Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through May 19, 2003	25		05/19 06:57am
	Archive through May 20, 2003	25		05/20 10:11pm
	Archive through May 21, 2003	25		05/21 10:24pm
	Archive through May 22, 2003	25		05/22 08:29pm
	Archive through October 21, 2003	25		12/08 08:28am
	Archive through December 08, 2005	25		12/08 04:11pm

Tos, your XCM and XDD have different ph-5 tables.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 03:34 pm: Edit

My DD based on the SKA would get above 155 easily. Three type S ensure that happen.

I am not sure starting by setting BPV is the way to go.
Except deciding what the actual BpV is of your ships.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 03:38 pm: Edit

Tos, it would be cool pitting my SKX (name change coming) vs your DDX

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 03:50 pm: Edit

Tos, a question; what turn mode does your Klingons got?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 04:11 pm: Edit

Jeff, which table do you like better The designs I posted were developed some time ago. I intentionally developed a full line of ships rather than a cruiser for each race precisely for the purpose of getting the BPV right by playtesting.

The reason we put an estimated BPV on the paper is to determine what opponents would be appropriate. The playtest report of an XCM duel with an NCA is likely of little value as the XCM should stomp the NCA. Nothing stops us from changing the BPV after playtesting.

I don’t think I have a Klingon design I would consider well thought out, but I would expect I would choose turn modes equal to GW with a similar MC.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 11:45 pm: Edit

Jeff T., email your SSDs to me and I'll post them.

Tos, if I read your XCC SSD correctly, the thing would look like a dreadnought (3 nacelles) on a fast cruiser scale?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 11:54 pm: Edit

Yes, the XCC and XCM looks like a DNL. The XCL looks like an NCF. The XDD and XFF look like a fast DD, not sure if one was ever published.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 12:05 am: Edit

Brodie, check your email. I sent a Fed XCA and XDD. The other stuff went on J.T.'s web page 2 1/2 years ago.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 06:54 am: Edit

I theorised my XFF to be around 125 BPV ( refitting upto about 150 ) so a Fed CA through CARa+ should be able match against it.
Actually the CLa+ might be better because the XFF is so dependant on drones (like the FFX is but moreso without the forrest of phasers) and the ADD-8 is handy.

That was part of the original plan, that an XFF would fight a GW CA on fairly even footing, making the Admirals more willing to purchase and feild frigates again.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 10:50 am: Edit

Tos, well I figured that universal improvement of turnmodes would mean Klingon CAs with TM A, and sc 4 Klingons with TM AA.
So myself I stuck with the old values; the ships got good enough anyway.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 10:51 am: Edit

How about fighting X1 Andros as playtesting? For those who think these was the foes the X2 ships was built to fight it would make some sense.
There are SSDs in one of the Logs IIRC.§

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 02:09 pm: Edit

No, because no one knows if the BPV of an X1 Andro is correct. We already know that Andro defenses don't scale well in fleet actions. Andros are not a good matchup to determine correct BPV.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 03:53 am: Edit

I did a playtest battle today with my younger brother.
A Fed XFF (my design) and a Fed NCLa+.
We started with what is basically WS-I but with the phaser caps full (Cadet Training manual WS).
I came in at 27, 18 and 30 in the XFF.
He went 6, 6 and 16 in the NCLa+.
He missed with his Photons at R4 (I had him at both -1 & +1). I missed with one of my 24 pointers so I only did goodish damage at R4.
He also just couldn't get his ADD rounds to stop those incomming drones. Man, those drones are tough with just the one ADD.
After fire, I veered off again to come back and hit him on his shield #6 (he already had a dropped shield #1 for 7 internals) and got him with fastloads and centerlined Ph-5s ( all three of them ) @ R1 for 47 damage on his shield #6 which had already taken a single drone hit ( the only hit of the six drones I launched ) was enough to make him just assume the New Light Cruiser was killed.

I'm beginning to think that even though Justin was weak in EW and too heavily frontloaded the Photons, the 130 BPV of the XFF might have to go up to 140 or more.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 12:05 pm: Edit

A link to your SSD?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 06:08 pm: Edit

Ummm, it's at vorlonagent's site.
Careful, it's still a Bitmap (IIRC), but I sent some Lyran .GIF files that some might like.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 06:42 pm: Edit

That would be: http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/x2/mjc/x2-f-xff.gif

Try it again vs. a Klingon D7W and see how it does. If its balanced then I think you need to scale down your design considerably.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, August 02, 2007 - 07:27 pm: Edit

I got the chance yesterday to playtest my unrefitted Fed XCA Vs a Klingon C7 and a Fed BCG.
The GWs had all IF drones (these guys don't really want to learn the drone construction rules) for free and I should have added in a Force Dynamic componant but instead opted to put them both at WS-III and me at WS-II.

Filling my Phaser cap from half full and heavy ECM took a lot out of movement and they started shunting drones my way, right from R35.
I shot my way through the drones with my phasers ( often needing to fire at R2 ) and crucified an SP at R5 with a pair of Ph-5s. On turn 2, I found myself able to fire Photons but because I was talking about my EW settings (changed with BTTY) I'd given George too many clues as to my EW intentions and they were able to make changes, they had the edge and with X ships (particularly photon armed X ships ) the shift between -1 and +1 is double or half output organised around 2 points of power going to EW. The hits I did generate, were a lot like hitting those guys with a plasma S.
Then I fleed, finding myself having used every photon, every phaser and both my drone racks.
I hadn't written into the playtest X2 rules ( which are quite old now ) that X2 ships should be able to HET on impulse 1. So I HETed on Impulse 2 with a full set of 12 point fastloads...of which I lost one torp through hits to my rear shield on impulse #1. Fortunately the C7 directly behind me, could be hit on Impulse 1 with 6Ph-5s which generated some good internal damage...but cost me my ability to defend against drones.
On Impulse 2, I did more damage to the C7...but really, if I'ld run and thus not paid for the full 8 EW but rather only 7 and not paid for the low powered ASIF and not paid for the HET, I could have run away at speed 30 (instead of attacking at speed 19) and that probably would have been a much better idea...but it was already 5:30pm so I figured I should either "go hard or go home" and thus I went for a point blank smash.
Then on impulse 4 I got tractored by the Fed BCG. And the Klingon launched another SP.
My captain got on the subspace radio and said to the Nuetral World vessels that he would surrender if they would drop the tracking to their SP and they consented.

All in all, the reduction to 8Ph-5s means the X2 ships needs full X Aegis ( especially with her high BPV ) to allow it to be judicious enough in drone defense to survive.
Furthermore the S-Bridge needs drone knock downs in order to be able to survive huge GW drone waves ( making me more willing to see a sliding scale of drone knock downs such that it's harder to knock down X1 and even harder to knock down X2 drones ).
Furthermore, the Ph-5 really does need to be able to rapid pulse 3Ph-3 shots.

Furthermore and this is something that needs to be looked at, I think the Ph-6 table should allow for a minimum of 4 points of damage at R2 because type IF drones do jump range quite a lot and can be very numerous at this BPV level.

Running the ASIF meant I could take a lot of hull damage ( their final point of damage in their major volley killed my last hull box ) but because the hull doesn't protect those vital TORP and PHASER hits; the X2 ship needs to be real careful about point blank confrontations with GW task groups.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, August 02, 2007 - 08:13 pm: Edit

It sounds like you should have loaded some ADD into those drone racks of yours.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, August 02, 2007 - 09:43 pm: Edit

Yeah. I also had a WW as my one special shuttle but never found a time to use it because I did want to go speed zero and I they never realy had a bunch of drones on the board at any one time....I think maybe 10 IF was the most drones at any one time which whilst for other ships might be worth WW over it was too low for the XCA because I could expect another 10 from that particular task group.

I used my type VIIs to shot down type IFs which even they said was a waste but I couldn't fire on the BCG without going through the ADD defense of the C7 so I directed them at drone defense ( where they worked quite well but were a big envestment for their small result ).

I should say the 24 point photons weren't the end of the world because the BCG and C7 don't have 30 shield boxes on their shield #1s (which is were I hit on both) but rather 36.
I had been planning for the battle to be a D5W, Fed NCA and Kzinti NCA but since Graham had to do other stuff and so just left us in his garage, I went for the BCHs which turned out to be so brissing with weapons that perhaps I shouldn't have looked for a force dynamics adjustment to the battle.


I also started to build my own SP on turn three but that really was leaving it far too late.
I also began shield regeneration on turn three but again that was leaving it far too late.
I really should have stuck with the traditional X2 methodology. "Hit `em at range and repeat...always repeat."

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, August 02, 2007 - 10:11 pm: Edit

My basic analysis is that the X-ship will always come out on top when it is fully charged. The BPV needs to work assuming a patient captain strikes, seperates and recharges before engaging again. This is not how players do it, but that's why they call it a new tactic.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, August 02, 2007 - 11:20 pm: Edit

S-Bridge should not have any offensive utility. I had originally proposed that it have some reduced capability such as breaking a single lock-on, one try as a single function. Even that was argued against but it's hard for me to get past the logic of having such a capability. Its use would be mostly utilized in non-regular combat situations like dealing with lower technology encounters and irascible colonists.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, August 02, 2007 - 11:48 pm: Edit

Actually, I really like the attracting drone ability that scouts have being part of the S-Bridge.
It becomes the defacto improved EW. Not by improving EW, just by being able to rob opponnants of their ECM drones. Sure he needs to have been opperating that ECM drone under ATG for you to gain ECM from it and for him to not just drop the tracking but being able to take the ECM drone away from him (something non-scout X1 ships can't do) is pretty good at creating an edge for the X2 ship without just piling on more EW points.
I don't have R10 and so don't know whether this ability should be extended to robbing ships of ECM plasma too...any ideas on that?

I can see the S-Bridge drone lock on breaking as being 1-3 for GW drones, 1-2 for X1 drones and 1 for X2 drones so that "S-Bridging" down the enemy X2 drone doesn't become the only opperation one needs to use in an X2 duel.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, August 03, 2007 - 12:19 am: Edit

Nah, just a single channel. I see it as the net result of several capabilities and not specifically a designed function. However, attracting a single drone should go hand in hand with that same technology. In other words, the advanced functions of the S-Bridge allow for the same but limited capability. Whereas a scout channel has the capability specifically designed into its systems.

Still, one of the arguements against this sort of thing was that the S-Bridge advanced technology should be a passive system which is something I can see happening. It adds to the information gathering capabilities of the X2 ship (and the player) but doesn't add to the outright combat capabilities. This means the playerhas a totally new kind of weapon to work with, information. That means it is the sole responsability of the player to take advantage of it. For many players it will be just a bridge with an "S" but to others it will be a critical tool in formulating their turn by turn strategy. It will be a more subtle flavor that must be aquired over time.

Yes, S-Bridge should be a passive system.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, August 03, 2007 - 08:02 pm: Edit

Actually since X2 is increadibly likely to be the last level of technology, I think we should aim high and cull the things that are too powerful when playtesting shows them to be too powerful rather than just making the assumption that it is too powerful and therefore should be removed before playtesting.
Thus I'ld like to see drone knock downs, drone attracting and control of seeking weapons, allow allowed atleast during initial playtesting.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, August 06, 2007 - 11:59 pm: Edit

Id say take a good guess and err on the high end to start. A way-high start is pointless.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, August 07, 2007 - 01:29 am: Edit

In naval architecture, you design the ship with a projected weight.
Then you add the engine and fuel to move that weight at the speed you're looking for.
Then your new weight gives a new draft so you recalculate your new resistance and drag values.
This often result in a new required amount of fuel and/or a new engine.
So with your new engine/fuel you have a new weight and thus recalculate your new draft and new resistance and drag results.
You keep going in a tighter and tighter spiral until you no longer get worthwhile changes (most frequently limited by the graduations of hore-power of the engines)...and then you have your final result.

Or as the old saying goes.
Great art is never finished...only abandoned.

I suspect playtesting goes the same way. Tighter and tighter spirals until we get something that's so close that there's no point in making further changes.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, May 17, 2008 - 07:10 am: Edit

I had the chance to do a play today with my fully refitted XFF+ (170 BPV) against a Klingon C7.

My friend Tony and I played and a guy I tend to play with (Graham) ran as controller.
I loaded my GX2 racks as dafacto X2 E-racks to defend myself against his drone throw weight. Closing with his drones was quite a lot harder than running away from them.
I also burned through my three 5 point BTTYs rather quickly trying to get a negative shift.
After the intial burst of 24 pointers I fell into the trap of both hurling fastloaded 16 point fast loads every turn and generating huge quantities of ECCM to get them to hit because they couldn't be held.

I circled around trying to keep my downed shield away from the C7 phasers and Disruptors but in trying to get into position for the next turn put myself at R5 directly behind the C7 on impulse 32. Needless to say he hurled all he could bear on impulse 32 and then everything remaining of his phasers on impulse #1. I was fool enough to commit to firing my bearing Ph-5s at his ship on impulse 1 in addition to my 16 point fastloads and thus was in trouble when I saw the four type IF drones comming my way. I pulled one down with a type XII dogfight drone but the other three went straight through my downded sheild (I didn't think to put in 0.33 points of warp power to get a TAC organised during EA) and after that it was really a question of whether I would get captured or merely destroyed.
Fortuantely for me I managed to get my repaired Ph-5 on line and some impulse engine boxes after a couple of zero energy turns so I finally raised minimum sheilds and fired of a Ph-5 shot. In responce he hammered me with so many phasers that my ship blew up with four points of damage still un-allocated.

All in all, keep dancing against a GW opponant and play for a long term game. Trying to kill the C7 with fastloads in the R6-8 bracket was just giving disruptors exactly what they needed and not hammering enough to get through the monsterous shield #7 of the C7 (relative to my XFF+).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, May 17, 2008 - 10:31 pm: Edit

I should say the idea of speed 40 drones was seen by both Tony and Graham as being some kind of trick. But the C7's ADD rack and counter drone frie, rendered the type XII drones as being no real threat.
I managed to score one drone hit against the C7 and when Tony realised that 2 damage wasn't going to cause even one point of leak damage he realise that the system was only a little more offensively useful than his ADD-12.

I should also say that the X2 XFF+ really needed to take advantage of the X1's ability to take leaky shield damage at half the rate as taking every tenth point of damage as leak and generating leak against the C7 with every fifth point of damage, really was one of the only ways the XFF+ could deal with the C7's monsterous sheild #7.