Hmmm, not bad. Ya, that makes good sense!

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 01:32 pm: Edit

Can this discussion please take place in the Hull topic?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 01:40 pm: Edit

I think this topic should be used for general introduction of ideas. If it starts to fly then move the idea to another topic.

Major X2 Changes could be the parent topic to discuss X2 in general.

IMHO

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 03:26 pm: Edit

Actually, I'll second the move request.

Conversations tend to aquire some amount of intertia. For a simple example, the FRAX minisub topic and the light axon torp topic. Stuff that should go one place goes to the other.

I do this stuff too. I will often answer a post where I find it rather than xfer my reply to the appropriate thread, because then the same discussion is going on both places and you get crossposting...

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, January 06, 2003 - 06:28 pm: Edit

Federation CCX2, external view

This is a concept design by Loren. Basically, it bases the 2X CC off of the BC, rather than the CA. Neat looking, Loren!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 06, 2003 - 08:03 pm: Edit

As the CCX is based on the CC, I think the XCC (X2) should be based on the BCH. Not a monster ship and not a smaller ship. One of the things I like about the SFU is that it's a better history based on Star Trek. If it goes off totally on it's own tangent that I'll be disappointed. The SFU has followed the flow, in it's own way, up to this point. It has taken liberties both interesting and wise. But still taken the same heading. I hope it stays that way. We'll never have square engines and that's fine with me. The general trend though was a little bigger at least. Excelcier was a lot bigger but there is no need to blow game balance. And logically a lot bigger doesn't make much sense to me. The BCH, at the time, was the perfect cruiser for power and weight. That logic would, IMO, proceed on to X2.

That doesn't mean there is no place for smaller X2 ships. On the contrary, I think there would be many. As I said before, make the X2 CL the Fleet Workhorse. The XDD the main back up and the XFF specialized units, mission specific built with no standard combat version.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 06, 2003 - 08:04 pm: Edit

Thank you, Mike!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, January 06, 2003 - 11:58 pm: Edit

I'ld rather have rectangular engines.

I also think that size and weight have very little to do with each other.

If the big improovement of X2 was to advance, inertial dampeners then the Excellcior could be as big as it is, without a change in the movement cost....particularly if combined with an improoved warp feild design or functionality.

If the CCXX is Size Class 2 not 3 but only has the number of boxes as a BCG then that's okay....we won't spend all day checking off boxes and we won't break the game with uber-ships.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 01:43 am: Edit

"I'ld rather have rectangular engines."

One can dream.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 03:56 pm: Edit

MJC,

A MC1, SC2 cruiser is the stuff of Supplement 2.

As I have no respect for Old X2, I'd rather not go there or include anything that doesn't make complete concrete sense, which includes SC2 ships who have a MC of 1.

I'm happy to leave the Tholian D as the sole exception

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 02:03 am: Edit

Boy, Xander really started something, huh?

LOL

What a way to explode on the scene Xander!

"Hey, I have an idea...." KaBooom! (twenty topics!)

By michael wheatley (Mike_Wheatley) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 08:14 pm: Edit

Many people got confused by the X1 rules, in that they forgot which "X "modifiers applied to a given item on the SSD.
To prevent such confusion, I would strongly recomend that the new weapons be given new names, with unique rule new numbers.
E.g. don't call it an "X2 disruptor", call it a "dislocator", and create a new rule number for these "dislocators". (Or, ideally, a better name.)
Players reading the SSD will thus have ONE place to look, and can be sure that that one place has ALL the rules pertaining to that system.

By michael wheatley (Mike_Wheatley) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 08:45 pm: Edit

One of the things I most like about SFB is the way that ships gradually degrade during combat.
With huge reserve reinforcement and huge shields, this is in danger of being lost.
1st volly is absorbed by btty.
2nd volley by shields.
3rd volley fires the ship.
(Okay, I simplify a bit - but you get the gist.)

So, I would propose that the primary advantage of X2 weapons is not more damage, but the ability to penetrate shields. (Think Quari penetrator rounds.)
This would have to apply to all X2 weapons hitting a ship in a given volley (clearly, they are "quantum entangled".)
The damage would then skip every other (every third?) shield box.

E.g. X2 ship hits an X1 ship for 30 damage. The X1 drops 12 btty into reinforcement, and has 26 point shields.
The 30 damage knocks off 6 points from reinforcement, (leaving 6 still there,) meaning that 24 gets through to the shield.
The 24 damage knocks 13 points off the shield, leaving 13 still there, and meaning that 11 gets through to the ship.

The penetrative efficiency could vary between GW, X1, and X2. (As X2 shields would be designed to cope with "quantum tunneling" weapons.)

If this was done, the damage output of an X2 ship might even be LESS than an X1 ship - but worth it, as the damage is of better "quality". (To be decided by playtesting.)

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 10:51 pm: Edit

Michael, what you're proposing is essentially "X2 weapons force non-X2 shields to leak.

I for one do not like leaky shields in any form. Romulan War Eagle that takes one leak point that hits the R-torp.

Each tech level should have a distinctive feel in how ships fight. I agree that "eggshells armed with sledgehammers" is the extreme, but Early Years is "anvils armed with whiffle-ball bats". Different.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 02:34 am: Edit

Michael,

Check out discussions on Structural Integrity fields. We have three different proposals all with the specific intention of avoiding the problem you bring up.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 12:51 pm: Edit

Check out the new thread for Structural Integrity Fields.
Since there has been some cross-posting, I decided to make a new thread for the proposal.

By michael wheatley (Mike_Wheatley) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 04:51 pm: Edit

Jeff Tonglet,

I can see why you might mistake my proposal for "leaky shields", but it isn't.
With leaky shields, a fraction of any damage will get through. E.g. a prox photon vs 30 point shield, causing 3 shields hits and one internal.

With penetrative weapons, its more like:
"The weapon does more damage, but half of it is 'subdual', and is recovered after each volley".

Its real strength is that it makes shield reinforcement much less appealing - balancing out the vast amount of btty power available.
--
I suggest this as an alternative to awkward SIF rules, because... well, I don't like them.

The SIF paradigm is roughly:
Increase weapon damage to 150%.
Increase shields to 150%.
Create a SIF that soakes up 1/3 of all internals.

The Penatrative Weapons paradigm is roughly:
Increase shields to 150%.
Make shields only 67% effective vs X2 weapons.

SIF is interesting because it works differently to shields.
Penatrative Weapons are interesting because a lot of the shield is still there after the ship has taken internals.
--
Also, it gives me a valid reason to say "paradigm" twice in one post!

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 05:08 pm: Edit

So where do we put all these fancy new ideas into the timeline? XP shouldn't have any improvements over X1 but should they be in XR (Y205-224) or X2 (Y225+)?

GX2 Drone Rack - 4 space x 2 magazine for easier reloading in combat

SIF - Structural Integrity Field - no matter that we don't know what it looks like

Ph-V, Ph-3+, EW

Wider Arc HW - Think FH/RH Photons and such

Improved ESGs, Drones, Webs, Whatever

Speed 32, or 32+?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 06:40 pm: Edit

My thought: Default all new ideas to X2.

Now let me take that back (sorta): Just as MY/GW tech went through some upgrades and refits, so should X1. Some stuff should be destined for X1R revisions, but the majority for X2.

Most should wait until X2.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 08:53 pm: Edit

I concure. This main topic is originally about X2 and we need good new stuff for X2.
Though perhaps others did concurrently come up with the GX2 rack, when I proposed it, it was for X2 only. The SIF would have to be built into a hull from the keel up and, IMO, should be X2 only.

Wider arcs should be one of those things held onto to solve any short commings during play testing.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 10:41 pm: Edit

"This main topic is originally about X2"

But originally there was great debate if X2 was in Y205 or some later date. The current theory is X1R uses new hulls, could these hulls mount the new tech? Why/Why not?

I'm leaning toward new tech for XR to improve it over X1 but building smaller ships to keep the BPV reasonable.

X2 improvements would include faster strategic speeds, much longer cruising range, greater self repair capabilities, self replication of expendables (shuttles, drones, PPT, etc). These advantages won't be as obvious in a battle but could be a huge advantage in a campaign.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 10:46 pm: Edit

Tos, I think there is enough room for published ships by just putting existing X1 technology on all the other hulls and varients. a few varients may not be needed anymore (which is good, I don't want to have 6-7 XR modules, 2-3 should be enough), then let the X2 tech be invented and then you can have X2R where you put a limited amount of X2 tech on your X1 ships.

so I would call your eroa of 'better then X1' ships X2P not XR

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 10:46 pm: Edit

X1R/XR should include some evolutionary improvements just as MY/GW tech does.

In that sense, yes XR should have some minor new stuff.

Otherwise, save it for X2. That what I thought I was saying above, but it may not have been clear.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 10:53 pm: Edit

re: basing X2 off the BCH instead of the CC.

why shouldn't there be a BCHX during the XR period? then your XCA will be roughly equivalent to a BCHX/DNX or a GW era BB

don't trap yourself into thinking that a CX is the lsrgest X1 technology ship that can be built. the reces have been building larger ships for a LONG time, why would they stop now? they didn't build them early on in the X1 era becouse they are less efficiant (build cost/combat effectivness) so they opted for more but smaller units (and the old style big ships were still as effective as the new high tech ships) as the fleets fill out with the new ships the larger ships will also be built with the new technology to be able to keep up with the strategic speeds and to give the major fleets that extra punch (they may almost never use it, but every theater commander would want one, just in case)

By David Lang (Dlang) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 10:55 pm: Edit

john, if you are refering to things like the various refits te ships received during the general war, I'm not opposed to the concept, but given the short timeframe will it really be needed?

it sounded like people were talking as if a XR CA hull would be better then a X1 CA hull and I'm saying that they should be the same family of technology