Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through February 14, 2003	25		02/14 03:10pm
	Archive through April 01, 2003	25		04/01 09:08pm
	Archive through July 05, 2003	25		07/05 11:52am
	Archive through July 07, 2003	25		07/07 12:23am
	Archive through July 10, 2003	25		07/10 11:23pm
	Archive through July 22, 2003	25		07/22 12:13am
	Archive through February 06, 2004	25		02/06 04:01am
	Archive through March 15, 2004	25		03/15 10:51pm

1) Yes
2) Maybe
3 & 4) I don't care if they're real or conjectural.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 11:50 pm: Edit

1) No, it needs a REAL DNX class--unfortunately.

2) Not no, but •••• no. Not even a conjectural BCX

3) Yes. DNH-XP is acceptable

4) yes. BCH-XP is acceptable

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 12:29 am: Edit

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 12:49 am: Edit

Well I see we all agree. Good. That will make things much easier.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 02:51 am: Edit

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. Yes (the prime reason for XP IMO).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 03:39 am: Edit

1) Does X1R need the conjectural DNX class?
Yes X1R needs it but it needs it to be real as well...in IMO.

2) Does X1R need the conjectural BCHX class?
Would be FUN, but doesn't need it save the fact that a lot of people have asked for one, so keeping it conjectual would be good.

I'm willing to see each race get either one real and one Conjectual of the DNX & BCHX based on understanding of the ecconomies of the varrious races.

3) Should a DNH-XP be real?
Probably not. It really depends on what is organised around the BTTYs.

4) Should a BCH-XP be real?
Yes, but some BCHs ( like the BCJ ) might not have to, although a lot of players would like to.
A Klingon D6D doesn't really need an XP upgrade but it would be handy.


You know I don't have a problem with the BCJ getting XP, but I think XP should be limited to EW & BTTYs. Some of these problems won't be problems if we keep the XP upgrade quite minor and internally consistant.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 03:42 am: Edit

Tos;

You made a call on the result of the POLL 2.5 hours after the poll opened...are you G.W. Bush's First Cousin?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 09:46 am: Edit

I wasn't closing the poll, just commenting on the trend. And yes, Tracy and Shannon Bush are my first cousins.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 09:54 am: Edit

1: No
2: No
3: No
4: Maybe. Depends on what XP turns out to be.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 10:44 am: Edit

1. No
2. No
3. Yes
4. Yes

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 04:40 pm: Edit

MJC, DROP THE BUSH BASHING HERE AND NOW THIS ISN'T THE PLACE FOR IT.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 09:15 pm: Edit

Well I was bashing the guy who's the head of FOX NEWS but his last name isn't bush...I should have just said are you him, but I forget his name.

By Brian R Goudie (Briangoudie) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 11:34 pm: Edit

1. no
2. NO
3. no
4. no

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 12:45 am: Edit

MJC,

Regardless, it's off-topic.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 07:34 pm: Edit

As has been pointed out elsewhere it would be useful if we could reach a consensus, or at least a clear majority, on some basic points:

A) X2 is BPV balanced and most fun to play against:
1) Y1 and everything later
2) MY and everything later
3) Y168 Un-refitted GW
4) Y184 Fully refitted GW, PF
5) XP and everything later
6) X1 and everything later

B) The largest Y205 X2 ships should be:
1) XCC MC = 0.67
2) Either 0.67 or 0.75
3) XCC MC = 0.75
4) Either 0.75 or 1.00
5) XCC MC = 1.00
6) Either 1.00 or 1.25
7) XCC MC = 1.25
8) XDN MC = 1.50
9) Other

C) X2 ships should function in combat:
1) Less than X1 of the same class
2) Equal to or less than X1 of the same class
3) About equal to X1 of the same class
4) Equal to or greater than X1 of the same class
5) Greater than X1 of the same class

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 11:43 am: Edit

Tos;

Well, I'll respond to your poll, but only if you'll accept some commentary since I think it would be meaningless just to list numbers without rationale.

Question A)

Answer - 3, assuming this answer also includes the "and everything later" of the other answers.

While it would be desirable if BPV balanced throughout the period covered by SFB, I don't believe it's possible. The biggest disconnect is between the EY ships and the MY ships. They really can't be balanced, IMO, because they simply play too different a game and this magnifies any RPS or scaling issues between the different technologies. I'm not even convinced the time period from MY to X2 can be balanced across the board. It would nice... but may be impossible. I think efforts should be concentrated on finding a workable balance for Y168 through X2 as I think this is probably the best that can be achieved.

Question B)

Answer - 5, though I can see a rationale for 6.

