Archive through January 29, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 SSD's: Archive through January 29, 2003
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 09:33 pm: Edit

Quote:

What is a Phaser 7?



There was a time about 2 weeks ago when the Phaser names were almost settled and at that point the Ph-7 was the Ph-3 analog.

Since we're not likely to see 4 new phasers, I'ld rather call the Base mounbted phaser a Ph-6 because it's 50% more powerful than a Ph-4 in the important ranges in the imporatnat results.

So I think the Phaser should be.
Ph-5, the Ph-1 analog.
Ph-6, the Ph-4 analog.
And Ph-7, the Ph-3 analog.

Quote:

Jeff, where's the crew for these? Also, can you describe the SIF rules you're using? That would help evaluate the toughness of the ships. They look good, though!



I'ld rather skip the track, although that remainds me of an idea for the track that I would like to put forward in the Phaser thread.

Quote:

Considering the normal Kzinti complement of drone racks is 2xB + 2x C, if you're going to do 8 racks, you should go 4xBx, 4xCx. That would also give much-needed anti-drone capability.

That would also fill out 2x drone control.



Look at the Kzinti BCH from R2, 2C 2B and a G.

That's too rapid fire for softening up the enemy phaser and ADD defesense, 2 Long ammo racks to hold the heavie hitters and 1 flex' weapon to launch ADDs, Type VI or Type IVs as the situation didctates.

I'ld say the Kzinti CCXX wouldhave ( assuming 8 racks ) 2C 4B & 2 G or ( assuming 6 racks ) 2C 2B & 2G.

Quote:

If a P-IV and a PL-R are one hit weapons I think we should keep the P-5 a one hit weapon.


You I'm definatley going to say something in the phaser thread.


Quote:

John, how will BX and CX racks give ADD ability? I thought only GX racks could use them. If using 8 racks, I'd go with a similar layout to the Kzinti CCX; four GX racks, and four CX racks.



Actually a CX is like can launch 1 space drones at targets, so it'ld be like an overkill X2E-rack with a slower rate of fire...it'ld be somewhat better for killing fighter `tho' easpecially with swordfish and armour modules.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 09:35 pm: Edit

First, I assumed that drones would all be speed 32 when I designed those ships, and that X2 drones would be bigger and tougher, but not faster. If that changes, the drone defense will also have to change.

Klingon vs. Kzinti
My idea since this X2 dialoge began has been that there should be something distinctive between the Klingon and the Kzinti ships.

They both have 4 disruptors and a bunch of phasers, so the real opportunity to be distinctive should be the drones.

Kzinti Drones:
Traditional opponents (Klingon/Lyran) like using ADDs and ESGs as their primary drone defense, and phasers are secondary.

Given a choice between more drones and bigger drones, the Kzintis chose to put their research into More Drones.

The resulting gizmos:


I deliberately took the Gx and Gxx racks off the Kzinti ship to elininate the ADDs. Call it "racial flavor"

Klingon Drones:
Opponents (Fed/Kzinti) like using phasers as their primary drone defense, so the Klingons would put their research into Bigger Drones


Crew:
I downloaded the tournament ships which don't have crew boxes, and didn't feel it was important enough to add. I guess 2-5 more crew units than the corresponding X1 ship.

SIF:
I just added boxes on the side because I knew there would be some sort of SIF on the ship. But I have no idea what the final SIF is going to look like.

Disruptor Rifle
I put the idea on the table as one way of merging particle cannons with disruptors. Maybe the 8 point mega-shot is too much. If so, then we can reduce the capacitor to 6 points and get rid of it. Then again, the Kzintis have been trying to overload a disruptor cannon since they first met the Carnivarons.

2 box phasers:
I had to illustrate what I was talking about when I was saying a phaser could be damaged and still fire at reduced strength.

I don't like the idea of putting 12-16 ph-5 on a cruiser. It's too much firepower to have any chance of balancing against X1 or X0.

At range 8, 12 ph-5 => 40 points damage.
You score a down shield plus internals and/or drained batteries. AND THAT'S IF ALL THE HEAVY WEAPONS MISS. For an X1 ship to do that, it would have to get in near range 2.

