| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 05:21 pm: Edit |
There's the rub. The combination of altered tech and BPV increase weights the scaes against lower-tech ships, even if the BPV is equal.
But at the same time, we need definite breaks between X1 amd X2.
We may need to do away with BCXs or simply allow a BCX1 to be in the same BPV range as a CCX2
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 08:35 pm: Edit |
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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 John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 09:35 pm: Edit |
480's simply too high.
The tech difference coupled with combat power exceeding a battleship (which is what a 480 BPV must imply), would not allow X2 to play nice with GW tech. And that is a requirement of SVC's.
("playing nice" means that equal BPV of one tech level and another are a 50-50 fight. An example of not playing nice is equal BPV of EY tech and X1 tech. X1 tech will clean EY's clock consistently. X1 does play nice with GW with the CL23 errata. It really didn't before)
I would really prefer to keep to our original target of 300-320. Upping that to 350-375 is not something I particularly want to do.
From my perspective, 480 is right out. 400 is the absolute upper limit.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 10:02 pm: Edit |
I think our original aim of 410 ( a CX + a DDX ) should be our aim.
In that we SSD makers will undoubtedly have 20-25% too little BPV for the boxes and systems we put on the SSD, so let's aim for 320 to 360 and we'll then find the ships' BPVs naturally drift up to 410.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 10:40 pm: Edit |
makes sense.
If we put the kabosh on BCX's the limit goes back to 300 though
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 11:23 pm: Edit |
All I will stay is if we start low we can always raise BPV to combat the Xorks by converting starships into warships. If we start too high we're stuck.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 11:48 pm: Edit |
We also need noticable jumps in capability between CCX1->BCX1->CCX2.
If no BCX1, I'm right there with ya.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 12:23 am: Edit |
I think a XCC should beat a CCX all the time. Team up a CCX and a DDX and the XCC should lose, but put up a substantial fight maybe making the effort not worth it as there would be almost a guarantee that the DDX would die.
Add a XFF to the XCC and it's an even fight. (XFFs should be fairly cheep and very common). Any number of things could even up the fight as well.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 01:36 am: Edit |
I never bought a standard that requires Ship A + Ship B = Ship C. or that required A + B > C or < C
Let the ships fall where they may, I say.
(Ow. The Legendary R-Torp topic is getting to me)
| By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 01:40 am: Edit |
If you spread that, I swear I'll hurt you
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 08:30 am: Edit |
Quote:I think a XCC should beat a CCX all the time. Team up a CCX and a DDX and the XCC should lose, but put up a substantial fight maybe making the effort not worth it as there would be almost a guarantee that the DDX would die.
Add a XFF to the XCC and it's an even fight. (XFFs should be fairly cheep and very common). Any number of things could even up the fight as well.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 09:48 am: Edit |
X2 will have more advanced technology, improved weapons and defense, reduced operating and maintenance costs, high strategic speed, multi-mission capable hulls with average crews. We can have the 'generational leap' you desire without dramatically increasing BPV. You will get the BPV increases you crave when we go to war.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 10:22 am: Edit |
This is a nomaclature I have stuck with and would like to offer this as proof that it still stands with ADB. I copied this from the AO topic. The Caps are SVCs reply.
"Can the D5DX be changed to XD5 so it fits on the counter better?
NO. IF THE X IS IN FRONT, IT'S 2ND GENERATION X-SHIP.
MJC: You might want to re-read my post in that light.
| By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 08:16 pm: Edit |
Mike,
I am emailing you a second set of X2 SSDs.
Let me know if you receive them.
To sum up, here are the changes:
all
Eliminated the 2 box phasers
Fed
No other changes
Klingon
Changed the Klingon to a ph-5/ph-1 mix
Kzinti
Changed the Kzinti to a ph-5/ph-6 mix
Changed the 8 CXX racks to 6 CXX and 2 GX (1st X gen)
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 08:20 pm: Edit |
Here you go, Jeff!
Jeff's Federation XCC, version 2.
Jeff's Klingon XCC, version 2.
Jeff's Kzinti XCC, version 2.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 09:46 pm: Edit |
They have too much power and too much reserve. I also think the SSDs look too much like their predecessors considering they are supposed to be newly designed hulls (I know, I know, figure out the hull shape last and all that, nit).
