I think you could allow X2 ships to move speed 39 for some kind of move penalty (like 2 power for each point of speed above 31). That way an X2 ship can outrun a plasma sabot, except on impulse #1.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - 01:13 pm: Edit

Well, SVC's brain isn't etched in stone. There are still on this very BBS things that "would never happen" that are part of the game now. He sometimes just needs time to warm up to it.

That being said...
There's no reason why a trans-31 speed can't be implemented via the current system (cf. Plasma Sabots, as Ted observed). The ships could have more power specifically for that faster speed.

OR...

Perhaps that is standard equipment for the Xorkaelians, and the X2 ships had to be refitted to deal with it.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - 01:53 pm: Edit

Ted and Randy,

But do you want X2 ships to be unbeatable by X1 or GW-tech opponents? That's what I'm worried about. And I don't think you will be able to fix it by tinkering with BPV. If the X2 capabilites are too radically different from X1 capabilites, the RPS issues are likely to be so severe that BPV-based games that span the tech boundaries will be unworkable. This is already somewhat of a problem with X1 versus GW and MY versus EY (especially the latter).

Maybe I'm worrying too much.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - 02:07 pm: Edit

There is a lot to read in the X-file besides just straight out technology proposals. But I think I can sum up on strong mind set shared by many of us in those discussions (but NOT the only one) was that we hoped X2 would be a logical progression from X1 technology with strong consideration of the historical situation in ship design. To be fair, this was a group that placed high priority on historical continuity. There were others that wanted something totally different and for continuity to be figured out later. I don't recall which was the majority and it probably doesn't matter at this point.

There were few guidelines to the discussions back then but SVC did lay down the law (back then, may not apply now) that X2 would have to play nice with GW tech. He mentioned this didn't have to go so far as being EY/MY compatible but GW was a must.

This is just me recalling using a human brain as my primary reference tool so... there's that.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - 02:12 pm: Edit

I'll just say that at this point I've already set myself up to both be excited and surprised and disappointed all at the same time. No real way around it because of all the work and effort done previously in the X-files. It's a silly human thing because of a preformed idea that has nothing to do with reality.

So given that, I place my faith in ADB to show me something cool. They've never let me down before.

(But I'm still gonna share my thoughts and ideas! )

GO PHASER V!

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - 03:42 pm: Edit

Alan, I don't see a moderate trans warp movement as being unbeatable. It's a big advantage, yes. But Sabot torps did not end the world for non-plasma races, and likewise modest trans warp speed for ships would not do so either.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - 03:53 pm: Edit

Especially if you implement Ted's idea of it costing more to move faster than 31.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - 04:50 pm: Edit

A thought about why we have that limit beyond just game mechanics.

We have three movement types in the game of SFB: Sub-light, tactical warp, strategic warp. What we know is sub-light in the EY era and beyond is handled as warp 0 because ships have tracking systems and computers fast enough to not separate them from the warp speed action. There is a boundary between tactical warp and strategic warp that beyond makes a ship highly vulnerable to damage, enough that a single phaser shot can wreck a ship.
So if an X2 ship is able to conduct tactical warp activities while breaking the barrier it must be able to take damage. I think a whole host of advanced technologies would be required but the shields would have to remain up, the structural integrity system would have to be more robust, and sensor/scanner systems would have to be improved.

So I would suggest that if X2 can exceed speed 31 it would require not extra power for movement (it seems to me that warp power requirements get more efficient after the tactical threshold) but rather additional power would be required for other systems. This could be a single penalty and perhaps be from any source and would not concern players as to where the energy going to (but it would be things like sensor/scanner, shield maintenance, structural integrity etc.).
This fee would be paid each time the threshold was crossed over from tactical limits (up not down) and paid for any speed over up to the game's X2 speed limit. I'd suggest ten points X Move Cost, which would be a pre-calculated thing on the SSD, but the formula would mean it could be kept off of the MSC.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - 05:51 pm: Edit

There was a suggestion over on the FC forum about re-considering the Warp Gearshift from Stellar Shadows, perhaps as a way of showing how X2 warp engines could provide more power for movement than their X1 counteprarts without simply adding more warp boxes.

Perhaps, rather than X2 ships being faster tactically in raw terms, such an improved degree of efficiency at higher tactical speeds might leave a proportionally higher amount of discretionary power for the X2-ship to make use of for other purposes?

(If that were to be a serious option, I wouldn't mind there being a side-effect of making it proportionally more expensive to try and fly backwards...)

-----

In terms of matching up with TL 12 or TL 13 opponents, I'd be curious to see more details on what was posted in Communiqué #109.

If the idea is for "modern" ships to score only 50% of their normal damage output against X2-ships (and for X1 ships to score only 75% against X2), would that only apply to shots absorbed by the X2-ship's shields? Or would it also apply to hits scored as internals?

And in terms of how such a setup might be implemented, would that be akin to the Volley Reduction Factor on LMC outer shields? (In Module C5, there are adjustments to the VRF depending on whether a ship is under the Early Years restrictions or not. So there is at least a semi-workable precedent for working out how to resolve pre-X and X1 fire against X2 shields.)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - 05:59 pm: Edit

Various comments....

No real thoughts either way on movement faster than 31. Warp gearshift might be interesting but it works the opposite of Ted's proposal. I don't see any real need to go here, but we'll see how things go.

We do need BPV battles to work across tech lines. X1 can beat X2 if you bring enough X1 to the battle.

Do not mention Volley Reduction factor again.

50% is 50%. If you scored 74 points on my X2 ship then you only get 37 of them, period, regardless of whether they are on shields or on internals. Why is this complicated?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - 07:23 pm: Edit

X2 is going to need more than some modest "tweeks".

