I doubt it.

Armor is established in SFB... the oldest ships have armor.

42

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 02:58 pm: Edit

...and as long as it works like that, you're fine.

Try anything fancier and you have to tread carefully.

In general the ADB has ditched armor for warships

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 09:46 pm: Edit

My preference for X2 would be to have ships roughly as capable as X1, but with more diversity (eg. the use of more than one phaser type). The ships would be new designs, not conversions of existing designs, and would completely replace earlier fleets.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 10:47 am: Edit

It would be fun for the Xorks to exceed 32 and have Alpha not be able to.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 03:48 pm: Edit

Andrew,

Please review the X2 Timeline topic. SVC has a 12/23 post you should read.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 05:02 pm: Edit

John,

Saw that and am now using X1R and X2 terms appropriately.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 10:12 pm: Edit

Please answer the 2X poll I have started. It may help focus debate and start the first round of playtesting.

(Sorry for the spamming)

By Aaron Gimblet (Marcus) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 03:59 am: Edit

One thought on X2 ship speeds, or perhaps ship powerplants... as power used for systems increases, powerplant increases, and move cost stays the same, then the relative advantage of slowing down to free power for other uses becomes less and less.

I really want to still have some reason to move at something other than 31, all the time...the one thing that would make me consider cramming the top speed way, way, wayyyy up (maybe even to a hypothetical but not powerable speed 64) is to create gradiations in ship speed, once again. If a ship can potentially move that fast, then the ship has a need to...

The concern of course is giving the X2's seeking weapons that can deal with targets at ultra high speeds, without those same seeking weapons making X1 ships completely obsolete.. in fact we always have to look at that concern, when we talk about faster X2 seekers, and faster X2 ships.

Then again... if ships have that kind of potential, coupled with the OL range and EW advantages discussed elsewhere, we might just be able to find a group of ships that have non-huge SSDs, an advantage over lower tech vessels to befit being the 'next big thing', AND play in complex, interesting, and playable ways against each other. As for BPVs, as long as their right, does it matter so much if their high? Id rather have a 120 box SSD that costs in like, and can fight to a draw, a B10, than a 200 Box XCA SSD that can do the same thing.

Rambling, ill quit now. Fair warning, ive been lurking the boards for a long time, so I may be chatty for a few months now that im a member. ~G~

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 03:00 pm: Edit

Aaron,

In looking at EY vs. MY/GW tech, high BPVs can provide problems by exxgerating the advantages offerred by better tech.

The thought-experiment I use is taking a stack of CYs...about 70 points a pop, right?...against something like a BCH or a CX.

Against a CX, 4 CY's should be an even-up fight. But I don't think it is or would be.

So the more power we give a 2X ship, the greater the chance that a 500-point XCC can clean the clock of 500 pts of General-War tech ships.

Ergo we tend to set our sites (and the combat power of X2) lower.

By Aaron Gimblet (Marcus) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 03:33 pm: Edit

John... I understand what your saying and whats going on. I just missed, in X1, speed being as continually pressing a decision. EA just hurt less, and that bothered me. No matter what happens, to me SFB is about spreading power between demanding mulitple systems. As we advance the tech and keep maximum speeds the same, movement becomes a quieter, or at least more-easily-satisfied, voice at that table...

Im not saying we should up the speedcap (the rules alone scare me) or stop adding power (we must, after all). Im just asking to consider those things, and pointing out something were loosing, IMHO

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 05:42 pm: Edit

Aaron,

If you push theough the archives (which are pretty large at this point), you will find a lot of our porposals revolver around the concept of "more power for more power".

Example: the P-5 does better damage than a P-1...at the cost of 1.5 power.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 11:14 pm: Edit

"I just missed, in X1, speed being as continually pressing a decision. EA just hurt less, and that bothered me."

I see the crux of Aaron's concern being massive reserve power.

In X1 EA goes something like this: 4 for house keeping, 15 for bats, that leaves 30 left, what do I want to do this turn? Speed or weapons? No matter, I'll just use my reserve for whatever I'll need.

In X2 most proposals change this to: 4 for house keeping, 30 for bats, that leaves 30 left, what do I want to do this turn? No matter, I'll just use my reserve for whatever I'll need.

Takes too much of the fun out of EA. It would be a design mistake if every X2 ship could do everything all the time. We tread dangerous ground boosting the engines and reserves beyond X1 as balance, challenge and fun will be simultaneously under assault.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 01:51 am: Edit

---

Quote:

So the more power we give a 2X ship, the greater the chance that a 500-point XCC can clean the clock of 500 pts of General-War tech ships.

Ergo we tend to set our sites (and the combat power of X2) lower.

