Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board

Archive through February 06, 2003

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: The Generic X2 Hull: Archive through February 06, 2003

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 11:55 pm: Edit

MJC,

Sure, X2 can come up with stuff to deal with a faster-than-31 ship, but I'm not referring to X2 vs X2. We need to play nice with GW-tech and that's where my points make sense.

Being able to pace or outrun seeking weapons radically decreases their effectiveness. Plasmas lose warhead and it extends the time the ship can use to make efficient drone defense.

Who says this wasn't a problem for speed-20 drones? Anyone who's had the misfortune of running a drone-tosser against an Andro or WYN Aux-Box in the tournament game knows it's a potentially big problem. Why do you think speed-32 drones came to exist?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 12:16 am: Edit

Quote:
Sure, X2 can come up with stuff to deal with a faster-than-31 ship, but I'm not referring to X2 vs X2. We need to play nice with GW-tech and that's where my points make sense.

We'll allowing Phaser and Heavy DF weapons within overload range to attack target at super speed 32 speeds greatlt helps the GW and X1 cause.

Other gadgets for X1 ships that'll come out in the X2 rules, like a YIS for Ph-2 Swordfish modules becoming general availibility items, will greatly help the X1s hit their targets as will the XP ships.

Quote:
Being able to pace or outrun seeking weapons radically decreases their effectiveness. Plasmas lose warhead and it extends the time the ship can use to make efficient drone defense.

The top speed of the vessel should be slower than the Plasma Sabot, if the increased speed of the ships means the GW plasma Chucker needs to get a hex or two slower to still hit with his plasma, then so be it...GWs ships shouldn't have an easy, do everything exactly the way you would have done it against X1 battleplan, they should have to make adjustments and changes to their plans based on their oppoent vessel's capasity.
If Fortune Favours the Big Battalions then the GW ships will have have an advanatge over the X2 because they'll either be much bigger ( an XFF Vs a CC ) or they'll be much more numerous...like a CVA group against an XCC+.

Quote:
Who says this wasn't a problem for speed-20 drones? Anyone who's had the misfortune of running a drone-tosser against an Andro or WYN Aux-Box in the tournament game knows it's a potentially big problem. Why do you think speed-32 drones came to exist?

Speed 32 drones came to exist to make technological progression exist in the game, not to give Kzintis a free ride.

Drone speeds and ship speeds can be mixed, ever heard of the Kzinti Anchor? The Real Question is;" what BPV surcharge does the super speed 32 ship needs to recapture balance in the game?"!

By Shannon Nichols (Scoot) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 12:24 am: Edit

I say keep 2X ships at 32 max speed. That lets them still out run most things on the board. An leaves room for the development faster missle weapons(speed 48?) that can catch them. But not so fast non 2X could not run and delay being hit. You know,a little time to shot them down. Also if we go with smaller size/power 2X ships, it allows for easier future expansions. Selling SSD books is part of picture to.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 12:39 am: Edit

"The Frigates and the Destroyers are the ship that are most likely to be involved in the GW Vs X2 battles.
If an XCC comes in at the BPV price of a fully armed CVA group and fights a pretty even battle against a CVA group then so be it."

How are you going to stop play group A from wanting to pit an X2 cruiser againt a GW squadron. Historically GW may never meet a X2 ship. But that wasn't apart of SVCs guide lines. He basically said they all have to work against each other. No getting around that.

Isn't a CVA group about 800 BPV? So, what are you saying, your are for an 800 BPV XCC?

I'm for experementing with speed 32 at a cost for reaching the extra hex over 31. It should be a heavy cost so you have to weigh whether or not you really need to.

Faster than that, I say , make a new game then. I don't see it working and would not be interested in buying the product (for the first time.)

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 01:02 am: Edit

Quote:
How are you going to stop play group A from wanting to pit an X2 cruiser againt a GW squadron. Historically GW may never meet a X2 ship. But that wasn't apart of SVCs guide lines. He basically said they all have to work against each other. No getting around that.

