David,

I agree.

X1R could easily include a BCX. Confronted with the Xorks, it probably would.

As for whether evolutionary upgrades would be needed or whether there would be time, for them, dunno. I always thought the X1 timeframe to be a little short, as do others here.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 11:08 pm: Edit

the other thing is that the GW era refits generally closed gaps in the designs, frequently caused by new technology being introduced and new tactics being evolved over many years real-time. given that X1 ships will be optimized as much as possible by this group of critics (myself included ) what gaps will be left to fill in with refits?

now around 2010 there will probably be gaps found that need to be filled, but I would be very surprised if there were any befor 2006 (assuming it's published before then)

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 11:09 pm: Edit

"why shouldn't there be a BCHX during the XR period?"

"The races have been building larger ships for a LONG time, why would they stop now?"

Because XR is the period of the trade wars when the galaxy is nominally at peace. There is little need to build a BCH(X1) while at peace. That and X1 ships are proposed to be incredibly expensive to operate, crew and maintain. Traits that the XR ships will be designed to improve.

Yes when the Xorks arrive BCH(XR) class ships will be quickly rushed into production, but that's Y215, ends the trade war and is presumably published in a new module XR2 and/or CX.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 11:21 pm: Edit

(X0.0) After 205, many ships were built from new designs using even more advanced technology. These were known as "Second Generation" designs and are not included in Module X1. They may appear in a later product. Module X2 might include more First-Generation material.

What this says is we have no idea what the official name of any future module will be beyond something will be called X2. When asked for clarification SVC stated there might be an X1B (more X1 ships) and a X1R (which I shortened to XR in the latest timeline). Since the beginning most people on the board have referred to the apex of SFU ship design as X2.

That’s the history of where XR and X2 came from. We have identified XR as the period beginning in Y205 and representing the Trade Wars. But (X0.0) states the same period had new hulls with even more advanced technology. That’s from where I draw the conclusion that XR should be slightly better than X1. Think a CA(XR) with 6 PV + 4 P1 rather than 12 P1; fewer but better phasers.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 15, 2003 - 12:05 am: Edit

Per SVC in another X2 topic X2 will be second generation ships. New hulls, new gizmos. X1R will be more of what X1 was. SVC actually coined X1R from a previous concept in that discussion.

XP is our concept coined by one of us (I forget who).

I can see X1R having GW refit type improvements but not more than that.

I vote save the new more powerful tech for X2.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, January 15, 2003 - 01:54 pm: Edit

@X is looking a little flat, like more of the same tech we've had since EY.

Let's break out and give each race its own individual variations on their time-tested weapons. I will post ideas in disruptor and plasma topics to start with. More elsewhere as ideas come to me.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 12:10 am: Edit

Some people want racial flavor and I don't think that's so bad. I was doing some SFB reading and I thought of an idea for racial flavor for the Kzinti. How about this:

First an excerpt from Module-Y: (YE23.0) DISRUPTOR CANNON. The Disruptor Cannon is a version of the disruptor used by the Carnivons. Unlike the Disruptor Bolts used by the Lyrans, Klingons, Kzintis, and others, the Disruptor Cannon is a two turn arming weapon. It is, for game purposes, literally a disruptor that uses twice as much power, fires half as often, and does twice as much damage. The Kzintis might have adopted it as their primary weapon except that it proved impossible to overload this weapon while the fast firing Disruptor Bolt could be over loaded.
=================================

So, I propose this:

Just before the dawn of the X2 era the Kzintis revieled their new heavy weapon proving the old rumors were true that the Kzintis never stopped studying and experimenting on the old Carnivon technologies. With the advent of many new materials, advances in energy management and other sciences the Kzinti were finally able to field the weapon they had been working on for so long.

Differances from the old Carnivon Disruptor Cannon are:

1) It can be Over loaded. (cost=8 arming is 2 or more + (2+ remainder) i.e. 2+6 or 4+4 or 3+5 are all leagal arming sequences. Note that the total must be eight power and if arming does not total eight the it is fired as a normal shot and the extra energy is lost. Overloads cannot be held.