---

---

Quote:

John... I understand what your saying and whats going on. I just missed, in X1, speed being as continually pressing a decision. EA just hurt less, and that bothered me. No matter what happens, to me SFB is about spreading power between demanding mulitple systems. As we advance the tech and keep maximum speeds the same, movement becomes a quieter, or at least more-easily-satisfied, voice at that table...

Im not saying we should up the speedcap (the rules alone scare me) or stop adding power (we must, after all). Im just asking to consider those things, and pointing out something were loosing, IMHO

---

---

Quote:

If you push theough the archives (which are pretty large at this point), you will find a lot of our porposals revolver around the concept of "more power for more power".

Example: the P-5 does better damage than a P-1...at the cost of 1.5 power.

---

---

Quote:

In X1 EA goes something like this: 4 for house keeping, 15 for bats, that leaves 30 left, what do I want to do this turn? Speed or weapons? No matter, I'll just use my reserve for whatever I'll need.

In X2 most proposals change this to: 4 for house keeping, 30 for bats, that leaves 30 left, what do I want to do this turn? No matter, I'll just use my reserve for whatever I'll need.

Takes too much of the fun out of EA. It would be a design mistake if every X2 ship could do everything all the time. We tread dangerous ground boosting the engines and reserves beyond X1 as balance, challenge and fun will be simultaneously under assault.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 12:58 pm: Edit

"You and I both know that a Fed CA can easily clean the Clocks of 2 Klingon F5s, even tough it's what 25 BPV cheaper?"

Not so fast. I know this is a side issue but that is not nessasarily true. Having played that very scenario as the Fed. Dwight lost one F5 and my Fed had it's clock cleaned. Those two ship can run circles around the Fed CA, and I am at least a good player.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 03:18 pm: Edit

Agreed.

I and a friend took a War Eagle and a Skyhawk-L agaist a Fed BCF captained by my brother. We took the BCF down and my brother is individualy the best player of the three of us.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 09:58 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

X2s should run and Speed 32 and DO EVERYTHING, because the new things they can do should be much more expensive and it should have so many cool choices in those areas.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 10:32 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

That's exactly where the whole X2 system will break down, if anywhere.

Has anyone considered keeping batteries at 3 points for X2? Or bringing them down to 2 points (X1 batts were too much of a maintenance headache, etc.)

We don't have to improve EVERYTHING, and uber-reserve seems to be what has the best chance of breaking the whole thing.

---

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 10:39 pm: Edit

The Xorks are another story altogether. I'm talking about making Y205 The Trade Wars work.

The Xork-busting ships are X3 technology as far as I'm concerned right now.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 11:58 pm: Edit

I favor 3 point bats. They are more durable than 5 point bats.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 12:28 am: Edit

In larger numbers, yes, but in the same numbers they're just as durable as the 5 pointers except that the 5 pointers can build an entire point of G.S.Reo that the three pointers can't.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 12:52 am: Edit

We already discussed that the reserve power available should be exactly what it should be, regardless of power stored per box. If we decided a certain ship should have 15 reserve power then it will have 15 reserve power (maybe 16 if we end up with 4 point bats). The moral of the story is the amount of power stored per box isn't terribly relevant and if you accept the 'correct amount' premise then 3 is better than 5.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 12:58 am: Edit

I don't accept the correct power premise.

I'm running under the premise that there will be a battery refit.


X2 ships shouldn't be fully capable X2 vessels in Y205, they should grow towards being fully capable as Y225 edges closer.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 02:16 am: Edit

In a practical sense, we're comitted to a minimum of 3-point batteries. Reversing direction to a lesser tech won't fly.

At the same time, going as high as 5 is also out. SVC is reported to have stated that 5-point batteries are andro tech and will not be used by galactics. I think we can safely assume that this statement nixes 6+ point batteries.

Our options are:

Stay at the X1 standard of 3

Increase to 4, either with the dawn of X2 or by refit

Backpedal to 2 or 1, but find some additional ability for batteries that makes X2 batteries better than X1's 3-point batteries without failing the KISS test.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 02:42 am: Edit

---

Quote:

At the same time, going as high as 5 is also out. SVC is reported to have stated that 5-point batteries are andro tech and will not be used by galactics. I think we can safely assume that this statement nixes 6+ point batteries.

Our options are:

Stay at the X1 standard of 3

Increase to 4, either with the dawn of X2 or by refit

Backpedal to 2 or 1, but find some additional ability for batteries that makes X2 batteries better than X1's 3-point batteries without failing the KISS test.

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 03:19 am: Edit

Uh MJC,

What part of

SVC is reported to have stated that 5-point batteries are andro tech and will not be used by galactics

isn't clear?

The best we can shoot for is 4. You're welcome to try to get SVC to change his mind, of course. Until then, 4's the best we can reasonably expect to use.