Archive through January 25, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 Structural Integrity Field: Archive through January 25, 2003
By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 12:49 pm: Edit

Since this idea has become entangled in several cross posts, here is the thread to untangle the discussion

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 03:34 pm: Edit

To answer Mike in the "generic X2 hull" , what's wrong with a freighter with a SI feild?

I don't think anything. Freighters need durability too. Now Loren's SI field would benefit it more than mine would....

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 04:42 pm: Edit

Sure it benefits, but 2X technology on a freighter?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 05:12 pm: Edit

It's a judgement call to be sure.

For us the question is whether that makes freighters a little more fun to play (or at least uniform with other X2 stuff)

From the perspective of a trading company, a SI field offers definite advantages in its ability to protect the cargo. The question is whether the system pays for itself.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 05:50 pm: Edit

Hmm.......the SIF, at most, will save about 5-10 internals in a single turn. A raider won't have problems doing enough damage to take it out to the point of disabling it. An SIF would maybe be on the FedEx, maybe Free Traders, but not on a basic Freighter.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 07:01 pm: Edit

I had stated and stand by that any SIF should not protect the main cargo on freighters. Freighters use separate cargo containers and would require their own system that would have to be tunes to every freighter it attaches to. That's just too complicated. I could see the hull in the command and drive sections being protected but not the cargo. Cargo pods come in dozens configurations to hold any number of types of cargo. Adding a SIF to a cargo pod is too problematical.

My proposal is simple. It comes down to this: Power it and the first of every four hull or cargo in each volley gets marked off to the side of the ssd. Reinforce it and it's the first of every three. The power required is 2 from any source during EA. Reinforcement is 2 from any source. Reinforcement can come from reserve.

That's it. It doesn't have to have a H&R box. My first SIF proposal had it become off-line if the ship becomes uncontrolled. I could do that on this one.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 07:01 pm: Edit

I agree. The Fed-X carries expensive but small cargo...an SIF would be beneficial for such a small vessel. Bulk cargo carriers, though, won't get as much out of it. I can see 1X freighters running around with better shields, defenses and speed, but no 2X ones. The 2X stuff should still be experimental for the most part, and somewhat restricted.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 09:36 pm: Edit

Quote:

And why would anyone invest 2X technology in a freighter?



It'll come around eventually, maybe Y224. Fed X will get it a lot earlier.

Quote:

MJC,

A new TRACK?!?

I think your proposal fails the KISS test.



You must be misreading the Post...I think you'll find that that is not a TRACK but rather a TABLE.

Quote:

Michael, it definately fails the KISS test.

A couple questions:
Is the SIF field supposed to make ships more resistant to damage in general?

Or is it supposed to make it possible, given the massive amount of firepower these ships will probably have, to have ships take damage in more of an X0 style?

Is there a way to make the SIF work, keeping KISS in mind?

Given that an X2 CA is supposed to come in the 300-350 BPV range, can the SIF field be designed so that 2 X0 CAs (from any race) can score damage on it?



1) I knew it was a lot a rules for bringing down the S.I.F. but that was all it was, rules for bringing down the S.I.F. through damage of varrious kinds.
The rules put forward are to disable any S.I.F. anyone cares to place in X2 but my own prefered idea is the Double Hull strength one with the last point in the volley destroying one box if it hits one of these double strength boxes.

2) The double strength HULL box, Lab and Cargo Box and Shuttle Bay box will have an effect of mitigating the 50% increase in the number of Phasers that a CX has over a CA and the 50% increase in the number of Disruptors, creating a return to the magnitude of importants of the Mizia that was consistant to the MY ships, but I'm not entirely sure if yiou and I are the only people who want that.

3) I thought my methodology was simple. No one will actually roll on the S.I.F.C.C. disruption table unless one of two events occours. A) Players successfully make deliberate Assasination attacks against the S.I.F.C.C. or B) Excess Damage Hits and the breakdown number roll is failed.
One requires deliberate action, that can be guarded against and the other requires that the ship be so damagaged, that I suspect the ship will loose all it's Excess Damage Boxes and take an extra point or more and thus explode, long before the player needs to roll against break down numbers.
In play the S.I.F would just be looking at shi[ps Data on the SSD ( under the sheild but not directly under to avoid transposing numbers ) and looking at the values ( Say 1+13 ( for a small freighter ) ) and then writting into a line on the EAF that has either the left number of the total of the two to indicuate either full power status or low power status or non-powered status.
And then having particular types of boxes taking double damage.
You could fit all the information on the back of a business card ( with the bring down rules aswell as the which is low powered and which is full powered table ).

4) That's why I'm in favour of the double strength to types of boxes allocating one damage with the last point in the volley.
GW hits of one point will still destroy something.
GW Mizia 18s will still get 2 phasers, a Drone and a Torp.
GW Mizia's will get past the Sheild #7, eventually.

Quote:

That's X1...it doesn't address X2, and the consequence of having an SIF on a freighter. X1 freighters in the X2 period I can live with...2X freighters I just don't see.



AS I said by linking both the number of boxes with the size of the cargo boxes, in the design of the SSD, we can make freighters with lots of large Cargo Boxes require more power than a few small boxes then the Fed X2 can have five 25 point cago boxes and pay 1 point of power for them and a F-SXX will probably not come to pass, partly because bulk freighters need to be cheap and partly because you would be looking at powering her twenty-five 100 space cargo boxes with about 13 points of power.
This is because in the design stage the designer looked up that the cost of 25 space cargo boxes were 0.2 points of power per box and 100 space cargo boxes were 0.5 points of power each...and then wrote the correct value ( following the rules ) into the ship's data section in the S.I.F. spot.

Quote:

I had stated and stand by that any SIF should not protect the main cargo on freighters. Freighters use separate cargo containers and would require their own system that would have to be tunes to every freighter it attaches to. That's just too complicated. I could see the hull in the command and drive sections being protected but not the cargo. Cargo pods come in dozens configurations to hold any number of types of cargo. Adding a SIF to a cargo pod is too problematical.


There'sn a flaw in the logic that came about in the 1970s. It's called Containerization (and yes tha's how it's spelled).
The S.I.F. would only needed to increase the structural strength of the walls of the containers to grant and protection to the cargo and all the containers are standardised.

Quote:

I agree. The Fed-X carries expensive but small cargo...an SIF would be beneficial for such a small vessel. Bulk cargo carriers, though, won't get as much out of it. I can see 1X freighters running around with better shields, defenses and speed, but no 2X ones. The 2X stuff should still be experimental for the most part, and somewhat restricted.



Fast Bulk freight should be an oximoron...the things that should stop X2 Freighters from having a S.I.F. should be cost in power to opperate and cost in price to build, meaning that only free trader and Fed express X2 vessels will be built until almost they year X3 ( which should never come ) comes to fruitition...so let's leave F-SXX and F-LXX to the X2R module.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 11:10 pm: Edit

What do we have so far?

If a Fed X2 CA has the same number of hull boxes as a MY CA (12/4), and other races follow suit, they'll get crushed by the first solid hit that penetrates the defenses.


Apply an amount of power equal to the damage control rating.
A number of hull/cargo/excess damage hits equal to the power applied can be protected each turn.
The first box hit each turn scores actual damage, then the next __ points of hull damage bounce.
May be reinforced to 1 1/2 times the power level, but only at the start of the impulse.

Since the races knew that ships need to survive a solid hit with at least some of their weapons in tact, a similar SIF was developed for the phasers.

I propose a method for the X2 ph-5 to take damage and still be effective.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 01:43 am: Edit

Hmm. The SSDs would have to be huge to have 2 boxes for every phaser. Really don't like that idea.

I would make the reinforcement of the SIF happen during the impulse activity segment.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 08:06 am: Edit

Jeff,

I like the SIF idea. Simple, and not a game breaker. I'd envisioned 2X ships having about a 2 point higher Dam Con rating than their earlier counterparts, just becuase 2X stuff is going to be more expensive to repair. I'd also like to see a H&R box for the SIF...would make it interesting if someone raided you and broke it!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 10:08 am: Edit

J.T.:

I don't know what you've been smoking...

Quote:

What do we have so far?

If a Fed X2 CA has the same number of hull boxes as a MY CA (12/4), and other races follow suit, they'll get crushed by the first solid hit that penetrates the defenses.


