Hmmm, I didn't think of that. I suppose it wold in the same way that plasmas take damage from traveling through asteroids.

Yes, it should. Cool, good point.

Oh ya, and it should absorb and take damage from your own phasers if you fire through that shield facing. It's only fair.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 12:32 am: Edit

In fact it should protect and take damage from all terain that does damage to plasmas.

By Jim Cummins (Jimcummins) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 10:55 am: Edit

Jeff;

The High Warp movement is just that movement; you get to move 1 to 3 hexes. I would think that turn mode and direction of movement stay the same. You’re not displacing just burning a lot of energy to move fast.

tractor enhancement just distort the target warp field by a certain amount depending on how close they are to you, their orientation and direction are irrelevant.

Shield enhancement, the increase reliance on heavy Weapons was actual the motivation for it. The idea was to give a reason for changing X2 ship to more heavy weapons, less phaser to make them play different than GW ships.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 12:47 pm: Edit

Jim C,

What Jeff means is that it's too close to the Dis-Dev tactically, regardless of the technobabble that defines it.

By Jim Cummins (Jimcummins) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 02:28 pm: Edit

John

Ahh Understood thanks

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 04:21 pm: Edit

Life Support Proposal:
X2 Life support is no longer determined by a ships size class, it is always equal to a ships movement cost.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 08:41 am: Edit

From the photon thread:
"with 4 five point BTYYs ( or 5 four BTTYs )"

X ships already have too much power. SFB(X0) is a game won or lost in EA. X1 made EA easier and less challenging. Ships simply filled their bats in EA and did whatever they pleased during the turn. The importance of EA was diminished. Upping bats to 4 or 5 power is what is causing this uncessary arms race and it will break the ability for X0 and X2 to play together.

Take the Romulan SKX(X1) BPV=160. It has 29 power at MC=1/2. It has 6 bats for a total of 18 reserve power. Upgrade those bats to 5 points each and it has 29 generated power and 30 reserve power. Forgive my repeating: IT HAS MORE RESERVE THEN GENERATED POWER! Please don't say that the obvious answer is to generate more power. Not only is this stupid but it will break the game. This destroyer (with 5-point bats) could take a 57 point hit with no internals.

A battle with this ship would go something like this:
XDD(X2) trades overload shots with a B10A(X0), B10A hits with narrow salvo through a 2 shift, both burn bats and take no internals, XDD(X2) disengages. Not much fun. Had the B10 missed its narrow salvo (or not achieved range 8, it can muster speed 17 when overloading 8 torps) then the XDD(X2) might actually win a protracted battle. The B10A with drones tips the scales at 400 BPV.

I propose we leave X2 bats at 3. Not everything need improve. Unless you like 400 BPV destroyers.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 09:58 am: Edit

I've mentioned this in another thread, but in light of Tos' post, I'll put it up again. SVC has said that 5 point batteries are Andro tech, and won't be part of galactic ships, ever. That being said, I have no objection to four point batteries. From the above example, I don't see how adding six points of battery power is going to make a destroyer 400 points.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 10:40 am: Edit

I'll add to Mike's post (because he's right) by saying that the X2 version of the Romulan Destroyer may well not have six batteries at 4 each. I hasn't been designed yet. X1 was indeed based on GW designs in that it was actually a major refit. X2 is not this. It has been defined as "All new hulls" by SVC himself. In that light and the concern you raise, Tos, the Romulans XDD should be designed with the appropriate power and reserve.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 03:43 pm: Edit

Appropriate power and reserve is good. I can agree to that. But consider: which is better?
4x3 point bats
3x4 point bats

I'd rather have the 4x3 point bats as it will take damage better. An interesting alternative for how to improve X2 tech would be to have 6x2 point bats as that would provide a distinct damage advantage.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 04:06 pm: Edit

I see what you're getting at and it sensable but it doesn't lend to the advancement of technology feel. The total reserve should be, in general, increased. That the SKX. 6 x 3= 18 or 6 x 4= 24. That is a lot of reserve but what about 5 x 4. That's 20 and not too much.
Ya, it's nicer to be able to take more hits but too many boxes and that is the next size up. It is also part of the trade off. It gives you a benefit as the sacrafice of durability.

My arguements aren't stronger than yours Tos. Perhaps your's will hold out longer. A mater of taste. I like the idea of 4 point batteries.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 06:10 pm: Edit

It's a question of efficiency. If you can get 12 points from 3 batteries, instead of 12 from 4, you do it. It leaves room for other systems.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 08:19 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

It's a question of efficiency. If you can get 12 points from 3 batteries, instead of 12 from 4, you do it. It leaves room for other systems.