Where's your point.
How am I going to stop a Play Group A from picking the Guy who's birthday it is, or the Guy who knows the X rules the best or the guy who drew the short straw, or the guy who thinks the Enterprise B is really cool ship, from giving that guy an 800 BPV ship and then taking a CVA group or a DN and NCA task group of Equal BPV to play against him!?!

I'm not.

The question you're really asking is how do I take Play Group A, take two guys from it, let one of them take an X2 cruiser and then have his buddy take a couple of GW ships and not have THE BUDDY get bogged down in several ships worth of accounting, tracking and remembering he was going to do something GUTZY with his BCH but he can't quite remember it now.

Quite simply, people have got to know their limitations. If 300 BPV made by four ships is too much work for you to have fun, just say, I want to Play two 150 BPV ships in the battle so You can take that X2 Frigate or even two or you can take that X2 Destroyer if you like, but anything bigger than that will be a drag at 480 BPV so I'll drawing the line at 300.

I can't be held reponsible for people wanting to take lots of Cheap ships and finding that the book keeping is beyond them.

Quote:
I'm for experementing with speed 32 at a cost for reaching the extra hex over 31. It should be a heavy cost so you have to weigh whether or not you really need to.

I'm for experimenting with sopeeds up to 37, and then seeing where playtesting leads the designs.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 07:44 am: Edit

I'm against Trans warp speeds. 32 I could support but speed 34-37 would just be to much.

Unless there are heavy movement/turn mode penalties the ships would just be too advantaged vs GW.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 07:56 am: Edit

Remember some of the Testing parameters.

*Open/Closed Map?
*Trans 32 seeking weapons.

On a closed map it is a LOT easier to deal with a constant speed 31 ship. You can always run it into a corner eventually. Even if you are slower but simply continue turning inside it.

On an Open Map it is a VERY diferent story. Your seeking weapons will never be able to corner the Trans 32 ship.

Trans 32 seeking weapons. IMO SVC will shoot down almost any speeds faster than 40. Simply to avoid the headaches they would cause in battle vs GW ships.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 08:05 am: Edit

I'm not trying to belabor a point. But the Sabot torps came about because unlike drones a little bit more distance is extremely useful in dealing with them.

Drones you can launch every turn for 0 energy. While Plasma take 2-3 Turns and cost a fair bit of energy themselves. While being most of the BP's firepower. Which will go away quickly based on range. But drones can be launched at extreme range on T1 and continue to chase your ship for 3T.

Thats why I think Trans 32 speeds for Drones will almost certainly be shot down by SVC.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 12:34 pm: Edit

MJC: That was not my point. You removed the context and made my statement sound silly. This is the context based on what you said:"The Frigates and the Destroyers are the ship that are most likely to be involved in the GW Vs X2 battles."

I'm saying that we cannot assume that and that design of the ships must, by SVCs guidence, work with all eras, including the XCC. A design that assumes that the XCC will not face a GW era ship wont be accepted. We cannot say that historically this is the way it is, so, you can only play this way. I reference (S8.0).

I should have put it this way to begin with.

And I beleive that historically it would not be XDDs and XFFs involved with GW. Those ships would be more internal mission ships and that GW era ships would be as well. So the type of situations one would see would be GW ships holding the first line maybe along side of a XDD or XFF against an XCC and/or an XCL.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 04:43 pm: Edit

Because X2 will have to have an equal chance at victory if facing equal BPV of GW-tech, I think allowing X2 to break Speed-31 is a massively bad idea. Feel free to experiment with it, MJC. You might be able to convince SVC to consider it.

On the face of it it's a potential game-breaker.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 05:01 pm: Edit

Agreed. The entire purpose of creating plasma sabot rules was to counter the improved speed of late war and 1st Gen X ships. Make 2X faster than 31, and those rules will have to be tweaked again, to further increase the speed of 2X seeking weapons. With weapons that fast, 0X and 1X won't have a prayer.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Because Plasmas have such a limited range they needed to have the Sabot.

If your ship can go 32 and drones can go 32 but your ship has to pay a high cost to go the extra hex, drones have good value. Their range is 96 hexes (for the average drone at this time and can be longer). Currently, drones are hard to hit with, even against sub-31 speed targets. Hitting is not their only function.

To have faster drones and allow ships to go trans-32 because of that is a con-o-worms. To have better drones they do not have to go faster.

Ah, but the setting is that ships will go 31 (or 32) routinely and drones suffer from that.

OK, what about my Drone Booster Pack. It will get the drone close fast but there is a trade off. The drone is more fragil and only moves that fast for a short time. And cost BPV to implement. It isn't so powerful as to push for the need to have ships go trans-32. But it does give drones something radically new.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 08:39 pm: Edit

Quote:
I'm against Trans warp speeds. 32 I could support but speed 34-37 would just be to much.

Unless there are heavy movement/turn mode penalties the ships would just be too advantaged vs GW.

Your statement isn't backed up by an arguement...I suspect that speed 32 ships will be the final published speed of X2 and think that that'll be great fun but let's see where playtesting leads us before we just jump into nay-sayer-mode.

Quote:
Remember some of the Testing parameters.

*Open/Closed Map?
*Trans 32 seeking weapons.

On a closed map it is a LOT easier to deal with a constant speed 31 ship. You can always run it into a corner eventually. Even if you are slower but simply continue turning inside it.

On an Open Map it is a VERY diferent story. Your seeking weapons will never be able to corner the Trans 32 ship.

Unless the enemy comes into overload range, or close to it. You either prepair early or in the case of Plasma:- BOLT.

Quote:
Trans 32 seeking weapons. IMO SVC will shoot down almost any speeds faster than 40. Simply to avoid the headaches they would cause in battle vs GW ships.

They're X2 tech, they should cause Headaches for GW ships, they just shouldn't have playability problems.

Quote:
MJC: That was not my point. You removed the context and made my statement sound silly.

By "silly", do you mean, devinely gifted...there's no misrepresentation, the statement was unfairly assuming that players don't know how to play against powerful ships...that is have a few people take the many weak ships it'll be fighting.

Quote:
This is the context based on what you said:"The Frigates and the Destroyers are the ship that are most likely to be involved in the GW Vs X2 battles."

I'm saying that we cannot assume that and that design of the ships must, by SVCs guidence, work with all eras, including the XCC. A design that assumes that the XCC will not face a GW era ship wont be accepted. We cannot say that historically this is the way it is, so, you can only play this way. I reference (S8.0).

I never said we limit what ships are played by whom against whom.

This is my point:- If we design as we always have assumed that the XCC ( or atleast the XCC+ ) would be the equal in BPV of a CX plus a DDX, then it'll be at a PBV of about 480.

How much can one buy with 480 BPV in GW tech...say a BCG plus an NCA plus a CARa+...with the Commander's option items coming out of the same percentage as the XCC.
So with these three ships on a fixed map, how do you not have one of the ships corner the XCC!?!...and once it is cornered how does that cornering vessel not put a big hurt on the XCC!?!
On a Floating Map, one vessel will get closer to the XCC ( we'll assume the X2 overload range is also 8 ) and the other two have been well thought about and have standards ( or proxies ) and when the closest ship in the X2 battle pass fires, it's buddies do too, and the XCC will take a serious hurt.

So long as an XCC has a pretty 50-50 chance of beating the BCG + NCA + CARa+, then it still plays nice with them, BUT one player controling a BCG, an NCA and a CARa+ would be beyound the abilities of most players...it's quite a bit of book keeping and remembering which fired what and where you were going to send the other.
I say, do not WATER DOWN the X2 ship just because GW ships will be many and numerous to fight them, rather, just list in the designers notes, that 480 is an awful lot of BPV and that players are recommended to have three players take the GW side for every 1 player and his XCC that plays, in order to avoid the book keeping pitfalls.

Quote:
And I beleive that historically it would not be XDDs and XFFs involved with GW. Those ships would be more internal mission ships and that GW era ships would be as well. So the type of situations one would see would be GW ships holding the first line maybe along side of a XDD or XFF against an XCC and/or an XCL.

Quote:
Because X2 will have to have an equal chance at victory if facing equal BPV of GW-tech, I think allowing X2 to break Speed-31 is a massively bad idea. Feel free to experiment with it, MJC. You might be able to convince SVC to consider it.

On the face of it it's a potential game-breaker.

Thanks.

Quote:
Agreed. The entire purpose of creating plasma sabot rules was to counter the improved speed of late war and 1st Gen X ships. Make 2X faster than 31, and those rules will have to be tweaked again, to further increase the speed of 2X seeking weapons. With weapons that fast, 0X and 1X won't have a prayer.

Since all the Heavy Weapons are getting improved for X2 it seems perfectly reasonable to me that the improvement for the X2 Plasma races will be speed 48 Plasma Sabot.

With a speed limit of 37 ( or less ) and speed 40 plasma Sabot, the PLasma can still strike it's target and indeed the PLasma users can still use their weight of numbers to throw large numbers of ( and therefore generate reasonably effect damage by ) bolted Plasma and still strike the target.

When you've got the Equivilant of a BCG, NCA and CARa+ on the map , how do you not get at least one into Sabot range and the other two into Bolt range and how does that not give them a pretty good shot at defeating the XCC!?!

Quote:
Because Plasmas have such a limited range they needed to have the Sabot.

If your ship can go 32 and drones can go 32 but your ship has to pay a high cost to go the extra hex, drones have good value. Their range is 96 hexes (for the average drone at this time and can be longer). Currently, drones are hard to hit with, even against sub-31 speed targets. Hitting is not their only function.

To have faster drones and allow ships to go trans-32 because of that is a con-o-worms. To have better drones they do not have to go faster.

Ah, but the setting is that ships will go 31 (or 32) routinely and drones suffer from that.

OK, what about my Drone Booster Pack. It will get the drone close fast but there is a trade off. The drone is more fragil and only moves that fast for a short time. And cost BPV to implement. It isn't so powerful as to push for the need to have ships go trans-32. But it does give drones something radically new.

A Lot of the work that has already been done is purely because drones and plasma will be expected to travel at speeds greater than 32 for their entire time, if the drone has to drop out to speed 32 for the last couple of impulses then you'll only need Ph-3s and thus the "P-6" is completely pointless.

Still maybe in X2 the big increase in the drone firepower was the instalation of more racks or tougher drones rather than faster drones!?!

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 10:29 pm: Edit

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
I'm against Trans warp speeds. 32 I could support but speed 34-37 would just be to much.

Unless there are heavy movement/turn mode penalties the ships would just be too advantaged vs GW.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your statement isn't backed up by an arguement...I suspect that speed 32 ships will be the final published speed of X2 and think that that'll be great fun but let's see where playtesting leads us before we just jump into nay-sayer-mode.

I'm not in a nay sayer mode. And I do support sped 32. But anything past that IS very advantaged vs GW.

(While I have not played this particular warp system.)

I have done some playtesting of ships that are limited in max speed of 20-24. And ships that coulde go speed 31 and arm weaponry had a BIG advantage. Even more so than the BPV predicted. This was back in the Commanders Edition so it's validity is not certified for 2X. But overall the situations are similar.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Because Plasmas have such a limited range they needed to have the Sabot.

If your ship can go 32 and drones can go 32 but your ship has to pay a high cost to go the extra hex, drones have good value. Their range is 96 hexes (for the average drone at this time and can be longer). Currently, drones are hard to hit with, even against sub-31 speed targets. Hitting is not their only function.

To have faster drones and allow ships to go trans-32 because of that is a con-o-worms. To have better drones they do not have to go faster.

Ah, but the setting is that ships will go 31 (or 32) routinely and drones suffer from that.

OK, what about my Drone Booster Pack. It will get the drone close fast but there is a trade off. The drone is more fragil and only moves that fast for a short time. And cost BPV to implement. It isn't so powerful as to push for the need to have ships go trans-32. But it does give drones something radically new.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Lot of the work that has already been done is purely because drones and plasma will be expected to travel at speeds greater than 32 for their entire time, if the drone has to drop out to speed 32 for the last couple of impulses then you'll only need Ph-3s and thus the "P-6" is completely pointless.

Still maybe in X2 the big increase in the drone firepower was the instalation of more racks or tougher drones rather than faster drones!?!

Tougher drones are my preference. They simply have a breakthrough in shielding tech over std. drones.

The work done on the P6 just might have to be considered useless. First you need to lock down the Seeking Weapons preformance. Then you need to do the work on defenses. You dont build defenses then improve SW's to overcome them. Make sure the SW's will work at each stage of tech. Then build in suitable Defenses.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 11:15 pm: Edit

It's a chicken and egg thing. everything is dependent on everything else.

You come with SOMETHING first. A rough draft, if you will.

then fine-tune it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 11:42 pm: Edit

Since historically, we can all assume by Tos' timeline that each race will have a maximum of 1 XCC because of the TREATY, then the XDD and XFF MUST be the ships that did ythe bulk of the X2 fighting in the trade wars period.

I got no such indication from his timeline. What seemed to me to be the concensous was that there would be a XCC for each fleet plus one or two. The XCC would be Fleet Flags. XCLs would be the fleets work horse and the DDs would back them up. As for the XFF, I'm proposing a less combat oriented role for them. But other wise would be a internal use ship since it is valuable and would die easily on the fronteer.

The Ph-6 is relevant given X1 drones. These drones are harder to kill and the Ph-3 is less capable of doing its job against them. X2 drones will no doubt be at least a little tougher. I was involved in Ph-6 developement not because I thought the drones would be so fast. I did it for the reason above. I though the others were too.

Regarding to other stuff above, MJC. OK, I understand your point. I'm not into 400+ BPV but your clearification make more sense to me. You original post left more to interpritation. Given acceptance of 400+ BPV, I have no arguement with your final crearification.

Except, I haven't met any players that couldn't handle 3 ships but it's NOT going to be a quick game. Maybe that is par for the course.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 05:40 am: Edit

Quote:
The Ph-6 is relevant given X1 drones. These drones are harder to kill and the Ph-3 is less capable of doing its job against them. X2 drones will no doubt be at least a little tougher. I was involved in Ph-6 developement not because I thought the drones would be so fast. I did it for the reason above. I though the others were too.

Not really.
If you have tougher drones then the correct X2 defense would be to allow the X2 Phasers to Rapid pulse up to 4 ( but possibly only 3 ) Ph-3 shots.
You'ld then skip out on the introduction of a new table, making the game "simpler".
Hence the P-6 becomes obsolete.
The main reason yould add the P-6 to the game is to have longer drone killing reach for less power than the Ph-1 and Ph-2 shots. One reason why I'ld like the P-6 to have a 1 point of damage on a roll of 6 at R4 rather than the R3 sweetspot is to actually have the reach to harm drones that are moving quickly.

Quote:
Except, I haven't met any players that couldn't handle 3 ships but it's NOT going to be a quick game. Maybe that is par for the course.

An E4L and 2 E4s are a different ball game to a C7, D7D & a D6D.

Couldn't resist it.

Players will eventually get to a point where confusion reigns but along the way, the game will drag as the multi ship player begins to shuffle paper.
We could avoid this by having lower BPV ( and far less powerful ) X2 ships, but I'ld rather have Proportionate Capasities for the XCC and have a warning that these ships are very high in BPV and thus the player may, inorder to maintain fairness, play against a group of players each with a GW ship, if they wish to engage in a GW to X2 battle, where the X2 ship is a cruiser.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 12:30 pm: Edit

"An E4L and 2 E4s are a different ball game to a C7, D7D & a D6D."

I disagree. Three SSDs, three EAs nearly the same complexity. The smaller ships are more fragile and take special percautions. The larger ships can take more damage but will face more damage. The bigger ship game only takes longer on the DAC.

"but I'ld rather have Proportionate Capasities for the XCC and have a warning that these ships are very high in BPV and thus the player may, inorder to maintain fairness, play against a group of players each with a GW ship, if they wish to engage in a GW to X2 battle, where the X2 ship is a cruiser. "

I disagree. I think using a percentage increase is a mistake. As the BPV gets higher the gap grows wider. +50% of 150BPV is not as much as +50% of 225BPV. X1 is about 75 BPV over GW. I say add 75 BPV to X1 for a goal of 300. Then playtest them and see if they can hold up like (near) a B-10. Frankly, I want the cool X2 cruiser to think twice if facing a Battle Ship.

To have a cruiser dance around and pound the snot out of a BB is rediculous. It has only been 25 or so years. If X2 is at 400+ BPV that is what will be. Cruisers pounding the snot out of BBs.
No Thanks.

Now,after the Xorks arive there may be a call for XDNs. Those would surely be around 400+ BPV.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 12:46 pm: Edit

"It has only been 25 or so years."
Closer to 10 years. The B10 deployed in Y195. X2 in Y205.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 12:53 pm: Edit

Ya, I was thinking the Y169 start date. So actually it's more like 35 years.
You are right and that supports my arguement even more.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 12:57 pm: Edit

Quote:
An E4L and 2 E4s are a different ball game to a C7, D7D & a D6D.

Couldn't resist it.

Players will eventually get to a point where confusion reigns but along the way, the game will drag as the multi ship player begins to shuffle paper.

I humbly disagree. If you want a paper-chase nightmare, any carrier game is much worse than three single ships. And, according to the latest sales figures posted on this board, J2 is still in the top five. To my mind, that means lots of people are buying, and playing, with rules for fighters and carriers. Ergo, I don't think that players mind multi-ship engagements, especially if it's something new and "cool."

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 01:59 pm: Edit

Mike: I think players like both. Duels are just as fun. Veriaty is rich in SFB.

One of the problems I have with a high BPV XCC is that if you do want to play against a XCC with GW it will have to be a fleet battle. With a BPV of around 300 to 350 (max) at least you could bring a BB to the field. A GW and X2 duel is possible.

Mostly I am refering to tech. levels vs. Tech. levels. Of course it was that you had to take a squadron against the BB before but that is GW vs. GW. We are talking about cruisers here. The base line ship that is the prime example of the era. Even if there is eventually a XDN the cruiser is still the base line. Our charter is to make GW, X1 and X2 all work together. To play GW vs. X2 cruiser shouldn't take a three or four ship squadron. X1 vs. X2 will have to be at least two but you can't make them both work. 300 to 350 will make for the greatest veriaty of choices from duel levels to full fleet levels with mixes of technologies and still bring up the power base of X2.

(i.e. making X2 worth 220 would be the fullest solution to the above but then all the other qualities that would make X2 interesting would be lost.)

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 02:41 pm: Edit

I agree, and that's my point. As I read it, MJC seemed to believe that having to use multiple GW era ships to combat a 2X ship would be something players would find tedious. I don't agree with that. I think an equal value in BPV of GW ships should always be able to effectively fight the 2X ships, and that it ought to be a modest number; for example, a 2X CC shouldn't be the equal of a BB, but should be able to stand up to 2 GW era CC's.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 02:44 pm: Edit

Guys I feel the need to emphasize one more time your talking about Fed/Klink (And similar) 300-350 BPV's. I mean the ISC CCX is already 315. So it would need to increase well above 350 to display much improvement.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 02:52 pm: Edit

Well, not necessarily. IIRC, the ISC came along after intensly studying the other races, learning about them, and building a new fleet from scratch using that information. So, they had ships with higher BPV's than the other races. With 2X, everyone is on the same level; they all know about each other's capabilities, and are all starting out with something new. So, I'd say that the gap between 2X BPV's across racial lines might not be as wide as it was previously.

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