Apply an amount of power equal to the damage control rating.
A number of hull/cargo/excess damage hits equal to the power applied can be protected each turn.
The first box hit each turn scores actual damage, then the next __ points of hull damage bounce.
May be reinforced to 1 1/2 times the power level, but only at the start of the impulse.

Since the races knew that ships need to survive a solid hit with at least some of their weapons in tact, a similar SIF was developed for the phasers.




Firstly, ships should be atleast as big as the X1 ships they superceed.

Secondly, there shouldn't be a limit to power based on Dam Con doubling the Dam Con's worth of certain types of boxes.
It should be lore like sheilds, with the ship's data having written X+Y where X is the low power setting and Y is the high power setting and there shouldn't be any adding of energy with BTTY during the impulse of of the attack.
You should allocate and not get until 4 Impulses latter ( at the minimum ) and you shouldn't egta one for one power to damage effect, you need a better effect or else the power would be better spent in Shields.

The SIF mustn't work like a sheild, it has to work like something else.
The draw back should be that powering the ship only protect certain kinds of boxes, meaning that weapons will still get plaster at the regular rate and that should eb balance by the fact that you should get about 2 ( or 5 ) points of damage ( depending on the results of playtesting ) stopped for every point of energy appied.

The tactic should be, if you know you're going to take lots of internal damage, put your first points of power after shields into SIF and if you think you're going to take only a handful of internals then you should put that power into SSReo where you can protect your weapon hits by absorbing the damage there, rather than simply waiting for the impulse of the attack and then dumping BTTY into the SIF.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 10:23 am: Edit

Quote:

Firstly, ships should be atleast as big as the X1 ships they superceed.



In terms of hull space, they should be roughly the same size.

In terms of weapons, no.
The X2 ships are to have more cruising range, which means more stuff on the ship that isn't on the SSD (crew quarters, food storage, recreation decks).
The X1 ships and the CCHs were designed stricly for combat. Rip out that 5th year worth of food storage and put in another phaser. Convert the bowling alley into a drone rack. Double up on crew quarters, and put in yet another phaser.

The Y205 X2 ships should have those extra phasers removed, and put the supply rooms back.

Quote:

The draw back should be that powering the ship only protect certain kinds of boxes, meaning that weapons will still get plaster at the regular rate and that should eb balance by the fact that you should get about 2 ( or 5 ) points of damage ( depending on the results of playtesting ) stopped for every point of energy appied.



That's why I proposed ph-5 be able to take 2 hits. The first hit damages it (makes it work like a ph-2), and the second hit destroys it (it doesn't shoot at all). Think of it as a new way of padding phasers, while still being able to use only the best.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 10:45 am: Edit

And which is better, I take my 2 A collum Phaser hits and loose 1 entire Ph-5 or drop 2Ph-5s down to Ph-2s...or are you going to outlaw that!?!


Phasers shouldn't bet PADDED WEAPONS, like the SFG which is just too critcal to battle simply let be destroyed.

Phasers are as common as dirt and should ide they way phasera always have...in one hit...you can always build a cheaper phaser in the repairs stage of the game with your CDR points.


Quote:

In terms of hull space, they should be roughly the same size.

In terms of weapons, no.
The X2 ships are to have more cruising range, which means more stuff on the ship that isn't on the SSD (crew quarters, food storage, recreation decks).
The X1 ships and the CCHs were designed stricly for combat. Rip out that 5th year worth of food storage and put in another phaser. Convert the bowling alley into a drone rack. Double up on crew quarters, and put in yet another phaser.

The Y205 X2 ships should have those extra phasers removed, and put the supply rooms back.



In terms of hull space the X2 will be much larger, the same way the Enterprise B is much larger than the Enterprise A.

In terms of opperating capasity, the ONE X2 cruiser that the Galactic powers will build each will be a purely tactical ship for exactly the same reasons as the DN being a purely tactical vessel, that is, it's too expensive to run during peacetime.

The DDXX and should be the backbone of the Galactic Powers X2 fleets and it is those DDXX that should have the higher Strategic Capasities, like more provisions and btter R&R facilities.


No more than 1 X2 cruiser shall be built by each race until the Xork invasion and at that point they prioritise the tactical requirements of the vessel of the "strategic".