2) It can be Fast Loaded by these special rules. Fast Arming must be started with the normal amount (or more for fast OL) of energy (minimum of 2) during EA. The remainder MUST be added via Reserve Power (minimum 2 or more for OL) AFTER 8 impulses. Note that this means that a fast loaded DC cannot fire in the first quarter of the turn. Fast loads cannot be held.
+++++++

Shortly after the Kzinti pulled out another surprise showing that they had not limited their studies to the Disruptor Cannon. They had several samples of the Heel Nipper Device but were never able make it work mounted on a ship as for some reason they never understood, it interacted with the firing ship and the weapons effects were also applied to its own warp. The Kzintis were, however, able to make it smaller and developed the Heel Nipper Drone. It is a 1.5 space module and can only be mounted on a Type IX drone frame. This version does not cause damage to the target warp but does cause the two other effects (loss of next movement point and a forced turn: see special chart below). The range at which it will fire is noted at launch next to the target designation. When the weapon fires it cause the drive module to go inert and a device in the module causes it to self destruct (to prevent capture after it has fired). Use the standard Heel Nipper rules with the exceptions noted here.
Since the HND does not cause actual damage to the warp engines of the target a chart is used to determin which direction the ship is forced to turn. Roll one die and consult the chart below.

Heel Nipper Drone Turn Chart

1-2	Does not turn*
3-4	Turns left
5-6	Turns right

*= But the turn and side slip modes are reset.

This drone would be Restricted Availability for two years then Limited Availablity there after. It can be targeted on but cannot fire on SC5 or smaller units due to the limited size of a targeting computer on such a complex device.
Additional note regarding DBP(Drone Booster Packs): The HN on the HND cannot fire while the drone is in boosted mode.

=====================

Give the Kzinti these and limit their use of Ph-Vs and you'll have a good racial uniqueness. Limit Ph-Vs to the main hull mounts saying that they couldn't mount them on the pylons (or wings or what ever they're called on Kzinti ships). Mount XPh-1 and XPh-3s( or the Ph-6) on those.

So far the Kzinti have really been a diferent mix of Klingon technology (so to speak) and with this could be something very different.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 02:00 am: Edit

I like the idea of Kzinti reviving old carnovon tech.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 02:09 am: Edit

sounds good, the gorns should get X versions of the Quantum Wave Torpedo

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 02:30 am: Edit

I thought about that but their situation is a little diferent and I thought just doing it once for the Kzintis would make it a novel approach.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 02:41 am: Edit

Thanks. I posted that and was dying to hear something from some one.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 12:24 am: Edit

Proximity Evasion Maneuvers (PEM).

Using the fast, tight maneuvers similar to the ones used for Erratic Maneuvers, this is a navigational computer assisted maneuver to avoid terrain features in close proximity such as asteroids and small moons. The cost is the same as EM and must be announced the same way(see C10.3). The effects are different than EM however. There is no penalty on ships firing on a ship using PEM but the effect of EM apply to the ship it's self(See C10.5). Also see C10.414 and C10.43 to C10.49) Though the ECM effect in (C10.414) is only two ECM (i.e. -1). The effects of natural ECM (the asteroid hexes natural ECM) will also apply and will be cumulative.

The advantage is when moving through asteroid hexs the ship gains a -2 to the die roll when rolling for damage on the Asteroid Collision Damage Table(P3.2). Also the ship gains a -2 on the die roll when rolling on the Planetary Collision Table(P2.231). PEM has no effect on other types of terrain.
X2 ships only. Nimble X2 ships can use their nimble bonus OR PEM. The effects are not cumulative.

A ship cannot perform PEM and EM at the same time or in the same turn.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 02:01 am: Edit

Not being able to PEM and EM at the same time, I can see. They're opposites.

Why not in the same turn?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 02:20 am: Edit

I thought it was too much. You should have to choose. I suppose if you want to use up ten movement points in one turn....

Actually, that came from the EM rule that says you can only start EM once in a turn. Though they are opposite maneuvers they are also similar and what ever stops you from EMing twice would stop the other too.

So, what do you think. ?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 03:02 am: Edit

Do the rules allow you to pay for EW twice and therefore stop/start twice?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 09:49 am: Edit

It would be reasonable to modify EM rules with the new hulls. I can see the ships computers being better at compensating for the erratic, but known, manuevers.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 12:31 pm: Edit

(C10.31) STARTING EM: A given unit can only begin using EM once per turn. See (C10.35 carry over).

I see PEM as a sub-class of EM. There fore you choose. And considder the situation. This allows you to move through ateroids pretty fast. And each asteroid hex between you and the enemy add to your natural ECM level.
Currently you could float some energy and pulse fire you phasers as Ph-3s before each move and you could easily fly at speed 22 through an asteroid field.
Play testing may prove this too powerful and result is only a -1 on the charts or as the opposite of EM move one column down instead of up. Either way you wont need to EM. The Asteroid cover is better.

You can currently off set the ECM generated by EM with ECCM.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 01:39 pm: Edit

Loren,

That's not what Tos was talking about.

Unless I miss my guess, he's talking about 4 ECM and only 3 or 2 ECM against the EMing ship.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 01:52 pm: Edit

What John said. The computers executing seemingly random maneuvers are actually executing a previously generated random plot. Since it was pre-generated and saved the computer need only look ahead a bit to determine where the ship will be when its time to fire.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 18, 2003 - 01:22 am: Edit

I was answering you John,(Friday, January 17, 2003 - 03:02 am) in further referance to (Friday, January 17, 2003 - 02:01 am).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, January 18, 2003 - 11:55 am: Edit

I am aware of that rule, but it does npt directly answer the question of being able to expend for em twice. It answers by implication.

The direct answrr is in (C10.32), which says if you stop EM (presumably after starting during the same turn), you don't can't start again until a new turn.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 08:40 pm: Edit

Here is two quick and dirty proposals for system changes in X2.

PROBE LAUNCHER: In addition to the normal complement of probes each ship has an additional set of advanced probes. This advanced probe (AP) opperates under the rules of the Type III probe drone but is not a drone. All races employed something so similar that this rule applies to all X2 ships.

Klingon Special Drone: OECM drone. Targets the unit and lends it OEW until destroyed or runs out of duration. Must be in the same hex to lend. Followes the same rules as the ECM drone except as noted here.

X2 Scout Channels: Other than the Special Bridge I don't expect to see Spec. Sens on anything other than a scout and I'm planning the only X2 scouts will be based on the XFF. So in this light I suggest that advancements in technology has made it so that the Ph-1 does NOT blind Special Sensors and that X2 scouts be armed with only XPh-1s. (Ph-5 will blind them as will all other heavy weapons and the other stuff on the list.) Probe launching a AP wont blind channels.

OK that's those. Gotta go pick up my son!

I'll be back.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 07:11 am: Edit

I'ld like to see some changes in the basic structure of the game, specifically limitation be removed from X2 ships.

• The No Het or Tac on Impulse 1 rule removed...If X2 ships move at speed 32 or faster than this rul;e should be removed.

• The no skipping of power to Life Support ( with dieing ) unless you're crippled rule should also be removed for X2 ships.

• Legendary Scirnce Officers, Weapons Officers and Engineers should be able to set up a Probe as an antimatter bomb.

• Low Powered Fire control should allow you to fire more than 2 seekers and 2 DF weapons, meaning any DF weapons fired on lower power will attack as though fired on passive fire control after the first two and Seekers can be launched into ATG after the second Seeker and thus a rate higher than 4 attacks per turn can be yeilded...although they'll be restricted.

• Ships should be free to move without a legal EAF...that is, if you pay for more movement than you use ( so long as you accellerate and decellerate under the Mid Turn Speed Change rules then you'll be okay ) such that you simple waste the power that was allocated and yet not used...this could be explained as, reducing the ammount of ionised gas ( by closing the valve ) that enters into the warp engines...the engine uses up the same ammount or POWER but can't generate as much thrust and thus moves slower.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 08:21 am: Edit

I couldn't see the movement change in the EAF you suggest, but I could see an unplotted deceleration using reserve warp for breaking energy. It would come at a stiff BPV penalty and probably cost double movement (caped at current speed * movement rate).

I don’t think the complexity added to your LPFC suggestion is worth the effort.

I don’t see why you would mess with life support. If we do then make life support = movement cost.

I can see the impulse 1 restrictions being removed, particularly if ships are allowed to move 32. But against an X0 ship it would have a significant BPV advantage. Effectively it removes the ability to hack and slash as the X2 ship always gets to pick the shield impulse 1. That’s gonna cost you, I’m thinking maybe as much as 10%.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 02:40 pm: Edit

I'm not thrilled with any of those suggestions.

We'd be playong too different a game.

and good luck trying to play balance two related but not identical game systems.