If the first X2 cruisers are going to be "general purpose" ships most of us have been assuming, rather than optimized warships, mission requirements will dictate that they be big. They will probably have lots of labs and shuttles, and either cargo or some kind of NWO box that includes cargo as an option. The general purpose requirements also dictate a large crew since expertise will be required in many different areas. All these argue for a big ship, even with their advanced technology. Movement costs of .67 or .75 would be more in line for an optimized warship than for the multi-purpose ship that has been the semi-consensus. I can almost, but not quite, see making them MC 1.25, but ultimately that does seem (as some have argued) like trying to sneak in an XDN by another name.

Question C)

Answer - 3, or possibly 4 as long as the disparity between an XCA and a CCX is slight.

These ships will still have to function in a dangerous galaxy and will have the most advanced weapons available. But the X1 ships were designed as pure warships (within the limitations of the base hulls) and this should convey some advantages as well. Also, making X2 ships too strong will further complicate the task of balancing them against GW technology.

Note that the above is for Y205 ships, as specified. I presume that X2 cruisers in the Xork era will be substantially stronger than X1 counterparts because even with X2 tech they will have to be, in order to survive.

Sorry about the wordiness of the answers.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 11:57 am: Edit

I'm in the same boat as Alan; can't answer without saying "why". Here goes:

Question A:

Answer: 3 or 4

Reason: The fact is, most of the plethora of published material is from the GW era. Therefore, that's the era that provides the most to play against. If X2 is to succeed, it has to be fun against all those GW ships, preferably of both eras.


Question B:

Answer: 5

Reason: Lots, though I don't suppose any are carved in stone. I prefer move cost one because its familiar, and doesn't lead to bigger ships. Yes, a ship with 48 warp and a move cost of 1.25 has roughly the same power to move ratio as a smaller, 36 point move cost 1 ship does, but when sitting still it has tons more power to spare. Bigger engines also equal more damage capacity and bigger box count. Not sure I want to see X2 evolve that way.


Question C:

Answer: 2 or perhaps 3in some cases.

Reason: IMHO, X1 ships were built for one purpose and one purpose only; to fight. They were the best desgins anyone could muster during the last stages of the General War. X2 ships are representing an entire new line of ships, not just built up or refitted ones. They should be more flexible, more general purpose in design. The nature of their advanced weapons and systems will keep them on par with X1 ships, but an XCA vs a CCX should be even, with advantages going to both (more weapons on the CCX, better weapons on the XCA).

Like Alan, I'm limiting my answers based on the requirements for Y205 ships. I have no objection to more powerful XBC's and even the rare XDN for the Y220 period, provided the Xorkaliens are the bad asses we think they are.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 02:25 pm: Edit

My own answers and commentary.


A: 3) Y168 Un-refitted GW

GW ships are the foundation of the game. If equal BPV matches are to apply then they have to be acroos the GW board.

B: 6) Either 1.00 or 1.25

I can easily see the XCL as the generic workhorse at 0.67-0.75. But I think an XCA should rack in around 1.0 and maybe if there is a fair bit of difference 1.25 for the XCC.

C: 4) Equal to or greater than X1 of the same class

If an equal BPV of X2 cant handle and equal BPV of X1 then the whole thing is a write off. X2 ships have more toys so will cost more BPV wise. The exact weapons suite can be different but the relative firepower class for class should be the same.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 01:51 am: Edit

I would like to say that I don't think a poll is all that handy as I don't think we need consensus.

A) X2 is BPV balanced and most fun to play against:
2) MY and everything later
If it fails that test then SVC will just throw it all in the round filing cabinet.


B) The largest Y205 X2 ships should be:
5) XCC MC = 1.00
What an odd question.
I mean I don't mind the 1.25 XCC but I think it certainly should not come to pass without an MC 1 XCA or XCM.


C) X2 ships should function in combat:
4) Equal to or greater than X1 of the same class
I don't really see any one in the admiralty purchasing office buying a cruiser if an ISC CCX or Orion CX can kick it's butt.
I see room to refit them further which is why I say equal to or more than but if we are talking about strictly Y205 vessels then actuall my vote is:-
ABOUT EQUAL TO THE BEST X1 VESSEL OF THAT CLASS.
That is for cruisers. As for other classes, I don't really mind, although I like the idea of an XFF being able to go toe to toe with a CA. The XDD can go pretty much anywhere between a BCH level ( slightly stronger than a DDX ) to Weaker than a CW ( with refits to keep it better than an XFF of that time period).

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 12:07 pm: Edit

A) 4, Y184 Fully refitted GW, PF

I believe most SFU development is done within a historical framework. A Y168 ship in Y205 would seem a non sequiter. A fully refitted ship would seem the norm. Will the BPV work if an X2 ship is displaced into Y168? I hope so, but I fear RPS issues will be impossibly exaggerated against 27 warp cruisers and speed 8 drones. A GW – X2 battle should be balanced with all the refits appropriate to the year. Anything less is non-historical.

B) 6, Either MC=1.00 or MC=1.25

I am an advocate of MC=1.25. It seems to reduce the eggshell problem. It seems to reduce the ‘always plot speed 31’ problem. It forces players to make the power choices that make MY great, the loss of which plagues X1. Even with this preference my own designs tend toward the traditional and my cruisers tend to be of the MC=1 variety. My vote is that we remain open to changing the movement cost to achieve the desired game balance.

C) 2, Equal to or less than X1 of the same class.

X1 ships are no compromise warships that continue to co-exist in the X2 era. We have warships, we don’t need to build more. What is needed are reconstruction cruisers who’s mission is to reconstitute the empire, something warships aren’t very good at. Yes our X2 ships should be capable in combat, but that isn’t their mission and it doesn’t need to be. When Y205 comes around there are plenty of warships around to bust heads. X2 vessels should focus on the multi-role mission and by design leave the combat to the old warhorses.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 12:08 pm: Edit

MJC;

I disagree with you that the X2 cruisers should be ... "ABOUT EQUAL TO THE BEST X1 VESSEL OF THAT CLASS."

We all have our own ideas about why the original X2 failed. As for me, I think part of the failure was the conscious attempt to make all the X2 ships a dead even match for all other X2 ships of the same class. The attempt failed anyway, given the different technologies of the various races. But even making the attempt led to a very cookie cutter approach to X2 that made the ships far less interesting than they should have been. There were other problems with the first X2 module, of course. But I think the cookie cutter approach and the attempt to make X2 ships even matches across the board was a major driver.

The Alpha races have generally comparable levels of overall technical development, but they also have unique capabilities. The ISC just seem to be able to cram more weapons onto their size class 2 and size class 3 hulls than other races. The Tholians have some remarkable capabilities but also great difficulties in building large hulls. The Hydrans are the only race who use X-tech fighters. Trying to take these disparate elements and then devise rules to make them all "about equal" to some arbitrary BPV standard is, IMO, asking for failure of X2 as a game. It would be much better to make each race's X2 capabilities a logical engineering progression (given SFU physics) of that race's existing capabilities, ensure there are no "game breaking" aspects that result, and then get the BPVs right from there.

And if this means that no other race's X2 cruiser can match an ISC cruiser in a one-on-one duel, that's much better than the alternative.

You're fond of citing what "the Admirals" would or would not accept to support your positions. First of all, historically some admirals (and generals) have embraced cutting edge technology (perhaps even before it was ready for deployment) and some have insisted on "tried and true" methods. There is no historical universal pattern regarding the adoption of new technologies. In the U.S. Department of Defense there is currently a huge internal struggle between those who want to reduce force structure to put the money into "leap ahead" technologies, and those who say we have already reduced force structure too much.

It is just as likely that the "Admirals" you cite would be banging on the table insisting that what your engineers should be doing is figuring out ways to make X1 tech viable for SC2 hulls so they can deploy X-tech Dreadnoughts and Space Control Ships, as it is that they would be pushing for X2 tech. But even if the admirals are believers in X2 tech, they can't command the laws of physics, nor the principles of engineering. If they could, every race would have the cloak by now, and web technology, and hellbores, and...

Okay - Rant Mode off. Re-engage Lurk Mode.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 02:58 pm: Edit

Please continue to post your reasons for your votes, but please move all discussion to Major X2 Tech: http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/23/2584.html?1116930375

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 03:26 pm: Edit

I won't vote here; IMHO A poll is like setting a future goal/design criterias with no respect to the actual economical and political situation.

See my short post in the other thread.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 05:16 pm: Edit

Just on the Admiralty.

In the U.S. Department of Defense there is currently a huge internal struggle between those who want to reduce force structure to put the money into "leap ahead" technologies, and those who say we have already reduced force structure too much.

Seems to match a "Build More X1 ships Vs New X2" debate.
The X1 Dreadnought and others fall under the category of X1R.
And I think there's something in the dicotomy of X1R and X2 for all of us.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 02:44 pm: Edit

As has been pointed out elsewhere it would be useful if we could reach a consensus, or at least a clear majority, on some basic points:

A) X2 is BPV balanced and most fun to play against:

2) MY and everything later

By SVC decree, there can be no other answer, just a "Your mileage may vary" note.


B) The largest Y205 X2 ships should be:

5) XCC MC = 1.00

It's what a cruiser is


C) X2 ships should function in combat:
4) Equal to or greater than X1 of the same class
5) Greater than X1 of the same class

Either answer is acceptable. For purely maketing reasons, X2 needs to appear "better" than X1 just as X1 needed that same appearance over Standard tech. "Different" works as well, but "inferior" won't.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 02:45 pm: Edit

For those that care to notice, right below THIS topic is another one labelled "Poll Commentary".

You may wish to use it.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 07:04 pm: Edit

Yes and I whipped up both threads