Guys, I think it's time we started making the SSDs we put forward as either DDXX or FFXX.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 11:04 am: Edit

Now who's smoking stuff? The SSD's put forward so far are all X1 cruiser sized or larger...and you want them to be frigates or destroyers? Just what the hell is a 2X cruiser going to be, then? A 0X BB with some 2X goodies attached? If you want to propose that, it's your right to do so; heck, I'll even do the SSD for you. But surely by now you know you're the only one that wants monster-ships for 2X.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 11:55 am: Edit

You know, just as an observation from an observer to this discussion, you really cannot, in any way, shape, form, or color, compare the movie/series Enterprise line of ships (and subsequent growth of those ships) to X1/X2. At least not IMO.

The situtations are wholly different. The series ships weren't coming down off 30+ years of near constant warfare for one thing. The priorities would be very different in building and construction, as would the available economy.

Of course, this really doesn't relate to the proposed SIF, either.

Sorry for the digression. :)

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 01:35 pm: Edit

Quote:

In terms of hull space the X2 will be much larger, the same way the Enterprise B is much larger than the Enterprise A.



Any attempt to even try to justify anything in an SFB discusion by using Enterprise-B or TNG is a dead idea.

Enterprise-B is NOT part of SFB, even in the X2 era. We almost have to go out of our way to make sure it isn't.

Eventually, the DDs, FFs, CLs, and CAs all have to be included in an X2 module. So, we picked one ship and started working on it.

Quote:

Phasers shouldn't bet PADDED WEAPONS, like the SFG which is just too critcal to battle simply let be destroyed.



Hull shouldn't be padded either, by your logic. Yet, the SIF proposal is on the table.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 03:34 pm: Edit

Quote:

I'd also like to see a H&R box for the SIF...would make it interesting if someone raided you and broke it!



SIF should not be H&R-able.

At best I could see people using the Advanced Boarding party diagrams to disble the SIF in a section. The system (if it were to be accepted) is much too pervasive to be easily destroyed.

Note: I am not a big fan of the SIF. I feel it would slow down Damage Allocation... the slowest part of the game already... but I wanted to offer my 0.02.

42

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 08:15 pm: Edit

On one hand I agree with you Robert but I can also see a singular system that is the Advanced part of the SIF and so would be vulnerable to H&R. Of course if you don't guard your ASIF then well, too bad, heh?

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 10:26 pm: Edit

I disagree. There shouldn't be a H&R box for the SIF. It is a decentralized system, consisting of various force fields, force field generators, and computer controls.

Unlike the Cloaking Device that Capt. Kirk stole, there would be no single item to knock out a SIF.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 10:43 pm: Edit

There is already a SIF on every ship (it cannot be destroyed). The SIF we are discussing is an advanced system/device. The ASIF might be a centralized system.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 11:08 pm: Edit

Naa. This is more like being able to reinforce energy barriers and forcefields that keep the hull together. I don't think you can H&R that.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 02:49 am: Edit

Quote:

SIF should not be H&R-able.

At best I could see people using the Advanced Boarding party diagrams to disble the SIF in a section. The system (if it were to be accepted) is much too pervasive to be easily destroyed.



Agreed, uncontrolled status is better.

I wonder if BPs could knock out the SIF in a particular area by doing a highly Specialised attack against the Control boxes in that location...I wonder what would happen if a location didn't have a control box...best to leave it to a specialised function of vandalism.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 11:45 am: Edit

The ASIF ability being lost when uncontrolled makes good sense to me as well.

In any case I think there should be some way to lose the new special ability. And not just when all the hull is lost because what's the point.

Maybe with a Critical hit, but not every body plays critical hits.(I suppose that X2 ships may need their own critical hit chart).

Perhaps Uncontroled and critical hit could be ways to render a ASIF nonfunctional.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 01:16 pm: Edit

Losing the ASIF should be a crit hit, sure.

But, agreed, that shouldn't be the only way to lose it.

If you want a ASIF that still uses the hull method, you simply decouple it from the existence of hull boxes.

It absorbs hull hits every round equal to the energy you put into it, max energy = to the ship's damcon. it doesn't matter whether the ship actually has hull or not.

After all you're reinforceing the ship's hull, not its hull boxes.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation