The only thing I know of in this whole X project that's sanctioned is what's already been published. (Module X1 and CL23).

About a month back, someone posted something like: "I'd like to see an X2 module. What should be in it?"

Somewhere among all these X2 threads is the answer to that question.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 12:54 pm: Edit

Xander began this most popular line of threads in PROPOSALS/THE X FILES/MAJOR X2 CHANGES...

SVC popped up his head and stated that X2 and X1R were posabilities. Many times in the rules it is stated there will be an X2 and work will begin on that some day.(and since the will be a Xorkellian Invasion I'd say that is even more of a sure thing.) SVC said we might be saving him a lot of work or waisting a lot of time. In the mean time we're all having fun!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 01:03 pm: Edit

MJC: Why would a BCHX (which is stated in the rules as to not being possible, much to my own dissappointement) have 25 box warp engines when the CCX has 20? The 25 box engine rivals the Gorn DN engine and has been established as problematical for many of the races. I wanted to go with the x1.5 engine to reduce the size. The power output is higher but it is a little more vulnerable. It get further protected by other systems like the ASIF or such. I submit that the X2 x1.5 warp be easier to repair but cannot be repaired will "Hot". So you would have to choose to run the engine you are repairing at 1:1 while you repair it. Warp Engines might get their own CDR track (not on the SSD but a separate accounting in addition to normal CDR, say 1/2 the DC rating.)

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 02:02 pm: Edit

I really don't think we want to get into the multiple power from a single box.

Reasoning. A warp hit will hurt a X2 ship more than a X1 ship or GW ship, by removing a larger percentage of power.

What is wrong with an X2 CA having 2x25 point warp engines and a smaller engine in the saucer?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 02:26 pm: Edit

Here is how I saw it. During non-combat missions the engines would run normally to provide 1:1 power(cleaner running with near no mantainance required). In combat you would run "Hot" as a normal thing (and requireing considerable post senario maintainance) except if you wanted to repair then during combat, then you would have to reduce to normal.

If the X2 ship has 25 point warp engines then I would eliminate the SIF from the design as I proposed that to protect the more vulnerable warp under the guise of providing more protection for the crew.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 02:29 pm: Edit

I thought we had settled on the SIF protecting everything but power and weapons?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 02:54 pm: Edit

This stuff shifts--and has to shift because it is interrelated.

A ship with 50 warp takes damage differently that a ship with 25 boxes of warp that generate 2 power each.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 02:58 pm: Edit

indeed, That was my point. If you have 25 boxes that generate 2 power, each hit takes away 4% of your warp power. 1 hit on 50 boxes takes away 2%.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 03:02 pm: Edit

Certainly.
Cfant: I was not apart of any discussion (Not that my presence is requires or anything) that the SIF cover anything other than Hull and Cargo. Everything else has electronics that burn out and would not be protected by a SIF. As I see it the SIF reinforces the structural members and bulkheads of a ship not the componants. Besides, when you protect the hull you are protecting everything else by default.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 03:05 pm: Edit

Well, I always think of the SIF as an energy field that can absorb some energy overload, and thus could defend things like the bridge and labs etc.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 03:43 pm: Edit

Remember that there is already the SIF in SFB but it is built into the design and not represented separatly. It keeps the hull together as a fail safe mechanism. So anything we propose would be an Advanced SIF.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 04:43 pm: Edit

right.....what I said was different how?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 05:27 pm: Edit

The point of potential difference or confusion is whether the ASIF would cover the warp engines if they were 25x 2-pt boxes.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 09:01 pm: Edit

Cfant
Well, hmmm. Thinking... You said you thought of the SIF as able to absorb overload energy. I assume this means able to absorb or dissipate actual energy like electrical or other high energy overloads. Thus it would protect circutry as well as actual hull members.

The difference is that I see the SIF as a force field that reinforces the hull structure. That is how I have always heard it defined. So it's like adding more steel to each beam, gurder and hull plate but in the form of an energy field. To bend or break a steel I-beam you would have to over come the strength of the I-beam AND the power of the SIF that is holding it in place. This type of SIF is built into all ships and in not represented separatly. The ASIF does more of the same but you have to charge it separatly to strengthen the hull further when in a combat situation. The SIF and ASIF work together to toughen up the hull depending on the level of combat expected. But this would not protect energy surges from traveling around the ship and burning out electronics. So everything else gets damaged normally but the hull stays intact...better. Ultimatly since you can take more hull hits on the DAC all other systems are protected to a degree.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 09:44 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

MJC: Why would a BCHX (which is stated in the rules as to not being possible, much to my own dissappointement) have 25 box warp engines when the CCX has 20?

---

---

Quote:

I really don't think we want to get into the multiple power from a single box.

Reasoning. A warp hit will hurt a X2 ship more than a X1 ship or GW ship, by removing a larger percentage of power.

What is wrong with an X2 CA having 2x25 point warp engines and a smaller engine in the saucer?

---

---

Quote:

I thought we had settled on the SIF protecting everything but power and weapons?

---

---

Quote:

Certainly.
Cfant: I was not apart of any discussion (Not that my presence is requires or anything) that the SIF cover anything other than Hull and Cargo. Everything else has electronics that burn out and would not be protected by a SIF. As I see it the SIF reinforces the structural members and bulkheads of a ship not the componants. Besides, when you protect the hull you are protecting everything else by default.

Well, I always think of the SIF as an energy field that can absorb some energy overload, and thus could defend things like the bridge and labs etc.

---

---

Quote:

The point of potential difference or confusion is whether the ASIF would cover the warp engines if they were 25x 2-pt boxes.

---

---

Quote:

The difference is that I see the SIF as a force field that reinforces the hull structure. That is how I have always heard it defined.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 10:04 pm: Edit

"Simply the SIF should protect the Engines by Default and not by Direct effect."

Hey, that's it. I agree.

Regarding bridge and such. The standard SIF does protect the bridge so a good portion of the damage to a bridge is electronic burn out. Even if a ASIF stops the roof from caving in on the bridge it is still suseptable to burnouts. That's why I don't think a ASIF should cover such things.

On a side note:
Hull is such a plain thing and has never been anything interesting. I had thought that having a ASIF would make hull a more interesting part of the game.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 10:17 pm: Edit

Getting back to Disruptors.


It's seems we are getting Ph-5s ( The PVA and PVB ) that have sweetspots out side of ( or at but it's still very effective outside of that range ) range 8.

Consequently these ships can do real damage to the sheilds on a CX and probably internals on a DDX if you can get about 8 to bear, with phasers alone.

The X1s can't really do anything about this, except some how get the enemy vessel inside R8 and then blast them with Overloaded weapons.


This being the case, I fear that we may have to resort to getting the R8 X1 shot through forcing the X2 vessels to also suffer from the R8 Overload limit.

How do people feel about this?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 10:36 pm: Edit

That's why I suggested a P-5 based on the Megaphaser, whose sweet spot is at range-8.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 10:47 pm: Edit

Playtesting might be needed. If OL range jumps to 10, and phasers to good damage out to 10, but there's a sharp drop off at 11, it might still be workable. Or, if we keep the ph-1 and extend OL range to 10.

If we keep ph-1 and we keep OL range to 8, then there has to be some other gizmo that defines X2 weapons tech.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 11:21 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

That's why I suggested a P-5 based on the Megaphaser, whose sweet spot is at range-8.

---

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 11:36 pm: Edit

Count me in as one of those who would be bugged by 21 ph-1 on a cruiser. But then, I'm saying 8 phasers better reflects "extended cruising range" for the Y205 period.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 11:46 pm: Edit

21 phasers .....count me as buggy.

I still think 10xPhaser-5 and 2xPhaser-1/6 should be the phaser suite of an X2 Standard Crusier.

If we are saying that the average BPV of this ships will about around 300, then we match this against...what a DNH? A DNH has..12-14 P-1s?

That would be 10 to 14. How does that match up MJC?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 11:54 pm: Edit

Check out the X2 Ph-1 topic. I just extended the analisys of the Ph-VB averages to compair with the Ph-1 averages. I think the Ph-VB needs a little boost at R5 but it's pretty powerful. I'm going to present further analisys later(between the Ph-VB and the Ph-1).

This discussion belongs there anyway.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 03:16 pm: Edit

Mike,

Considering the problems the ADB had with 1-dimensional phaser tactics brought on by overloads, keeping the P-5 "sweet spot" behind OL range might very well be a good thing.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 03:53 pm: Edit

If the phasers and the HW both have the same sweet spot then we are repeating the mistakes of the past.