X1 will probably have 8EW without the outstanding crew, as the rules (as I understand them) state that the X-benefit to EW is hardware-driven, not a reflection of the crews ability. On the other hand, I for one do not want ships with excessive numbers of phasers, as this would lead to cookie-cutter syndrome, if phasers dominate tactics. My Idea for X2 would be to leave Phasers where they are and enhance race-specific weapons, producing more variaty in the ships (As well as allowing a phaser increase as a late X2 refit.)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 11:17 am: Edit

Actually I agree with MJC here. We should first see if X2 needs any help. Start with EW of 8. These ships are going to have the Ph-5 (if we get what we want) and even with a bad shift these are better that the Ph-1. The Torps will also get something. Weapon improvements AND better EW may well be too much.

Here I would like to repropose my Special Bridge rule. The main Bridge acts as a special sensor except it does not generate EW. Just all the other abilities of ONE S. Sens. Now you have the technological electronics jump on the others without going too far.
X2 gets EW 8 (like X1) + Special Bridge.

Note: There should be some stratigic limits to the special bridge or an improvement to the Full Scout (that Sp. Brdg can't do) to keep the Scouts useful.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 03:09 pm: Edit

A good idea. Might even work.

It's dfinitnely a step in the right direction as compared to Old X2's 2x unblindable scout channels or even early proposals here that called for 1.

The unwashed masses may demand an EW capacity increase. however.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 09:13 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Note: There should be some stratigic limits to the special bridge or an improvement to the Full Scout (that Sp. Brdg can't do) to keep the Scouts useful.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 09:25 pm: Edit

The design I had in mind took no power and only had the abilities of one Special sensor less the EW. I could define exactly what those would be but a little later tonight.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 09:30 pm: Edit

I definately think it should be both powered an blinded.


Another reason for the Ph-7...it won't blind your bridge sensor.

By Shannon Nichols (Scoot) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 12:01 am: Edit

Keep 2X ships at 8pts EW. Allow heavy weapons to be effected by die -. Phasers can get left column shifts. Reduce the cost of generating EW points to .50 or .75. Have a small or no increase in their scanner/sensor track over x1. The reduced EW cost will help the smaller ships more than the large ones.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 11:42 am: Edit

Reduce the cost of generating EW points to .50 or .75.

While that is a novel idea I have to ask, why would X2-ships gain all that extra power if thigs cost less to charge. X2 ships will have the best power to MC ratios ever and if we take away the cost of charging things too it will be too much. The smaller ships should be able to handle EW as well as a GW cruiser.

Shifting Phaser shots left doesn't work for me as I see the damage result of a one being the maximum damage for the range given a perfect shot. That's not official, just the way I see it. I figure phasers sweep accross their target. A one is a perfect shot from the start. Lesser numbers are results of less of the sweep reaching the ship. If phasers did not sweep a little then they would be hit or miss weapons. (which is the basis of my Phaser Howitzer idea. A planet based super phaser that doesn't sweep. It is hit or miss. Well, there is a half damage result.)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 03:17 pm: Edit

I am completely opposed to make EW any easier for X2.

Sensor+4 (10) is the highest I'll go and THAT puts non-scout-assisted GW at a -2 shift. X1's sensor+2 might be the bess we dare do.

Making it any easier with X2's power curve is nuts, IMHO.

The more I think of it, the more I am opposed to giving heavy weapons the ECCM modifier. Their hit probs are central to their identity. I might be willing to make individual exceptions. Say for the Fusion Beam and perhaps the disruptor (if we back off on the damage).

Not as a general thing though

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 04:10 pm: Edit

I agree. Sensor +2 is enough; go higher, and with the other options we're seeing for 2X you'll have a darn near unbeatable ship. Keep it as it currently is. After all, just because it's X2 doesn't mean everything has to improve.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 04:28 pm: Edit

Maybe EVERYTHING is improved, just not in ways that are reflected in the game.

Or it is, in that, these ships don't require Outstanding Crews to opperate. That pretty much means everything is improved is some small way. Maybe the EW pannel is more clear and easier to program. Maybe you don't have to wear earmuffs when you're in the Torpedo room during the firing sequence. The Captains chair is more comfortable and the food replicators make better tasting coffee. The air in Klingon ships has a small amount of gas in it that kills Tribbles on contact.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 04:35 pm: Edit

We could also allow 8 EW + 2 free ECCM. That should be reasonable.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 04:38 pm: Edit

The ADB just got through nixing +2 free ECCM.

I think we should look very hard at bringing it back.

Also free ECCM does constitute making EW easier on X2.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 05:16 pm: Edit

A good EW shift makes all your weapons work better (than the enemies). If X2 is full of better weapons and we then make them better again with a EW advantage, it might be going too far.

X1s weapons were not really better than GW. Phasers have double capacitors and Torpedoes can be fast loaded or held. But the energy that comes out of the weapon wasn't "Better" than GW. X1s EW advantage made them better.

In X2 we are talking better weapons with more damage, better range/damage curves, and fast firing. With out EW these weapons are "Better". With an additional EW advantage they might be to much "Better".

I say, leave EW the same as X1 and give the ships my "Special Bridge" proposal. This gives the main bridge (not each box) the abilities of a single Scout Sensor Channel OTHER than EW. There in lies the electronics advancement for X2.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 03:54 pm: Edit

I agree that a full-blown special sensor is bad.

Also giving the ECCM shift to anything beyond phasers is bad. Possible exception for the Fusion beam

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 05:18 pm: Edit

IIRC X1 heavies get the -1 shift (don't have rules or the log handy).

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 05:20 pm: Edit

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/X-shipCL23.pdf

(XD6.34): X-Ships get the -1 ECCM shift for all weapons.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 06:05 pm: Edit

What if we changed it for 2X, requiring the limited special sensors? No automatic ECM (a rule I personally hate) but a few more benefits from the sensors than just ECM.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 07:27 pm: Edit

What's wrong with my Special Bridge idea?

Applies the non-EW functions of one S.S. to the main bridge and is only lost when the entire bridge is lost. Must be repaired separatly after at least one bridge box is repaired. The ship retains it's normal EW functions (sensor rating + 2). Normal EW functions cannot be lost unless uncontrolled (as normal rules).

Note that this gives special abilities to X2 even if you choose not to use the EW rules. If we put special sensors on all the ships we will be forcing the EW rules on players. Also, how will we work out the BPV system for non-EW players. Normally they just don't use scouts but having all the X2 ships with Spec. Sens. removes that option. So what is a X2 ship with it's Spec. Sens. disabled worth? What do you do with the boxes? Make them free hits or ignore them?

But with the Special Bridge rule non-EW rule players can use the basically not complicated Scout Functions abilities.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 07:57 pm: Edit

That's basically what I'm going by, Loren...I just put boxes on the ship, adjacent to the brigde so that they could be destroyed seperately. I thought it would be more sporting that way, and would force the X2 player to have to guard them seperately from the bridge. They would have all the non-EW abilities such as seeking weapon control, breaking drone lock-ons, etc. Won't force EW on anyone that doesn't like it (such as me!). That is where I got the idea from, and in the proposal I put forth, you are credited with it. I think it's the right way to go, I just don't want them part of the bridge for those reasons.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 08:12 pm: Edit

Well, I also thought that it would be cool to give the bridge some additional flavor.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 02:56 am: Edit

I'ld like to have the Bridge-as-special-sensor thing linked to the bridge boxes, rather than protecting the third Ph-5 hit.

We already have the ASIF linked to being uncontrolled so I think linking the special sensor thing with the bridge would fit nicely.


8 EW and a bridge as retarded special sensor ( No EW ) would do nicely.

10 EW is a bad move, 10 ECM -6 ECCM yeilds a +2 shift and Photons firing at R8 with a +2 shift might as well not be powered.
Hence 10 EW kills GW ships and thus won't play nice.
9 EW might be different but I'ld still rather not run arround with a garrentteed +1 over X1 so I'ld say 8 plus the Bridge-as-special-sensor thing.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 08:12 am: Edit

I can certainly live with that. Loren, looking at the sensor chart, what numbers do you think your bridge should get? That is, each ability has a number; which do you prefer?

We'll also need some way to ID the bridge as special. Maybe "ABRDG" for advanced, or put some sort of box markings like the sensors have.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 08:25 am: Edit

Well I was giving my Roms spec sensors limited to basically sensing misions. Nothing that effects another unit.

NO:
21. Lending EW
22. Breaking Lock On
23. Drone attraction
24. Controlling SW
28. Self protection

Yes:
25. ID SW
26. Det. Mines
27. Gather Info (Science)
29. Tac Intel

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 11:40 am: Edit

Mike: I did review which functions because I think some are strictly EW related. I forget exactly which one but pretty much all the non-EW functions. I haven't done a final draft of the rule but when I do I'll list the functions. Use of these functions will require power just like a Spec. Sens. and will have a small round check box (off the SSD) to record loss of Special functions (i.e. it is repaired separate from the bridge. So when the Bridge is destroyed you must first repair at least one bridge box normally then repair the Special functionallity (cost undetermined as of yet but less than a special sensor since it is part of the now repaired bridge systems). Special Bridge is not blinded by weapons fire. This limits ships to one function per turn. A fair balance I think.

On the SSDs I'm drawing up I'm using S-BRDG or S-Bridge.

I like the term Special Bridge because it relates to Special Sensors clearly.

<edit> Based on a quick review of Kenneths function list I'd say that S-BRDG gets the following functions: 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 29.