But 8 ph-5 runs into the "eggshell" problem. So I put the 2 box phasers on the ship as a way to get around both problems. It hardens the eggshell while reducing the sledgehammer's power.

And if we got the timeline right, then a Y205 ship is supposed to have more of a Y140-Y165 "peacetime" feel to it, rather than the Y175-Y185 "big warship" feel.

Yes, it is a new idea (aside from the SFG), but then isn't part of X2 supposed to be new stuff?

After running the averages, I saw that
Rangefirepower
Range 0-5 6 ph-5 = about 7 ph-1
Range 6-8 6 ph-5 = about 9 ph-1
Range 9-75 6 ph-5 = about 12 ph-1


Since a Fed CX can put 9 ph-1 into any FH target, I wanted a ship that could fire 6 FH ph-5, then put the RH phasers in to look like a + refit. At long range, the X2 CA is stronger. But if the X1 CA + DD squadron can get in close, it can still score a ton of damage.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 08:26 am: Edit

Seeing Jeff's Kzinti gave me some thoughts about how I'd do my own. So, for comparison, here it is. I already took advantage of some of the comments posted here in making it, but the overall design is very similar in concept to the other 2X stuff I've put forward. It's based on the 1X Kzinti CC

Mike's Kzinti 2XCC

There are quite a lot of defensive phasers on this one, and I followed the suggestion by Loren that the P-5 be mounted only on the hull, not the wings. The big differences, though, are the NWO, and the disruptor cannon. This was an idea first proposed by Loren*, and after reading the original DC rules in module Y, I think it makes sense. The rules claim that the Kzinti did try to copy the carnivon DC, but didn't like it because it couldn't be overloaded. With the 2X version seen on this SSD, I'd proposed that it could be overloaded, along with a range increase comparable to the other 1X and 2X weapons of the day. Gaining that ability would make it an attractive option for the Kzinti, who would be the only race to have it. It differs from the original only in that it can be overloaded; so, for double the power, you can double the damage. It contrasts nicely with the rapid fire disruptor the Klingons would use, and IMHO is a nice way to maintain some racial flavor AND bring back a neat early technology to the 2X era.

* Loren has his own proposal for this that is somewhat different from mine, but the basics are that where I gave them the opportunity to overload the DC, he went with them being able to fast-load it. Two different approaches; one for faster fire, one for heavier.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 11:52 am: Edit

The original DC rule also mentioned that they ditched it for both reasons. I.E. for the faster firing weapon that could be overloaded.

The basic damage out put is the same for both options. I figured that the Kzintis would like the ability to use it as a stand off weapon. Since it is a "double standard Disruptor damage" weapon it is like firing a OL standard with unlimited range. As a drone user I think this would be a very attractive option.

However, the Crunch value of Over Loading a DC is something the Kzinti have never had and would find attractive. They would have to change their old style but that is not a bad thing. Fired as standard it is pretty valuable too (but half as often so it's a bit like the photon of old). They don't have to worry about getting into OL range much because with the power involved your enemy will be comming to you (i.e. you would be moving all that fast.) That doesn't mean you'll be playing his game. You have a plethora of drones that say "No, this is still my game!"

So it comes dowm to this. Do we choose for the Kzinti to be long rangers lobbing drones and beating their enemies with double sized disruptors? Or do we want them to be a "Set them up with drones and clobber them every OTHER turn"?

Both are attractive but VERY different. The first is more their past doctrine the latter...a more agressive aproach and more tactically challenging.

Arming LKs DC: 2+2=standard or fast load for 4= standard every turn.

Arming MRs DC: 2+2= standard or 4+4= Overload (basically quadriple a standard Disr).

To be able to do both is way too much. Besides it's more interesting to have one or the other I think.


Hmmm. What if the Lyrans (also having a hand in destroying the Carnivons) used the option that the Kzintis didn't. One option would be to give the Lyrans Mike design because they like to close in with ESGs anyway and the Kzintis use mine to stay with their past doctrine. OR would it be more interesting to do it the opposite. Mixing them up. ESGs and OL DCs would mean sudden death for any one who gets close.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 12:12 pm: Edit

I would actually prefer to see Lyrans get an overloadable Disruptor Cannon in X2 while the Kzinti and Klingons retain Disroptor Bolts. The heavier hitting weapon seems well suited as a compliment to offensive ESG tactics.

