The reason I'm not fond of the "only protecting cargo / hull / barracks / toilet" is because it slows down damage allocation - which is arguably the most drawn out part of the game. (Especially when there are X-ships flying around. )

Loren:

---

Quote:

Also, I think regerative armor is going to make these ships super tough. Every turns total damage MUST exceed the top value or the ship never takes damage while any X1 or GW ship can get peppered down at long range.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 01:21 am: Edit

Robert, actually I wasn't refering to your proposal. It was another name for the PA type SIF.

But you raise a good point. Lets not forget that we are adding a defencive device on top of 4 point X-Batteries and those alone protect a ship alot! And X2 will have more of them than anyone.

I hadn't thought of that before but it reinforces my conservative approach posted above.

Any SIF proposal wil be in addition to X2 batteries.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 01:22 am: Edit

I'm not fond of it protecting cargo. That could have an undesirable effect on a convoy raid and Orion cargo already requires two hits to destroy.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 01:36 am: Edit

I would not expect it to be on freighters. Too much cargo in that case. I'm thinking war ships that might have about four cargo. The designs I'm working on will have cargo on the larger ships (CCs and CLs. Some Frigates will have six or eight).

I'm also going to design a new freighter where the cargo is in groups of small containers. Say groups of six or eight. The Large freighter will dock six to ten of these. So you have the foreward command section and the aft drive section. The big pod in the middle is replaced with a container rack to which containers dock. These freighters will be faster, like auxillaries. There could be variants of the Container. One might be hull. One might add weapons for a Q-Ship configuration. Stuff like that.
BTW, the cargo container will be about half the size of a PAD (Planetary Assault Dropship. A proposal I have pending.)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 01:43 am: Edit

I need the ASIF on my designs because the Warp will generate more power(150%) but be most susseptable to damage when they do. A XCC will have 15 or16 warp boxs per engine. They take double damage when 'Hot'.

During combat you get all the power a Captain may want but after you are going to have to clean the hell out of them. However, if you never soup 'em up (as in the months between combat) they purr like a kitten for as long as you want!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 01:45 am: Edit

Guys, my proposal just got bumped to the archives. It's the last post in the above archive.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 02:25 am: Edit

Hmm. Turning all X-ships into weird Orions is not such a hot thing in my opinion. Also, turning a standard warp engine into something that takes more damage, like a PF warp pack, is also unsettling.

Also, Loren..

In your version, you have the SIF taking a point off every volley. This could go on forever, and also will hurt mizia badly.

I personlly like mine better, but then I'm biased

So, is everybody of the opinion that X2 ships will be hot-rods getting ready to explode when pushed to the limit?

I see X2 as being the perfected Advanced design. Maybe a little bigger, but overall just a little better all around than an X1 ship.

I don't like any rule that you have to keep track of three or for different things when taking damage....did the aft hull get hit last time, or what it the forward hull? Which SIF has points left?

If there is only one field for the whole ship, with a damage track preferebly, then you can tell at a glance how much juice ya got left.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 03:18 am: Edit

I am personally against any SIF that regenrrates every round. Just too powerful.

My SIF proposal, buried in the archives and now drawn forward is a SIF that works like onion layers (Ogre layers?), each providing light shielding to a column of the DAC (between 5-10 points).

Because it's defined as a "shield", the SIF must be repaired the same way a shield box is repaired and it is always repaired from the deepest destroyed box outward. It doesn't simply pop back into being the next EAF. All specific reinforcement allocated to the SIF is cut in half round down.

Racial flavor can be added by varying the magnitude of the shield at each column. Klingons might go heavy on the first two columns and light on the rest while the feds might shoot for more equality and overall durability.

It would slow the mizia down somewhat but given the requirement that boxes be shield-repaired, a good solid volley would clear the way for mizia jus fine.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 09:54 am: Edit

Personally, I think Chris' proposal is the best start so far, with some mods. The new damage levels he proposed work for me, and limiting it to protecting such things as hull, control stations, labs, cargo, and barracks. I'd also like to see a working SIF improve the ships breakdown rating by one; that makes sense to me. I don't have the worry that it will make cargo raids impossible, because I don't ever forsee 2X freighters in the game. The only ships that will have this are 2X, and those'll be warships, or ships with limited cargo.

I like Chris' idea because it's simple, it's different, and it allows for leaks. It only comes up once per turn, so it won't hurt mizia affects too badly. I think it's the most workable proposal yet, assuming that there are no really unusual 2X rules floating around out there we don't know about that would make another proposal better.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 11:42 am: Edit

In your version, you have the SIF taking a point off every volley. This could go on forever, and also will hurt mizia badly.

Only if that first point hits hull/cargo and only the first point that would hit hull/cargo if the ship had some. One point only. Weapon/power and control can still be hit at any time. With ASIF a one point volley could still hit a phaser. This wont hurt mizia at all. Mizia does not count on there being more or less hull. And if the ship is out of hull and cargo you don't have to use the mizia tactic anyway. All your hits will hit good stuff (except for one if the ASIF is charged). What this is most effective on is large volleys. It acts as if there are more hull/cargo boxes on the ship.

I must admit that I had in mind my own style of damage tracking. I put the DAC in a plastic sheet protector and mark off damage with a wax pencil marking damage with the check and slash for five method. When you do that keeping track of the hits is very easy.

Also, as far as goingon forever it wont. That provision is for when there is no hull left at the ASIF is powered. It goes off line with the first Excess Damage hit. And, at this point, I would like to define or redefine that this is the first point that hits a hull/cargo type. So, on a ship that has no hull/cargo left, the ASIF would absorb a maximum of one hull/cargo hit per volley. After that, in that volley, all hull/cargo feed to the next collumn. If your DAC rolls hit no hull/cargo columns then nothing would be absorbed, in any case.

It's about making X2 ships more durable without adding sheer weight. The damage curve would be similar to a DN on a cruiser. But since the damage is not scored on the ship it protects the lives of the crew. The parallel purpose of the ASIF.

Mike R. "... so it won't hurt mizia affects too badly."
As mizia volleys are typically smaller ones (8 to 20) it would practically eliminate the first mizia volley of each turn. Cfants idea is much more tolerable if it protect only hull/cargo. But pricture the amount of damage you will have to get in each turn to even start hitting the hull. With Cfants SIF you could concevably wipe out every system on the ship and have the hull/cargo remain untouched. Say half of a twenty point volley of internals hits hull/cargo. The other half hits other systems. This will be the result. So if it protect only hull/cargo this is what happens. If it protects all systems the above (my first rant) happens.
With the ASIF, since mizia is about avoiding hull hits, mizia is realetively unaffected. Hull/cargo takes damage incrementally. A volley as small as three points could hit two hull or cargo (one being diappated).
To be less confusing I did want each ASIF to protect independantly so if a three point volley hit one f-hull, one a-hull, one cargo, all three would be absorbed, however, since not all people keep track of the DAC like I do I would be willing to make it the first of each four hull/cargo of any type (or the first of each three if re-enforced)to simplify the process and make the H&R boxes non-type-specific.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 11:43 am: Edit

None of the SIF proposals are all that complicated.

One shields Hull/cargo
One is a leaky 360 shield
One gives moderate protection each time hits dig deeper into the ship.

the more you see a SIF as a "shield", the less likely you are to get a (presumably permanent) +1 breakdown out of it. (Hmmmm. PFs with SIFs...)

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Eagle) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 01:03 pm: Edit

SIF is too much TNG for me. And how do you justify it techno babble wise?
"-At the instant the phaser penetrated the hull, and fried the locker of Kirks latest girlfriend, a forcefield was activated and saved the lingerie!?"
Please!

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Eagle) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 01:06 pm: Edit

Besides, PA warning here. I am not sure SIF can introduced without causing problems. Either by some weird interaction thing, or by making Bpv very difficult to work out. And why the need for SIF BTW? Isn't it simply a desire for a cool new gizmo?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Carl,

Well, it came up a long time ago in the 2X discussions, because of a concern that 2X ships would suffer from "eggshell" symdrome. With only a few exceptions, most of us favored smaller, BC or CB sized 2X ships. Even with extra shielding, they wouldn't be any "tougher" than previous 1 or 0X ships were. Rather than just dump on more shields or more hull boxes, someone (don't recall who, now) proposed the SIF as a way to strengthen the 2X ship in a new way.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Eagle) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 01:12 pm: Edit

Thanks for the reminder Mike, I had forgot about it. I favour an orthodox solution. More hull anyone
Seriously; I don't mind the flying eggshell.
It's like modern warfare compared to the slugfests of old times. Today hits are more deadly, emphasising good defence and first hit - first kill abilities.
Anyone playing harpoon should know what I mean

[edited]

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 01:15 pm: Edit

There are some, Carl, that do want exactly that for 2X. Not just more advanced, but a mix of advances and size. The Excelsior would be an example of this path, IMHO...much, much bigger, probably a higher move cost, and a ton more power and goodies. But, not necessarily more advanced than anything else. Feel free to persue this idea! Just be warned that the majority don't favor it.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 01:16 pm: Edit

Unless I'm missing something I don't see the SIF as particularly powerful. It helps, sure, but not much. The basis for at least some of these proposals is for each power put in you get two points of hull protection. The only thing hull ever does is pad power hits, but it costs power to use the field. You would probably be better off with specific shield reinforcement. You take more hull hits but loose less weapons.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 01:19 pm: Edit

New proposals. X2 ships regenerate shields for free every turn at a rate equal to their current DamCon rating.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 01:25 pm: Edit

Is that per shield, or total? I could live with it, provided the following caveats:

- if it's per shield, then no carrying...that is, a full shield can't send over points to another one.

- No going over the normal max of the shield using this.

- Takes place at a fixed point in the turn, not whenever the player wants.

- No SIF if this is used...that's just too much.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 01:39 pm: Edit

SIF doesn't appear after damage. Tha t would be a different system. The ASIF reinforces the structure of the ship (hull) so that is weathers damage better. The effect is how it plays out.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 02:16 pm: Edit

Loren, having 2 different fields, inside the ship for absrobing damage would be, IMHO, too hard to track. But again, just me.

A regen system for the shields would be great. I've worked on a design of that a little.

My 2X DD, desgined buy myself and Robert Cole years ago, and tweaked:

link/{http://shipsofthefleet.w1.com/ships/federation/F-KOR.GIF}

Instead of basing regen off DamCon(which is perfectly reasonable, this is just different), we created a new track, and also added a box to the SSD for shield generators. The Shields are bigger, but have a weakness. If a volly of 30 points comes in at one time against a shield, you roll a die. If a 6 is rolled, then the Generator burns out and you lose your shields. On the small ships, they have one redundant generator that kicks in 2 impulses after the primary generator drops, and the shields come back up.

The Regen track shows how many shield boxes are repaired per shield, no carry over. But, you have to have at least one box of shield in order to generate more boxes. So, if a shield fails completely, you have to use normal damcon to repair a shield box, and then the regen will kick in the next turn.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 02:21 pm: Edit

As these Fed ships have no drones, the Regen box is hit on drone. The regen track is hit on Damcon, alternating between the 2 with each hit. So, first damcon hits damcon, second hits regen, and back and forth.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 03:41 pm: Edit

"Is that per shield, or total?"
I was picturing total. At the end of each turn your 4 DamCon ship gets 4 boxes to place back on any combination of shields. For example 2 boxes on the #1, 1 on the #4 and 1 on the #6, chosen by the owner. It would have this ability at no power cost. Kinda a CDR for shields.

The proposal makes more sense if the shield and quantity is picked 32 impulses in advance like standard shield repair.

The SIF protects DAC hits on hull like stuff, this is a CDR for shields. One, the other, both, neither, whatever. Until we get six months closer on what X2 looks like we won't be able to figure out what solution works best.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 04:47 pm: Edit

Why not go with the old 1:1 shield repair. Most X2 cruisers will have an 8 box(es) Dam. Con. so for 8 power you get 8 shield boxs. That's a lot. That's about a 1/4 shield per turn.

Additionaly, you could use a CDR to repair the number of shields equal to you dam con but would count against your CDR system limit.

We could allow ship to by extended CDR limits up to double the normal amount.

Use all three of these and there would be no need for a SIF or make SIF reinforce damaged hull so that in effect you get a number of hull erased (one per turn costing 1 power during EA. Box is erased at the end of the turn) equal to you Damage Control rating. Sort of a Hull only extra CDR, thing.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 05:56 pm: Edit

Loren, the X-ship update in CL23 gave first gen X-ships the ability to repair 1 shield box per point of power in (D9.2) shield reapir.