---

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 08:23 pm: Edit

"It's a question of efficiency."
An SSD box does not represent some fixed amount of space, it represents how hard something is to destroy in combat. Both a P3 and a PL-R take one box to destroy. I would argue that a more efficient battery is one that is harder to destroy, hence, a lower reserve per battery. Now I'm not seriously recommending a value lower than 3 but I see no reason to make batteries even more susceptible to damage by upping them to 4.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 08:27 pm: Edit

I'm in two camps on this.

I could go with 5 point BTTYs because it's already been printed that X2 will and because it's a signifigant jump forward from 3.

I could go with 3 Point BTTY's because NOT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE IMPROVED.


4 Point BTTYs, causes me to ask several questions.
Why would people learn a new rule for a 33% increase in reserve power.
Why aren't the Caps 4 Points each.


Triple Caps + tripple BTTYs + Caps-to-SSReo is not only more fun but also more beleiveable than simply Tripple Caps and Quadrupple Batts.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 08:34 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I would argue that a more efficient battery is one that is harder to destroy, hence, a lower reserve per battery.

---

---

Quote:

Why would people learn a new rule for a 33% increase in reserve power.

---

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 08:49 pm: Edit

Tos, I never thought of it that way before. But it makes sense.

If an X1 CA has a 5x3 suite of batteries, then do you go 5x4 (more power per box), or 7x3 (more boxes?)

After all, what if we went with 20(!) power per battery box, but no ship can have more than one. That's efficient, but poses new problems.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 08:51 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Um, is this a trick question? Also, {where) did you see that X2 will have five point batteries? I know of no rule anywhere that says this, save the old Supplement #2, which doesn't count.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 09:34 pm: Edit

How do people feel about the X2s having 3 point BTTYs in Y205 and getting a BTTY Refit to 5 point BTTYs in say Y220?


It'ld probably go along with any phaser refit we might be looking at.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 10:00 pm: Edit

Great quote from the rules, very smart of you to look it up. The problem is the 1999 BS printing goes further (and I'm not happy about it).

(H5.51) "Second Generation X-Ships (XH5.1) have batteries able to hold 5 points of power each. These batteries can hold 'warp power' for multiple turns."

It is probably an artifact from Sup#2 but it is a printed and current rule so we are stuck with it. Anyone want to take a stab at writing the rule up all formal like?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 10:13 pm: Edit

Hey Tos:

X2 should have an achilli's heel and when internals start taking away your reserve power, it goes quickly, should IHMO be one of those draw backs.

I still like the BTTY refit idea...although this warp over multiple turns could be bad news.

I move with 20 BTTY as WARP Plus 60 WARp, from either 60 warp boxes or 40 boxes produing 1.5 each ) and I spend 5 points of warp for every point of warp generated above 30 and I get a top speed in my attack run of ( 30 + 30/5 + 20/5 +1 Imp ) 41.
Causing Ships to be able to outrun the Plasma Sabot for an entitre turn.

We'll either need to not have 60 power for an MC1 cruiser, go to speed 48 Plasma Sabot, raise the Movement cost for super 31 speeds OR forbid said held warp power to be used for movement.

I'm not entirely sure which should be employed.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 11:15 pm: Edit

A battery refit to 5 will not pass muster. A refit to 4 is fine...

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 11:27 pm: Edit

A battery Refit to 5 will pass muster so long as the BPV increase suits the situation.

Having the ability to block damage does not make the vessel automatically invunerable to GW ships; it's doing it for practically no BPV, and therefore the GW ships have no weapons with which to offset that damage blocking ability that will be the final killer of the idea.


Do you know how much a CVA group costs and how much damage it can do? Those things make X ships look like pansies and yet they ain't kick out for being tough depite thier ability to huge numbers of drones to protect themselves from real damage.

By Shannon Nichols (Scoot) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 12:12 am: Edit

I went to 6 battraies with 3pts power in my designs. That is 20% more than x1. This gives my 2x designs more staying power but not huge power reserves. Also it is in proportion to the purposed increase in engine size. Also a battray was able to convert 2 pts of non warp power in storage to 1pt awr a turn. I do not think battraies should be able to store warp, especially for movement purposes.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 02:57 am: Edit

S.V.C.:


I think it would be cool to dedicated the X2 module to the Columbia Astronauts.

What do you reckon?