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 10:42 pm: Edit |
I'm not fond of those designs but they are close in that they have many of what I hope to see.
Tos: How is five batteries too much. If you have four then that's 16 reserve and only one more point than X1. Five X2 Batteries is just righ IMO.
The power is right as well, IMO. My 1.5 system would be 48 power as well(2 x 16 x 1.5). Thats only 8 power(4 per engine) more than X1. Supplement Two had 25 point engines.
| By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 11:41 pm: Edit |
I'm not an artist. Whoever makes the final design can put the boxes wherever they want.
As to the batteries, Loren's right. X1 CAs have 15 points reserve (5x3). If X2 has 4 point batteries, then there should be the same number of them, 20 points reserve.
As to the warp, if these ships are to have an increase in strategic speed, then they need more powerful engines. That excess power is reflected in extra warp. Which is why I didn't put a more powerful impulse or reactor suite on them.
The X2 ship gets 8 extra power over X1. But, the weapons take more power to arm, and a few new gizmos to power as well.
On top of that, the Fed has a warp power shortage. 50 warp + 2 reactors = 52. To rapid-arm the photons to 4x16 points requires 32 energy. This leaves the Fed with a top speed of 21. Sure there's ways around this, but that's classic Fed racial flavor.
These ships are a start, as a way to put my views on the table. Will the unedited ships be the final product, of course not.
What would the EA for these ships be like?
Assuming phasers fully charged and heavies empty (Have to make some standard to compare...)
| Fed | Klink | Kzinti | |
| Warp | 50 | 50 | 50 |
| Impulse | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| Reactor | 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Total | 56 | 58 | 58 |
| Batteries | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Housekeeping | -- 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Charge Phasers | 0(15) | 0(11.5) | 0(7) |
| Heavy A | -- 8 | 4 | 4 |
| Heavy B | -- 8 | 4 | 4 |
| Heavy C | -- 8 | 4 | 4 |
| Heavy D | -- 8 | 4 | 4 |
| Movement | - 21 | 31 | 31 |
| SIF | -- 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Hold SS | -- 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Hold WW | -- 1 | 1 | 1 |
| EW | - 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Recharge batteries | -- 1 | 9 | 9 |
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 12:04 am: Edit |
"I'm not sure, but I think the latest ph-6 fires for 1/2 power, and the ph-5 is 1 1/2."
Ya, I think that's it.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 02:57 am: Edit |
Actually, the P6 shuould reflect the greater damage fron greater power of the P-5. A 3/4 cost might be in order
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 10:18 am: Edit |
I wouldn't worry overmuch about the shape of the SSD. Let's face it, the SSD's don't look anything like the ship in most cases, anyway. Get the systems and such right, then we can play with what the ship will actually look like.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 11:23 am: Edit |
The Ph-V loses just a bit of efficiency with the extra 1/2 point cost. In this case you get a slight regain in efficiency in the Ph-6. It's not a compleat balance as numbers varry on each ship but I don't think it's a big deal.
I think it would be a bigger deal to try and calculate .75 all the time.
0.5 is easy. Besides I have the feeling the Ph-6 will get scaled back to base 5 (instead of 6).
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 03:33 pm: Edit |
.75 is 3/4. That's not hard.
2/3 then.
If you scale it back, just use my P-6 chart. Or plot a compromise.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 04:24 pm: Edit |
".75 is 3/4. That's not hard."
As a SFB player I should at least know that. I'm talking about the no brainer the 1/2 point is. Simply 2:1. If you don't use fractional accounting then it still works out because the number of phasers is usually even (until damage comes in). With .75 or .66 it wont work out that easy. I could be made to but why should we make major design changes and limits just to accomadate that little balance issue.
Some things are weird like Transporters but you don't use those nearly as much as Defensive Phasers. The extra 1/4 power is not enough of a balance issue to add one more process to EA. I can do it. Every one on the board can but I'd rather not. Besides, what minor balance issue there is is off set by the Ph-V only getting two more damage to the base for the extra 1/2 power. OK the Ph-V also gets a better reach but it still all balances, IMHO.
| By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 05:06 pm: Edit |
I would only go with a .75 power cost if you are planning on having 4xP6s on the ship.
I hate fractional accouting in SFB. F&E, ok, but not SFB.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |
