I hope we arnt getting the Jackie fisher complex of building a fast heavily armed cruiser and then having it engage a battleship. How well will a 400 point 2X class stand up to a DN or BB with ew support. Balance is the key to any good ship looking at the progresion above we can see a 2X cruiser at about 45/36 around that should be sufficent unless we want to fly against BBs.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 07:53 pm: Edit

My proposal only beefed up the forward half over X1. And only slightly better than a DN+. A GW DNG actually fairs better.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 07:58 pm: Edit

--- disengage the lurker cloak ---

I did some playtesting for the current X1 rules (those published in CL). In general, the testing revealed that X1 ships could fight a DN (or DNH) but could not go trade blows with them at close range. To win in that sort of match, the X1 ship had to make effective use of its EW edge, greater reserve power flexibility, and higher combat speed. I would expect X2 cruisers to face a similar challenge against a GW BB or an X2 DD against an X1 cruiser (assuming the rival ships are close in terms of BPV). The X2 cruiser would get lots of cool capabilities, but it should not be able to go stand toe to toe with a B10 and not expect to get popped like a cork. Improved perfomance has got to come at some cost (assuming BPV is equal) - I think it is reasonable to expect raw internal fortitude would be one of the possible trade offs. Otherwise, if the ships have the same durability, but the X2 ships have better capabilities, the BPVs should not be equal.

--- re-engage the lurker cloak ---

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 08:00 pm: Edit

Why did the CX change and even up all 5 back shields?


And for the Klingons:
D7B 30/22/22/22/22/22
C7 36/30/24/24/24/30
DX 40/36/32/32/32/36

I guess this means 46/44/34/34/34/44 for the X2 Klingon, but I'd thin it out to 46/38/38/38/38/38 because it's better at defending against hellbores.

As to BPV, we're still looking at the 300 range for the Y205 CA. It should be in over its head against a B10 and equivalent to either a DNH or 2 Y180 CAs.

As Jeremy said, against a DNH, the XCA needs to use its EW shift, superior maneuverability, and longer range weapons to compensate for the DNH's tougher hull and more numerous weapons.

When fighting 2 Y180 CAs, it has to use the same advantages, since the CAs would normally be fighting in a tight formation.

By George M. Ebersole (George) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 08:16 pm: Edit

John Trauger (Vorlonagent); because it's not new and unique "fancy" tech. To myself we might just as well make BBs official for all races if we go that route. Ships with stronger shields and better weapons aren't clever designs, in my opinion.

I think we need something that functions and is truly unique in flavor as to give a "high-tech" flavor.

Brains verse brawn

Off to the gym.......

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 08:19 pm: Edit

The 2X Fed I've been working on has 45/39/36/36/36/39. Haven't done the Klingon yet, but I imagine it would be more like Jeff's first example.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 08:21 pm: Edit

George, I think we're working on that.

Slightly thicker shields is only one piece of it.
The ph-5 should prove different enough to require different tactics.
The range 10 OL should add a new dynamic to mixed-tech fights.
EW levels up to 8 or 10 should add options in EA.
Faster load weapons will definately change the dynamics.
We're still working on how X2 drones and plasma should operate.

But the cruiser hull means you have to protect your shields even more.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 08:37 pm: Edit

George,

I hear you, but as Loren says, stronger shields are only a small part of the picture. A more integrated approach is something I had in mind for these ships; call it lessons learned from years upon years of war, but basically these would be entirely new designs, put together to maximize potential without being what you descrive; that is, "more is better."

For example, the approach I took for the Feds limited the amount of phasers mounted to a modest number (10 on the XCA, 7 on the XDD) but gave them much better overlapping firing arcs. A unified hull, marginally better maneuverability and whatever other devices we come up with (SIF's for example) would round it out. Not much gee-whiz stuff, but a very new approach to ship design and integration of systems to get more bang for the buck. The XDD I made, for example, actually doesn't have many more boxes than a 1X DD does; it's just laid out differently and has the new weapons on it. In fact, it has one less photon. I guess the point I'm making is that I agree that bigger isn't better, but we don't have to have lots of fancy-schmancy stuff for every race, either. That's my vision, of course, and hardly official.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 09:03 pm: Edit

The problem, Mike, With some of that stuff, is that EVERYBODY benefist from a unified hull. EVERYBODY likes broader firing arcs.

If one race can learn from war, so can another.

I'd have to see the differences between the Klingon and Fed drop to disruptor vs. Photon and how many C Hull each has.

Hull and kind is also racial flavor.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 09:28 pm: Edit

Shield mitigation was kind of a cool idea. Being able to sweep some damage over to an adjacent shield isn't that big of a deal. How about using energy to perform the task. Say, one point of energy can move 4 damage over to another shield. Can be used in conjunction with reinforcement but after such reinforcement is used.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 09:32 pm: Edit

What this would do is take out some of the wind from a large Alpha strike but would do little against smaller strikes. If you manage it poorly you'll just loose another shield.

Think carefully about using Shield Mitigation.

Perhaps there is no capacitor that holds the power in any way so the power for Shield Mitigation can ONLY come from reserve.

It would be the first rule to require energy ONLY from reserve.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 09:47 pm: Edit

John,

Very true, and I do agree. The uni-hull and improved arcs are what I gave the Feds, who (again, in my world) get no real high-tech stuff. The other races might go a different route. Say a better cloak for the Romulans, more maneuverability for the Klingons, etc. I do want racial flavor, but new racial flavor, if that makes sense.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 10:48 pm: Edit

Mike,

I am of a split mind on that.

While different is good, we make a Fed too different, you're playing a new reace with the same anme.

By George M. Ebersole (George) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 11:13 pm: Edit

Mike & Jeff; I can see that. I gues I just want all the possibilities exhausted before shields get beefed up.

Loren; that's brilliant!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 12:27 am: Edit

Thanks, I'm going to hold on to that one for my integrated proposal.

One of the things I like about SFB is the level it makes you think. There are many ways to do a thing but usually only one (maybe two) way to do it with out getting killed (usually the way your opponant doesn't guess). I want X2 to keep up that tradition. If X2 is too easy to play then the Joy of SFB is lost.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 04:48 pm: Edit

Shield mitigation might just replace the SIF, or require a less-powerful one.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 05:28 pm: Edit

I would like to see both. But, yes, a less powerful ASIF. Something simple.

I'm thinking that a single device that can be hit and run and repaired. Absorbs the first of every 4 hull or cargo hits. Reinforced it absorbs the first of every 3 hull or cargo hits.
Power cost is 2 for standard + 2 to reinforce.

Again, you have to think. How much damage do you expect. Would it be better to put the two or four points into Specific or Mitigation? Against massive volleys you get a bonus for your two or four points in that it migh stop more than two or four hits. That's better than Specific. Against small volleys (mizia) it would have good affect since it would apply to every volley.

Cargo is also a very precious to the Empires in this era so it can be used to protect that.

I proposed the High Impulse Turn that uses impulse to turn the ship sixty degrees out of turn mode. Cost is double movement cost. One natural bonus per game turn. POWERING THE SIF GIVES ONE EXTRA BONUS PER GAME TURN.
Any given ship may not perform a H.I.T. within two impulses of any other turn.
An H.I.T. does not affect the ships HET status with regards to it's bonus.

Every race would get these technologies but that would not harm racial flavor as their individual ship design would cause these technologies to be implemented differently. If these technologies are possable then they are really obvious one and every races ship design experts would figure them out.

By George M. Ebersole (George) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 07:58 pm: Edit

No more shield thoughts?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 08:19 pm: Edit

CAPS-TO-SSREO

I think it'ld be rather cool to have the ability to take damage that strikes your ship and stop it through the direct application of electricity held within the phaser capasitor ( and any other capasitors linked into that grid ).

This won't generate in vunnerability from an equal BPVed opponent because:-
1) It is limited ( well finite ) even if ships are running around with 12Ph-1s with tripple caps.
2) It's not something players would willing won't to do because you can generate far more damage against the enemy by passing that power through your phasers than sending that power to the sheilds.

But it will have uses, it'll greately increase the ability of ships to stop damage, on one turn, and then that ship will have to dump a lot of power into the Caps to regain that ability again.

It'll also provide a vexing choice:-
"Should I dump the power of the Non Facing Phasers into Caps-toSSReo and provide some limited protection to myself now, or should I leave that power in the Caps to be used for powering the phasers in my next attack run?"

By George M. Ebersole (George) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 06:21 pm: Edit

MJC; this too is ingenious!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 06:36 pm: Edit

Why thank you, I thought so my self.


I should reprint it because there's a bunch of Typos even I find Confussing.


CAPS-TO-SSREO

I think it'ld be rather cool to have the ability to take damage that strikes your ship and stop it through the direct application of electricity held within the phaser capasitor ( and any other capasitors linked into that grid ).

This won't generate an invunnerability from an equal BPVed opponent because:-
1) It is limited ( well finite ) even if ships are running around with 12Ph-1s with tripple caps.
2) It's not something players would willing want to do because you can generate far more damage against the enemy by passing that power through your phasers than sending that power to the shields.

But it will have uses, it'll greately increase the ability of ships to stop damage, on one turn, and then that ship will have to dump a lot of power into the Caps to regain that ability again.

It'll also provide a vexing choice:-
"Should I dump the power of the Non Facing Phasers into Caps-to-SSReo and provide some limited protection to myself now, or should I leave that power in the Caps to be used for powering the phasers during my next attack run?"

By Aaron Gimblet (Marcus) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 03:47 am: Edit

But does this augment the 'ship shrugs off shot one, shot two wrecks ship' problem?

And as was already discussed elsewhere with the batteries of X2, does it further marginalize the hellbore, by giving ships the ability to easily prevent any weakest shields...

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 08:37 am: Edit

---

Quote:

But does this augment the 'ship shrugs off shot one, shot two wrecks ship' problem?

---

---

Quote:

And as was already discussed elsewhere with the batteries of X2, does it further marginalize the hellbore, by giving ships the ability to easily prevent any weakest shields...

---

By George M. Ebersole (George) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 03:14 pm: Edit

Aaron; I don't see that as a problem. I think X-ships aught to be able to do that. But as long as it's done in a clever way, and doesn't rely on "uber" shielding.

Hellbore; maybe it's time for the Royal Hydran weapons' development team to rethink their weapons for X2? Hellbore-rays? Fusion torpedos? I don't really know.

By Aaron Gimblet (Marcus) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 03:29 pm: Edit

~nods~ very valid. We have to consider these things in gestalt.

MJC-the DF total damage HB doesnt exist yet. If we go with SSREO, it becomes less problematic, and perhaps should. If we dont, its more problematic, and perhaps shouldnt.