For the drone users, I like the heavy weapon that has lower hitting power (but lower arming requirements). It allows more flexibility in the allocation of power. The ability of a Kzinti ship to close with disruptors uncharged at high speed for an anchor is made possible partially by the low cost of quickly arming a disruptor.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 12:35 pm: Edit

Well, Mike R.s version has the same power requirements as the normal disruptor but it is a two turn arming weapon and thus does double the damage when fired.

I fear that with ESGs and a OL-able DC Lyrans overruns will be worse than Hydran overruns with fighters! We're talking up to 80 points from OL DCs alone. Add four XESGs, 8 Ph-Vs and defense phasers and aaaakkkk!

The only way you'll get internals on a Lyran XBC is with your own explosion!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 12:38 pm: Edit

I think I'll add up R1 Alpha Strike maximums (OL Torps + all Phasers in one direction) and see if there is a roof we should try to hit for X2. Ships with 160+ point alphas is too much.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 12:47 pm: Edit

I just posted a bit in the X2 Disruptor thread... but here's a ship.

Again, this isn't a proper X2 ship... but a good opportunity to "show off."




42

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 01:45 pm: Edit

Actually, Jeremy, I'd have to humbly disagree. I did consider the impact this would have, and wondered about it being a Lyran vs. a Kzinti option. I chose the Kzinti for two reasons:



That was my line of reasoning, though I'm certainly open to other ideas.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 02:12 pm: Edit

I personally think the Lyrans are not straped for power if flown properly, but that may just be my playing style. I guess it really depends on what type of DC we are talking about, what are the power requirements, and how are the ships designed. I tend to think of Lyrans as crunch ships, Kzintis as "hack and slash" ships, and Klingons as sabre dancers.

The DC just seems very well suited to the Lyran "crunch", which generally takes two turns to set up properly from an EA standpoint, and due to cycle times on the ESG. The Lyran really has little incentive to remain engaged without ESGs available so being able to come back in two turns with a hard hitting weapon (which takes two turns to arm) could be seen as advantageous.

The Kzintis & Klingons just seem better able to get into the fight and stay their for several turns without backing off. I would think that neither would want to adopt a slower arming weapon that would force them to open the range for a turn to reload.

In any case, I would like to see a wide variety of weapons in X2, with few, if any races, using the exact same heavy weapon. I'd really prefer to see the Kzinit, Lyran, and Klingons all end up with heavy weapons that took the disruptor bolt (or cannon) in a different direction. Likewise, I'd like to see this happen with other weapons like drones or plasmas. In a much earlier post on X2 (sometime early last year) I proposed a lot of these ideas, but I fear those proposals have since been lost to history.

As you say, opinions may differ. I'm certainly not as involved in the X2 threads as most (I'm not really anxious to see it anytime soon... just a personal thing), so take my suggestions with a grain of salt.

I did post my propsal for an overloadable GW-era dirsruptor cannon over in the X2 disruptor threat to serve as another possible data point.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 04:58 pm: Edit

I can respect that, Jeremy, and my disagreement is nothing personal...it's just my particular view. I like Lorens proposal as well, and could easily go with either. It's heartening, though, to see that there has at least been no great hue and cry claiming that the DC is a bad idea...that's really what I'm after, more than anything else. It's a darn cool weapon, and for the Kzinti to adapt it makes a fair amount of historical sense. Anyhow, I am working on a Lyran 2X CC, but I'm frankly at a loss about what to do with the ESG. Making it bigger/stronger doesn't seem appealing; it needs something different, but I don't know what yet. If it wasn't such a bitchy rule, I'd go with somehow making the ESG a flexible device, one that you could expand and contract one hex radius per impulse if you wanted. The constant re-calculating the power change would seem a real book keeping nightmare, though.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 05:17 pm: Edit

Well, akkk, but with most races being able to do their Alphas at longer range maybe give it a R4 ring??

Maybe give the Lyrans a Frequency Nullifier Device. It is pre-set for the fleet to allow the ships shields to not take damage from a same fleet ESG. If no shields then damage is taken. It couldn't be copied because the frequency pattern of both the ESG and the Frequency Nullifier are set before the fleet conducts a mission. Give it a hit and run box or tie it to the bridge. If the Bridge is lost so is the ability. No power cost.

Hey, I like that one.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Also the shrinking/expanding concept

Also the ability to drop 60-degree arcs temporarily.

Also loosening the generating ESG-within-ESG restrictions.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 09:55 pm: Edit

Quote:

I don't like the idea of putting 12-16 ph-5 on a cruiser. It's too much firepower to have any chance of balancing against X1 or X0.



It's more like 12Ph-5s or 16Ph-1s.

Quote:

At range 8, 12 ph-5 => 40 points damage.
You score a down shield plus internals and/or drained batteries. AND THAT'S IF ALL THE HEAVY WEAPONS MISS. For an X1 ship to do that, it would have to get in near range 2.



What will the BPV be?
At 500 BPV the 2 X1 DXs can hurl 60 points points of damage at you at R8 with disruptors alone. In a perfect Oblique? The 14Ph-1s will also do another 30.33 points of damage.

Against 12 Ph-5s ( and I'ld like not to have all 12 be able to bear ) and four 24 point photons, you'll get ( 40 + 48 ) 88 points of damage compaired to the 2DX and their 90.33 points of damage.

We could very easily be looking at a 480 BPV ship, which I would think is quite fair.
The 320 CLXX that you want is in my opinion, quite a good idea for the early period of X2 and the 12 gun 480 BPV CCXX is better for the post Xork inavasion period.

Quote:

Well, akkk, but with most races being able to do their Alphas at longer range maybe give it a R4 ring??



Well actually, despite being like flying a gas giant.

The Ph-2 was the old Offensive/Defensive Phaser, Now the Ph-1 is the new Offensive/Defensive Phaser.
The Ph-2 had an effective range of 3 which was the same as the ESG.
The Ph-1 has an effective range of 5 so the ESG should really have it's maximum radui brought out to 5.
I think the power in the ESG cap should go up to 10 points and the damage multipliers should be:-
R0 x4
R1 x 3.66
R2 x 3.33
R3 x 3
R4 x 2.5
R5 x 2


That way the massive increase in radius and power won't couple together to be more than 2.3 times as effective as the X1 ESG.
But a Max radius Max power X2-ESG will do a max power and minimum radius GW ESG damage...which isn't that much of of a shift.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 12:05 am: Edit

The disruptor cannon might be the way to go with the Kzintis. The only thing is that they would like a weapon that doesn't cost any power on the off turns, so they can roar in at high speed behind a wave of drones, then use the disruptors to polish off what the drones leave behind. That's one reason they like the disruptor bolt.

Quote:

We could very easily be looking at a 480 BPV ship, which I would think is quite fair.
The 320 CLXX that you want is in my opinion, quite a good idea for the early period of X2 and the 12 gun 480 BPV CCXX is better for the post Xork inavasion period.



I think you're alone on that one. A 480 BPV ship is way over the top.

Guys, correct me if I'm wrong, but the consensus was more like 275-350 for the Y205 CA, and 200-250 for the Y205 CL. Once someone else writes what the Xorks look like, then we'll know what we're talking about for the Y225 ships.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 12:08 am: Edit

I'm willing to go as high as 375, but when you get to 400, sell.

When X1R kicks in, we're likely to see 280-300 BPV BCXs.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 12:39 am: Edit

"When X1R kicks in, we're likely to see 280-300 BPV BCXs."

Not likely. Module X states that fitting X1 tech. on those hull designs was too much. The problems were overcome and that's what X2 is.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 12:39 am: Edit

Jeff T. That is the target area, I think.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 07:00 am: Edit

Trouble is, we don't know how to calculate the BPV of a lot of the X systems not shown on the SSD's. How much is an SIF worth? I have no clue, and I don't think the rest of us do, either.

Quote:

The disruptor cannon might be the way to go with the Kzintis. The only thing is that they would like a weapon that doesn't cost any power on the off turns, so they can roar in at high speed behind a wave of drones, then use the disruptors to polish off what the drones leave behind. That's one reason they like the disruptor bolt.



That's true, but with the proposed power we're seeing, they can spend the 16 points of power needed to overload four DC's, and still make speed 30 with no problem. That's worst case; if they chose not to overload, they wouldn't even have to think about it.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 08:25 am: Edit

The old measure was a CX + a DDX would be arounf the BPV of a CCXX, which would be a BPV of ( 240 + 170 Using Revised Feds ) 410.

I'ld be will to see refitted X2 ships in X2R or some such. What really matters is that the DDXX and FFXX work correctly because if they're wrong ( or wrong from from a design point of veiw rather than BPV ) then the game will be splintered as the people who love GW ships will refuse to play against the X2s becuase of unblancing effects...you know My CA does two 12 point Mizias and then your FFXX is completely out of guns or some or other game breaking situations.
The CCXX will likely only fight it'self in battles or task groups of smaller X2s which means they can have the same Achillis' Heel as each other and it won't be such a big deal.


Quote:

Trouble is, we don't know how to calculate the BPV of a lot of the X systems not shown on the SSD's. How much is an SIF worth? I have no clue, and I don't think the rest of us do, either.



I have a clue but only if it works a certain way.
If we double lab and Shuttle and Hull and Cargo and Bridge Boxes, then it'll effectively be the BPV cost of adding 1 hull box for every box that was doubles, minus some factor for the fact that power must be dumped into it.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 08:40 am: Edit

Not sure I want 480 points for a cruiser, but I'm not slamming the door on it just yet. That being said, I do think basing X2 BPV on what the Xorks may or may not be is tilting at windmills. Right now, we have no clue at all what the Xorks will look like...none. If they're worse than the Andros, you can bet we're talking high BPV's. We don't know what SVC's intentions are with the Xorks, when they'll arrive, or what's going to happen when they do. If the basic formula of "my 400 BPV of X1 ships can whip your 400 points of X2 ships half the time" still works, than it doesn't bother me if we create 400 point ships that everyone likes. Personally, I think the CCXX's should be around 375 to 400, but these ships would be rare; the bulk of the 2X fleet would be 250-300 point CL's, or 150-200 frigates or destroyers.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 09:25 am: Edit

I think your line of reasoning puts the cart before the horse. I'm sure Steve's intentions will be to have the Xorks historically balanced. Specifically, the Xorks will be better then what we have to initially defend with, equal to what we will have when we max out X2 tech and crank up production, and less then what we will have when we finally push them back. Following that line of reasoning the Xorks will be balanced against what the traditional races have, not the other way around.

I'd also suggest that heavy BPV talk migrate to the BPV topic for archival purposes.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 12:04 pm: Edit

There is another way the Xorkaelians might be able to beat us with out having too superior of technology.

Vast numbers. The Xorkaelians control six galactic sectors giving them probalbly twice the resources of the entire F&E guys. Also, I'm sure we wont be fully united for some time. They might succeed in separating the races and cutting off comunication for a time. After the Andromedan war this side of the disk is ripe for a massive invasion.

SVC said: Think of the Xorkaelians as North Korea controling all of China, Siberia and Mongolia (or something close to that). SVC doesn't lend to partial examples (i.e. there are other countries that are nasty that could have been used) and the map produced by Johnathan with help from SVC, lends to the fact that there will be huge numbers in their fleets.

A country like The Greater Korean Empire would be one to be feared by the U.S. today. Not so much from technical superiority (which would be good no doubt) but from mass hords of attacking enemies.

I don't expect the Xorks to have super ships. I'm expecting a lot of good ships.

X2 needs to be balanced for current SFB. If X2 comes first then the Xorks will be balanced to that. Though I'll bet there will be a few senarios where surviving will be a main victory goal for the F&E races!

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 02:11 pm: Edit

Jeff,

Early in X1, you're right, but if you read those same sources, you will find they mention eventually making BCX's, then X2.

Lacking BCX's, 300 if a perfect target.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 04:17 pm: Edit

The problem with quantity is it quickly becomes impossible to play in SFB.

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