Well true, but since when did we let that stop us?

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 12:19 am: Edit

Sorry, didn't realize they were looking for a whole year.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 12:41 am: Edit

Ya know, it might be that X2 could be very similar to the X1 counterparts, but ship for ship better.

For example, the Fed CX. Excellent crusier. To make it better might not mean making it bigger.

Some possibilites I have seen or would like are:

1. Faster. (Max speed 32, with that last point costing more)
2. Better Shields. (Regenerating)
3. More Reserve power(4 point Batts?)
4. A little more power(slighty larger center warp to 4 perhaps)
5. A little better accuracy. (the projectile itself has never really changed from the basic concept, it has just gotten more accurate and thus deadly.)

I personally would like to see the main-line Fed CX2 do away with drones. Further, I would think the main Fed CX2 would continue the line of the original Fed CA, and be the balance between exploration and combat. Other races would continue the line of their crusier.

One problem I see with possible X2 ships is that they won't have weaknesses. X1 really is the "perfect" crusier. Good power, weapons, reserves, shields, internal fortitude. Right now with the X1s, you can take 2 X crusiers, and the fight comes down to the better player, as all the ships are well rounded and fairly equal. Especially after all the work we put in on the fixes.

Perhaps X2 can start the cycle over again. New toys, but with their own drawbacks. The Fed DD is the perfect example. Good little ship, but can't walk a chew bubble-gum.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 12:46 am: Edit

christopher, figured that

as for CX builds, there are a couple reasons they only built 1/year

1. cost. in F&E you build things with EP, but X-ships require XP to build and you don't get many of those.

2. as a further cost issue, it's the same cost to build multiple small ships as it is to build one large ship (this isn't really shown in SFB as very few ships have a EPV listed, but in F&E you can build 3 F5's for the cost of a single D7C) and this sort of discount carries over to some extent to the X-ships as well

so if faced with the choice of say building 3 CX/year of 1xCX, 4xDDX, 4xFFX/year it's a reasonable choice to only build 1 CX/year(remember the X-sqadron debate?) note: these are example numbers pullled out of thin air, I did NOT lookup the Xship construction costs

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 12:58 am: Edit

eh, I figure the Feds will pull in somewhere between 80 and 100 XTPs per 6 months. (Having never actually gotten to that point in the game{has anyone?), this is a guess.)

But, the CX is 12 XTP, DDX 10 XTP and FFX 7 XTP. So, if ya go with about 80, then a group of 2xCX,3xDDX,3xFFX seems very plausible. Leaves 5 XTP for repairs, or conversions. This seems likely, as skipping 1xCX does not get you much, 2xFFX more and 3 XTP left over.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 01:00 am: Edit

And remember, XTPs are mostly on top of whatever EPs you are pulling in. 180 will see the Feds just at the very beginning of exhaustion, but a majority of the XTP income counts at 100%.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 06:58 am: Edit

S.V.C.:


I really disagree with this idea that any of the proposition have made X2 into superships without the possiblity of being beaten by "their weight in BPV of X1 and GW ships".

Indeed there is one thing that almost all of the people talking about X2 agree on...that a CCXX should win about 50% of the time against a CX and a DDX.


I am undoubtedly the guy who says that "X2 shouldn't be able to be fairly fought by GW ships".

I guess it jumps back to a question that baffled you ( for a while ) when work on Module Y was underway.
Specifically;" Does BPV suffer from inflation".

If not then 3 Fed YCAs ( 3 x 84 ) 252 BPV should beat a Fed CX ( 240 BPV under revised rules ) about 50% of the time.

If so then the 3 Fed YCAs will consistantly loose agains a Fed CX.


Perhaps FORCE DYNAMICS unfairly penalises the multiply YCAs.

So one might ask...do 4 Fed YCAs have a fair fight against 1 Fed CX ?


To look at some of the ideas:-

If we couple R12 Overloads with speed 32+ then we can FIGHT SO WELL in our CCXX without traveling into the R8 zone that the ship becomes invincible against GW and X1 ships.

The idea is quite simply unfounded...the X1 and GW ships will both have more ships ( because by BPV they are cheaper ) and can load up standards and thus hit through the R9-12 "glory zone" of the X2 ships

Another unbeatable idea is to have speed 40 or 48 or even 64; drones.
And thus ships could, if properly timed, jump from R3 to R0 and thus take damage.

The idea that this makes X2 drone attacks unbeatable is unfounded...ships can use Ph-1s and Ph-2s ( in groups if need be, using the 8/9 chance that a pair of Labs have to ID a drone at R3 if need be ) to shoot down the drone.
It might take all the phasers a GW ship can bring to bear but since the GW ships are cheap and therefore more numerous, it won't take all of the enemy phasers out of the equation ( unless fighting a Kzinti ).
And WWs and Tractors still work.


All in all, these ideas and many like them make MONSTER SHIPS but do not make UNBEATABLE, INVINCIBLE or INVUNERABLE vessels.

Just because I have said on several occassions that a GW ship should have the same kind of trouble fighting an X2 ships as a Y ship against an X1; does not mean that I want X2 to be invincible.
And as the person most advocating Monster Ships, ( I'm willing to have a 500 BPV CCXX ), I feel quite misunderstood when the idea is put forward that the Monster Ship advocates want unbeatable vessels.


HHMMMmmmmmmmm.......


I wonder if the First CCXX can be called GODZILLA...

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 12:17 pm: Edit

I don;t think he was attacking you MJC, and to go on a rant about how you agree with him seems...odd some how.

Oh, and one thing with Monster ships....sometimes they are invincible, just because no one wants to fight against them.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 01:09 pm: Edit

I think it would be difficult to measure BPV for some of the more monstrous ships proposed. Granted, a BPV (correctly calculated) of 1000 should mean 10 100 point ships can whip it half the time. BUT, the current formula for BPV probably can't handle some of the ideas put forward, since the way those proposals interact has yet to be measured. For example, increased shields is easy to calculate. However, increased shields plus a structural integrity field is unknown territory; how much should it increase BPV to have them both?

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 01:13 pm: Edit

Probably alot.

What about, instead of a fancy SIF, the X2 ships gets a 7th Shield? This shield comes up the impulse after a shield fails. This 7th Shield would take damage from 360 degrees. Make it the size of the #1. That way, the ship has a backup, but new rules are short, and it would be easier to calculate.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 02:04 pm: Edit

Cfant,

There's going to be a lot of--pardon the pun--x-factor calculations that will go into this. Trying to simplify won't necessarily go much good, especially if it costs us in gameplay.

I like the idea of a SIF, it make the ship tougher rather than more invulnerable.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 03:13 pm: Edit

Yeah, but it adds an entirely new set of rules. Not enough rules in the book for you now?

X1 is basically throwing prototypes out as fast as ya can because the enemy is storming the moat.

X2 doesn't have to be warships. They can be the new, general fleet.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 03:15 pm: Edit

I think a compromise can be reached with the SIF; we just have to find it. Chris is right that it should be simple to use, but like John, I prefer the idea of a new system rather than more shields. Just my opinion, but there you go.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Instead of a SIF, why not just give every ship a variable amount of armor that regerates every turn (for free? for a small amount of energy?).

The ships now survive longer, as internal damage it mitigated every turn.

This rule is easier - it doesn't require any of the odd DAC interactions proposed before.
Also, Andro PA panels can be likened to highly (highly) advanced armor, and I like the idea of old technology coming back.

42

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 03:29 pm: Edit

"X2 doesn't have to be warships. They can be the new, general fleet."
Depends on the timeline you adopt. Ships built after the Andros are defeated and before the Xorks come-a-knocking would likely be general purpose vessels. Ships designed after the Xorks mess things up will likely be effective warships.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 07:20 pm: Edit

Mike, I sent you a new SIF rule. Let me know what you think.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 03:23 am: Edit

Robert cole, any auto-regenerating defense seriously degrades the ability of GW and X1 ships to keep pace and SVC has stated that this is important.

The most regenerating shields I would want to see is one free box's worth of shield repair every round that the player can use during EA. and that's powerful enough.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 07:05 am: Edit

re: fed XP generation, remember they will also need to use those XP to build X bases and FRD's so that they can repair thos X-ships when they get damaged in combat

I think you would be hard pressed to support the gfleet that you would build on the shedule listed

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 11:47 am: Edit

There will and must come a point where X-tech can be built using EPs or even a point where you can buy XPs using EPs.

The technology is going to become more common and easy to build over time.

XP ships represent a crossover period where F&E XPs are more plentiful (by whatever mechanism you are to use) but not yet undifferentiated from EPs.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 12:08 pm: Edit

I would think that, in F&E, the cost of a XP refit would be half XPs and half EPs.

I thought you could buy XPs with EPs on a two for one basis to a limit.

I would think after a certain year XPs would normalize. Perhaps reflected by the ability to buy them on a one for one basis. When X2 starts all EPs will be XPs and X2 will require XXPs which should be more readilly available that XPs were when they started.

All MHO.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 01:27 pm: Edit

"I would think after a certain year XPs would normalize."

In my mind this date is Y205.

An excerpt from the X2 Timeline topic:

"Y205-214: (X1R) Technological breakthroughs in hull design have reduced movement cost significantly and operating cost substantially yielding a new crop of faster more efficient ships. X0/X1/XP ships can not be converted to X1R as their hulls are simply incompatible. X1R uses all X1-tech as standard but improvements such as the Phaser-V and structural integrity field are also incompatible with the older hulls. With the Andro threat eliminated and large quantities of X1 cruisers filled with outstanding crews acting in command roles (35 Fed CXs have been produced by Y204) the Alphas begin this era of construction by concentrating on replacing their smaller, older, less efficient ships first. The war weary Alphas increase the neutral zone size and sign naval treaties limiting new ship deployment. This cold peace was known as the era of the trade wars."

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 11:58 pm: Edit

I suspect it'll be more like Y195 or maybe Y200...somewhere there.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 12:13 am: Edit

Certainly could be Y195, even Y190. It depends on how you look at it. Perhaps after Y190 all new construction ships are either built as X1 or XP. If you consider XP standardized X-Tech then it would be when XP starts. I'm fairly certain it won't be later than Y205.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 12:53 am: Edit

you can buy a limited number of XP with EP (I don't remember the limit and cost at the moment)

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 12:45 pm: Edit

I think 300 BPV for an X2 CA is too small.

Most technological leaps involve a roughly 50% increase in firepower over the previous generation ship.

Fed:

From	To	Pct Increase
WCL (57)	YCA (84)	47%
YCA (84)	CA (125)	48%
CA (125)	CB (162)	30%
CB (162)	CX (240)	48%

Klingon:

From	To	Pct Increase
D3(62)	D4 (75)	21%
D4 (75)	D6 (113)	51%
D6 (113)	D7W (161)	42%
D7W (161)	DX (250)	55%

Gorn:

From	To	Pct Increase
WCA (40)	YCC(64)	60%
YCC (64)	CC(124)	93%
CC(124)	CCH(171)	38%
CCH (171)	CCX(260)	52%

A 50% increase from a 240-260 BPV CX would mean a CXX should come in the 360-390 BPV range.

This is roughly the same points as a CCH escorted by 2 CAs.

A B10 with the B, K, Y175 refits and all drones as fast Type-1 but without the Mechlinks or SFGs would come in at 386.