a solution to that, rather than just building it in.

Final balancing could be used to determin that. Perhaps just leave the ships natural EW abilities the same. But, again, I thought people wanted the X2 to have an EW advantage over X1 and GW.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 11:42 pm: Edit

Loren,

10-12 is OK, but 10 + a special sensor isn't.

Remember that X2 will have 8 points to start with because nobody's going to accept backpedaling to 6. So practically speaking, what we're talking about is sensor rating +4 (10) or sensor rating + 2 + sp sensor (14)

Even 14's a little much, don'tcha think? when the previous standard was 8?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 12:19 am: Edit

Ya, that's right. X1 gets 8. Hmmm. To get a shift of 3 you need 9 ECM. The enemy should be able to bring that to a shift of 1. If X2 gets a simple 10 EW then a GW could always face a shift of 2. But and X1 would do better.

OK, let's say that X2 ships can generate 10 on their own and that special bridge acts like a SS in all other functions except for EW. Then put no SS on any ships except for deticated scouts (which wont have Special Bridge).

Good point John. Ten is just right. Twelve will make X1 face a shift of two which is too much.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 11:00 pm: Edit

There has been talk of rapid pulsing the Phaser-V. If the P1 still pulses as 2P3 then perhaps the longer range P5 could pulse as 2P2 for 2 power or 2P3 for 1 power. I'm concerned that if we increase it much more than this we end up with a situation where seeking weapons can't hit.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 11:51 pm: Edit

Thinking about it, 2x P-2 is better than 3x or 4x P-3.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 08, 2003 - 09:10 am: Edit

It depends...

If we have speed 32 drones ( with lots of goodies ) and we rapid pulse 2Ph-1 shots then we pretty much make the drone useless.

If we have Speed 48 drones then we'll really need to Rapid Pulse 2Ph-1 shots to have some hope of destroying the drone.

If we have some kind of speed 48 drone that is likely to miss ( say use the G13.37 table ) then we both need Rapid Pulse Ph-2s to destroy the high speed incomming drones and not need them because G13.37 will mean that few of them will actually hit.


We'll just need to find out the drone capasities before we work on the drone defences.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 08, 2003 - 09:14 am: Edit

Here's an idea.

If X2 ships get full Aegis.

Then rapid pulse as.

2Ph-1s
Or
3Ph-2s
Or
4Ph-3s.

Just a thought.


Maybe with varriable size class restrictions based on the number of pulses...

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Eagle) on Wednesday, January 08, 2003 - 01:44 pm: Edit

Perhaps it's time we draw a line:
Rapid pulse ph-1s only as 2*ph-2 or p-3s.
That way we have some solid ground to work out the rest.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, January 08, 2003 - 05:09 pm: Edit

I was thinking:
P1 = 1P1 or 1P2 or 2P3
P5 = 1P5 or 1P1 or 2P2 or 1P2+1P3 or 2P3

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, January 08, 2003 - 08:46 pm: Edit

How easy is drone defence in the X1 era? Don't drone waves get shreaded by a CX's rapid pulse ph-3s?

If X2 drones are speed 32, then (ph-5 => 2 ph-3) should be enough. (ph-5 => 3 ph-3 or 2 ph-2) would be overkill.

But (ph-5 => 2 ph-2) is slightly more effective at stopping speed 48-64 drones as (ph-1 => 2 ph-3) is at stopping speed 32s.

A ph-2 at range 2 does 5-4-4-4-3-3.
A ph-3 at range 1 does 4-4-4-4-3-3.

At longer ranges,
A ph-2 at range 3 does 4-4-4-3-3-3
A ph-3 at range 2 does 4-4-4-3-2-1

Now if X2 drones got bigger as well as faster, then (ph-5 => 2 ph-2) might tip the balance back to the drone users.

Right now, this is all just opinion, theory, and conjectures. Playtests should solve this particular issue.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 07:50 am: Edit

J.T.:


Exactly my point.

We need to build drone defenses after we've designed the drones.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 02:36 pm: Edit

Not really. We need a feedback loop between the two, and plasma also. If a change occurs to phasers, that change has to propagate to drones and plasma in the form of some kind of compensatory advantage. They're linked together.

This, I think, is the crucial gap in understanding in Old X2. They packed it with Neat Stuff and never worried about the interactions.