Archive through February 14, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
The "X" Files:
OLD X2 FOLDER:
X2 Shields:
Archive through February 14, 2003
I'm really not fond of allowing someone to us their phaser caps for additional reinforcement.
That may be too good a defense.
Quote:I'm really not fond of allowing someone to us their phaser caps for additional reinforcement.
That may be too good a defense.
Not really.
You get an R8 attack from a Klingon with 4 Boom Ph-5s and 2 Wing and 2 Waist Ph-1s and 4 UIM OVERLOADED Disruptors.
Total damage ( 4 x 3.5 + 4 x 2.16' + 5/6 x 4 x 6 ) would be on average 42.66 points of damage.
A target Fed CA with 8Ph-5s and four 5 point BTTYs would be able to cut out ( assuming it wanted to also fire 6 Ph-5s shots in response ) some 15 points oif damage from the Caps and a further 20 from the BTTYs to still take 7.66 points of damage....this without the drone or non facing phaser brought into acr latter being counted in that turn's damage.
Now said Fed CA spent some 41 points of power ( 9 from the Caps as Phaser shots, 15 from the Caps as SSReo and 20 from the BTTYS ) and has the ability to generate between ( depening on the estimates ) 58 and 70 points of power.
| Power Use Table | 58 total | 70 total |
| House Keeping | 4 | 4 |
| Weapons | 24 | 24 |
| recharge BTTY | 20 | 20 |
| recharge Caps | (say just enough for next volley ) 9 | 9 |
| EW | 1 | 8 |
| Movement | 0 | 5 |
How exactly does the X2 Fed CA not get jumped on by the Klingon!?!
Quite simply the ability of being able to defend yourself from a lot of damage should be hampered by exactly what Caps-to-SSReo gives us; the drawback of not being able to regain that ability without putting ourselves in a tactically disadvanatged position.
Not to mention that if a shunt or dispersal mechanism is involved, and another shield is brought into arc of the firing ship (assuming it too has brought new guns to bear), it'll be a bit easier for the firer as the new shield would've already taken damage. And that's the tradeoff.
Possible prediction; it might make X2 verse X2 engagements a bit longer than normal. By how much I have no idea. It'll certainly make X2 verse non X2 a little more interesting.
And thats a valid point... the game is won or lost on alot more than internals. If we end up in a situation in X2 where a vessel is unharmed but beaten, forced to flee or risk immediate destruction, then thats still a 'fight', though perhaps less satisfying to the casual player than one wherein alot of internals are traded both ways. Certainly in any era there are plenty of situations where you sit down, look at the board, and realize that though youve yet to have a shield fail but the game is already well and truely over.
I think it'd be unsatifying to a veteran player too.
We have shields shunting damage around and we have SIFs blunting internals when they do occur. Now we're talking about adding phaser-caps to reinforcement on top of that.
We don't need all this. It's excessive.
All these litle tweaks if installed would make a ship EXTREMELY damage resistant.
Also are any of them worth the increased bookeeping cost? I haven't really decided yet. Keeping KISS in mind. My first thought would be no.
But I could be persuaded. Just as a possibility. (But I think it would make balancing even more of a nightmare.) Maybe give the Klink one kind of goody. the Feds another etc etc.
John; I think we understand your message that you're opposed to this topic and the proposals herein. I'm not sure how to respond other than to ask if you have a good alternative. Remember, the concept is to create a thing that gives a ship an extra ability without beefing up its basic mechanics (more shield boxes, more internal boxes, and the like).
You're right; this is "unbalancing" to GW and X1, but only if you're going to pit ships mano-a-mano on a class for class basis; i.e. a GW/X1 frigate taking on an X2 frigate. On a BPV value an X2 frigate may have a CA BPV indicating that it could, after a fashion, take on a GW-CA. That's kind of the nature of the beast. Otherwise why even persue supposed "X" technology? Why not just weld a couple of Ore-Carrier hulls together, and slap on a bunch of heavy weapons and shield boxes?
Kenneth; one requires nearly no book keeping whatsoever, as with my original proposal. Overloaded shields may, as well as the other reinforcement option, but not phaser reinforcement (or at least not to any great extent).
I'm not really sure I understand the general tone of resistance towards these various ideas. Could someone enlighten the gut feeling they're getting on this? It's important I think, because otherwise we'll wind up with folks dissatisfied with things for the sake of being dissatisfied. Kind of like the photon 
Merging things like shields and phasers sounds like an extrodinarily bad idea.
There's no way X2 BATTs are going get 5 points. 4 probably. Maybe they should just stay at 3, but get the ability to store reserve warp power.
Why can't we just improve mostly weapons, as X1 improves systems?
The whole point of phaser caps is that the power is not as flexible as batteries.
If you want to use phaser cap power for reinforcement, then we should eliminate capacitors and just double the battery capacity.
There are a few pitfalls to avoid:
•Eggshell with Sledgehammer -- A ship that gets demolished on the first alpha strike
•Taking damage without losing combat power -- A ship that only loses shields and drains batteries on the first alpha, then gets demolished on the second.
•Greatly added complexity -- The KISS rule. If it's too complicated, it won't sell.
What if batteries have an upper limit to how much of their power can be used for reinforcement?
George,
I'm not "opposed" to anything here in a doctrinal way or based on who has the idea.
But I do feel it's good to point out difficulties where I see them.
If Commander's X2 taught us anything, it taught us that you can't just throw a bunch of nifty ideas together. You have to consider how they interact.
That means, if you and MJC really like the idea of using caps for shields, I expect you to consider how it will stack with the SIF and shield damage-shunting. I expect to be able to raise the point that the level of defense provided is excessive and I expect you or MJC to provide a concise answer that says why it isn't excessive or make changes that mitigate that excess.
That's why this is an open forum.
Lest you think I'm singling you or MJC out, take a look around. I'm engaging Tos and Mike on ship size and Loren on whether XCC's should be multi-role.
Now to resume debate, yes, I expect X2 ships to be more combat-capable than their earlier equivalents. I don't expect a XCC vs a BCH to be a fair fight. We are agreed there.
My concern (and I have stated this any number of times before)is that SVC has stated a goal for X2 that it be BPV-equivalent to GW-tech. That is, you take X BPV of GW vs. the same BPV of X2, you get an even fight. The more extreme we push X2, the more ticklish that balance becomes.
The usualy example I use is EY tech vs. X1. I'll take a single CX against you running 4 YCAs of your choice. I feel very strongly that the odds would be in my favor even though the BPV would be even-up.
Quote:By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 07:35 pm: Edit
Merging things like shields and phasers sounds like an extrodinarily bad idea.
Not to me
Quote:Why can't we just improve mostly weapons, as X1 improves systems?
OK, say we go that route. We have these greatly improved weapons with no defense to counter them. How's that strike you? (pun intended). The only option there is to beef up the shields, which I think is a good thing to avoid. Reason; because if one goes the "beef up shields and firepower," then all one has done is to recreate the Expansion #1 X-ships. Which, by the way, I like, but that's neither here nor there as the attempt on this thread is to find a mitigating technology that won't be an uber-shield while at the same time adding defense measures to the ship in question.
Jeff; I'm not following the eggshell-sledgehammer thing thing. Could you give an example?
John; sure, but I didn't get that tone from your other posts (except where you pointed it out), which is why I asked as it seemed pretty negative. I'm not taking anything personally, it's just that in your first post you said this was potentially unbalancing, then didn't elaborate. Then when you cap it off with a "we don't need all this" because in your opinion "it's excessive," then I think those of us here are entitled to your reasons. And that was the question that I put to you in my post before this.
I had a Linear Algebra instructor who was the type of professor who persistently put questions to the class to see if we had our logic down with the mathematical legalese that is matrix algebra-cum-calculus. The guy, in my opinion, was not a good instructor because really he was relying on the text to explain the lesson, from which he would draw the questions; i.e. "did you read the text? No? No wonder why you can't answer this question!" Ignoring the fact that perhaps we read it, but didn't understand what the text was trying to explain. I hope that clarifies my position.
What I think your real worry is-is what BPV do we assign a shunt system, or an overloaded or hard shield. How many more basic points is given a phaser (capacitor) that can discharge its energy to reinforce a shield? But I'm not sure this thought has been digested by yourself, or rather if it has, then it needs to be conveyed to us more accurately.
And they're good questions. As to whether or not they unbalance the game ... that's anybody's guess. Like the axioms go; "test it in combat," or "it looks good on paper, but will it fly?" Only time and testing will tell.
George,
I didn't intend to say that your proposal specifically would be an eggshell-with-sledgehammer.
I was merely pointing out that fact to keep the discussion on course.
Yeah, no offense taken, I just don't understand the "real-world" SFB analogy ... like a gutted D7 with all it's disruptors working or something.
Off to the showers with me.....
Quote:Merging things like shields and phasers sounds like an extrodinarily bad idea.
There's no way X2 BATTs are going get 5 points. 4 probably. Maybe they should just stay at 3, but get the ability to store reserve warp power.
Why can't we just improve mostly weapons, as X1 improves systems?
Uhuhh.
And how would that get us past the X1 sucks because the ships are eggshells with slegehammers.
Only this time it'll be Eggshells with Jackhammers.
Quote:The whole point of phaser caps is that the power is not as flexible as batteries.
If you want to use phaser cap power for reinforcement, then we should eliminate capacitors and just double the battery capacity.
There are a few pitfalls to avoid:
•Eggshell with Sledgehammer -- A ship that gets demolished on the first alpha strike
•Taking damage without losing combat power -- A ship that only loses shields and drains batteries on the first alpha, then gets demolished on the second.
•Greatly added complexity -- The KISS rule. If it's too complicated, it won't sell.
What if batteries have an upper limit to how much of their power can be used for reinforcement?
But isn't that the point X2 is supossed that take a bunch of the IS SUPOSSED TOs and bust them.
I say that although Caps have been arouinf a long time there are plenty of captains that wish they had 8 BTTY and 4 Caps on a CA, but that wasn't how the ship was built.
Since that time the BTTYs have gotton more capable but also the Caps have too, so there is still the desire for the Caps to be used in some other purpose.
Note that Caps-toSSReo can't be used to Prower transporters, tractors, Photons, SS, WW or movement.
It's a fun ability that does not even come close to doubling the nuimber of BTTYs that a ship has.
And the only record keeping is larger numbers in the Phaser Capistors used row of the EAF.
Quote:That means, if you and MJC really like the idea of using caps for shields, I expect you to consider how it will stack with the SIF and shield damage-shunting. I expect to be able to raise the point that the level of defense provided is excessive and I expect you or MJC to provide a concise answer that says why it isn't excessive or make changes that mitigate that excess.
Actually as a side note, I'm thoroughly opposed to damage shunting so I'm unlikely to ever put a reasoned argument as to why they should be coupled and still have them work well.
Quote:The usualy example I use is EY tech vs. X1. I'll take a single CX against you running 4 YCAs of your choice. I feel very strongly that the odds would be in my favor even though the BPV would be even-up.
But isn't that really the problem of all Force Dynamics situations.
At 240 BPV a Fed CX could fight 4 Fed YCAs at 84 BPV each ( 320 total ) but that might not be enough to counter act the Force Dynamics problem
But what about 5 Fed YCAs.
Even punching the CX at R8 for 1/6 of 10 x 4 would still be damage the X1 would need to recon with and if the CX were planing to strike at R3 or closer the Fed YCAs would be able to do a lot of damage.
Even if the XCC is 480 BPV ( and a lot of people are opposed to that ) the CX and DDX it would be fighting ( also 240 BPV total ) could fight it well.
A BCG and a CARa+ and an NCA would also be able to fight the XCC but through quite a shift and thus might have problems...but they'ld do so much damage that they'ld also be a problem to the XCC.
On the other hand a C7 With Leg' Weapons Officer a D7D and a D6D ( which also comes under 480 BPV ) would make life absolute hell for the XCC with the XCC firing through a shift ( of +2 !!!) at the C7 and D7D or being force to fire standards at the D6D!
Even on a floating map, the D6D can launch a lot of type III-XX-F drones.
MJC,
We're trying to keep BPV as an objective measure of combat capability. In fact that is mandatory.
You don't get 5 YCAs to be equivalent to a CX. If they're 80 apiece and the CX is 240. All you get is 3 (I originally spotted you a 4th because I thought they were 70 each). Telling me what you could do with more evades the point I'm trying to make.
Can you tell me that you can take 3 Fed YCA's against a Fed CX (both 240 BPV) and expect an equal fight? I say "no." If you think yes, let's grab a moderator and run a PBEM game and I'll show you how wrong you are.
The fact that 3 isn't enough even though the BPVs say it should be even seems a result of two factors, the tech difference between a YCA and the sheer BPV difference between a YCA and a CX.
This is important because I think the same thing will happen when you put GW tech agaisnt X2, especially if an X2 ship's BPV runs to 3x its GW equivalent the way that a CX is 3x a YCA.
The result I take from this is a serious upper limit on the combat capabilities of X2 and therefore its BPV. You can't just pile on extended capabilities and combat damage and say it'll be OK if you just raise the BPV--It won't be.
If you think it will, grab yourself 3 YCAs and prove it in battle.
I didn't know you had a problem with the shield-shunt. What?
John; presumably if the BPVs are still accurate all your issues will be allayed.
George, the problem (as I see it) is that while BPVs may be accurate within era, some things dont wear as well as others out of era. Some combination of Y ships may match a General War vessel at the same BPV. Some combinations of General War Vessels may match an X vessel at the same BPV. But its unlikely for the Y vessels to fare, BPV for BPV, against the X boat. Also, to some degree it will depend on the nature of the vessels in the engagement... no act of god will protect a Y era Federation Fleet from X era Kzinti drone bombardment, BPV or no BPV.
Basically era-driven RPS.
Take 3 Hydran friagtes.
What are they, 42 BPV, 48? and go up against a Fed CA.
They are the same tech level right?
But at 126 to 144 BPV they will loose to one Fed CA at a mere 125 BPV!?!
Am I wrong in this?
The problem is in force Dynamics.
The three Frigates can't get into a position where they will both A) get overloaded shots at the Fed and B) not be in the blast radius when one of their buddies goes boom...the Gatling armed Frigates might actually stand a chance, but not we'll pretned these are Frigate with actual heavy weapons.
So to with the XCC, it doesn't have an advantage over a BCG + CARa+ + NCA because it is higher tech, it has it because of the FORCE DYNAMICS situation that is set up.
We have to build factoring that in.
Didn't X1 get reconstructed to reflect the possibility that X1 ships would be fighting GW ships!?!
BPV is simply not objective in an obsolute tern.
Look how well slow drones and more over externally armed slow drones do in an asteroid feild.
Look at how well the WE and Fed CL do in nebulae.
Look at how well the Lyran trounces on the Romulan.
All these factors, race, terrain, mission, etc, influence BPV and we have to be ready to bear with the most common forms.
Why do you think the ESG focuses all the damage ( even a 1 point ESG ) on the ESG using ship if it runs over a mine.
So that the Roms can use their NSM to very good effect to redress the imbalance of the ESG advantage over the cloak!
Aaron,
Exactly.
I think of it more like an "era + (%BPV difference)" RPS.
I think an 80-point X1 FF might fight OK against a Fed YCA. I'm not as sure that this fight would be as lopsided as I am with 3x YCA vs 1x CX. I'm pretty darn sure of that one.
The thing is, we can't have era-driven RPS between MY or GW tech and X2.
That's why, George, BPVs can be accurate and the problem can still exist. If you think otherwise, grab 3 YCAs and face me in a CX sometime.
Believe you me I can appreciate all that
Which begs the question of how accurate BPVs are for MY verse EY? I think if you can accept the performance differences and discrepencies between what used to be the "staple" ships and EY vessels, then I think you aught to be able to accept a growth of that divide for ships three generations on. Like I said an archive or two back, it's the nature of the beast.
Remember the Kongo scenario? The one where the Fed CA goes back in time and tangles with a bunch of Gorn sub-light BBs? Care to put a bunch of Gorn BBs against a GW ship complete with P-Gs, aegis, and a couple of fighters? I can tell you this, it's nearly the exact same thing of what you guys are describing. So the question becomes where's the pro-sublight constituency railing against GW era ships? Well, not too many folks play sublight (non that I know of anyway, which is a few), and it's a given that a one point laser battery doesn't pack the same wallop as an 8 pt. phaser blast at point blank range, so folks don't argue about it, and accept it on that basis. Still, there remains that discrepency.
Of course we can dumb it down a shade and pit those same Gorn BBs against a EY Fed CA. But even there the discrepency is still apparent. The Fed has the upper hand because of his shields and ranged weapons. What does the Gorn BB have? Not a whole lot last I checked.
I've no doubt that a CX could manhandle 3 or more YCAs. It should be able to, and with some ease. Which is why I think the real issue is the actual evaluation of the technology, and which I don't think you're really hitting upon.
It's like the old BPV system verse the new one. IIRC the old Fed DN was worth 80pts. or somesuch. Then came Expansion One, and suddenly we have all these odd new devices; the TR Beam, Fusion Beam and so forth, which threw off the BPV system because those were things that were added sans the original author's designing thoughts. That is other people developed these things apart from the actual game's author. But the author thought they were neat, had merit, and added them (much to my chagrin).
So; the process here is to understand that things like MJC's system, or Loren's OLS system, or my Hard Shield system, or whatever, are going to need careful evaluation. Heck SVC himself said that we could all be blowing hot air, because supposidly he has notions of where he wants to take X2. So nothing here is written in stone. It's all just brainstorming and conjecture at this point.
This being established I'll say that I happen to like all of the ideas because they don't rely on the steroid-theory of adding shield boxes to a ship. But I've said that. For myself there's nothing more boring about confronting a new "race" in SFB only to find that they're not really powerful by benefit of a unique technology (component armor/shielding for the Helgardians or PA panels for Andros as examples), but they just build bigger and better ships than the rest of the galaxy on a class for class basis (i.e. Lyran, ISC).
Again, the purpose is to hash out the technology and tweak it. If you have a criticism, then you need to convey that completely as possible. One liners don't qualify under this criteria.
Hence the purpose of the thread
*ramble mode off*
With regards to BPV the important thing to note about the EY vs. X1 comparison is that it doesn’t work well. It doesn’t work well and we have learned from the mistake. One of SVC only guiding principle in X2 design was that the BPV must work between X0/X1/XP/X2. We should not seek to replicate the mistakes of the past, we should strive to correct them. X2 BPV must translate to X0, including the force dynamics equation. Do we need a mission statement topic?
Thanks, Tos.
That's it, George. Argue with SVC, not us. You may even change his mind.
SVC's relevent posts have been reposted in the "Link to CL23 X1 changes" topic for our collective reference.
I don't understand. I'm not arguing with SVC. What do you mean?
I should clarify; what are your issues with these technologies? You're not defining it very well.
If I may be so bold, the issue isn't with any specific technology, it is that stacking too many like technologies is progressively more likely to break the inter-generational game.
Any one shield enhancement can be balanced. Two minor improvements may be balancable. Stacking multiple enhancements will eventually create a ship that an X0 ship cannot effectively combat. Since SVC has stated as our prime directive that X2 BPV work with X0/X1 BPV and since stacking like technologies makes things progressively more difficult to balance you run the risk of creating an ship that cannot be adequately balanced through BPV alone.
Yeah, but nobody suggested giving the ships all the improvements suggested here. If that's what's worrying, then that thought needs to be seen for what it is.