We might have to start with a fresh sheet of paper and design the new "X2" ships from scratch using some serious quality changes that (by definition) would make the "X2" designs better than X1.

For example, you could "build in" superiority in a simple way such as making the warp movement cost some what more efficient.

for example (this is a guess as I don't have any SSDs here now) take a X1 fed frigate, (I assume its still a 1/3=0.334 move cost, with perhaps 75 internal SSD boxes, (again, its a guess)

In that case (assuming the guess is correct) the "X2" design for a X2 frigate would again have a 1/3=0.334 Movement cost but the "burden" in the SSD boxes amount to 110% of the X1 SSD boxes, or if that's not enough, 120%.

That change right there would make the X2 designs superior to the X1... and if the BPV calculations are correct, then it would ensure that 1,000 BPVs of X1 would still (generally) beat 800 BPV of X2... though the tech difference will cost the X1 force a painful amount.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - 08:00 pm: Edit

The damage multiple already does that. As we said in comm 109 we specifically didnt want to just take X1 and add a few boxes.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - 11:13 pm: Edit

I have to say that the idea of my X1 ship only doing 1/2 damage because my opponent is flying an X2 ship is really going to make me not want to play that. Not at first, mind you. But eventually, it's just going to feel crappy to score a great hit and see it... neutered.
That sort of thing feels like a Cosmic Encounter special rule thing.

To me.

I would just rather see X2 be better at mitigating damage.

One of the big discussions of yesteryear resulted in the idea that X2 ships would look more like pre-GW era ship as far as box count goes, but that many of those boxes would be better systems and the ships would have better damage mitigation (better shields systems (including but not limited to more shields boxes), better repair, superior mid-ranged punch, maybe some better maneuverability).
The idea was that X2 would require work to win and not promote lazy play by just being behemoths of box count and power.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - 11:27 pm: Edit

To quote from the news flash in Communiqué #109:

---

Quote:

We have spent years (literally) studying the various concepts for SFB Module X2. Some elements are obvious. We have long said that phaser batteries will be combined into unified batteries with wider arcs. (For example, all six phasers in the Federaton XCA will be combined into a single FX battery. All six phasers in the rear hull of the Klingon XBC will be combined into a single RX battery.) If you go down the list of special rules for X-ships, you can assume that everything will get better. Transporters and tractors will work a little farther away, batteries will hold more power, and so forth. But there really isn’t much point in building a movement cost one cruiser with 60 warp boxes and 60-box shields. Instead, X2 weapons will be 50% more effective against X1 and 100% more effective against General-War ships. The reverse is also true. A General-War ship will score half-damage on an X2 ship, and an X1 ship only 3/4 as much.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 15, 2015 - 01:31 am: Edit

Is that communique thing written in stone then?

I have a hard time seeing how that can work. How can that be balanced with BPV? I mean, wouldn't you have to have different BPVs for different enemies then?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, January 15, 2015 - 02:17 am: Edit

To use the Klingon example, each new generation of warp-powered battlecruiser has had an upgrade in shield strength from the last: D3 to D4, D4 to D6, etc. In those cases, it's been relatively easy to handle this progression, since one could work back and forward from the D6s and D7s one starts with in Basic Set. And unless using the optional leaky shield rules (or their mandatory shield burn-through counterparts over in FC), there is a fairly steady curve in terms of how much harder it is to start scoring internals against each class of ship.

In principle, one could have done the same for the XBC, and offered a proportionally larger set of shield blocks in each facing. But since the DX already has a 40-box #1 shield facing, it might (as suggested in the above quote) start getting messy if you make it a 50- or 60-box front shield instead.

So rather than clutter up the SSD (or Ship Card) with such overly thick shields (which has the effect of making X2-v-X2 battles more of a chore to fight), the 3/4 ratio against X1 (and 1/2 against non-X) may allow there to be a functionally equivalent increase in shield protection against such enemies - but still make fights between X2-ships less of a hassle to play out.


Shields aside, I guess the real game-changer is that these ratios will also work for internals. While each new generation of warship has had more boxes than the last (mostly due to the larger warp engines in each case), the new ratio will make X2-ships much tougher for pre-X2 ships to crack by comparison.

But then, perhaps one further advantage of taking this option - rather than simply upping each X2-ship's internal box count - could be that you might still be able to use hit-and-run raids to try and disable such boxes, even if you may need half again as much (or twice as much) damage to take out each box the old-fashioned way. Which might make commando cruisers (particularly ones with plenty of transporter pads) a popular option in anti-X2 squadrons, perhaps.

Unless there happens to be another new trick lying in store to stymie offensive transporter operations against X2-ships, I guess...

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 15, 2015 - 10:56 am: Edit

So Gary, you like the idea of doing extra math every time you fire weapons in a mixed generation scenario?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, January 15, 2015 - 12:02 pm: Edit

Loren, it is set in stone (if you talk me out of it, we cancel X2 since, as Comm 109 says, there is no point in doing it any other way). If you have so much trouble doing simple division I'll give you a chart:

10 = 5
9 = 5
8 = 4
7 = 4
6 = 3
5 = 3
4 = 2
3 = 2
2 = 1
1 = 1

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 15, 2015 - 12:51 pm: Edit

OK. I will adjust my mindset.

BTW, my bad for not paying close enough attention to the Communique article.

As I posted above, I place my faith in ADB.
(Begins to sing "Let It Be" by the Beatles.)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 15, 2015 - 01:01 pm: Edit

In my own defense, world and domestic... er, "events" are hindering my ability to relax and thus the resulting "missed the memo" situation.

Sigh.

By Ken Rodeghero (Ken_Rodeghero) on Thursday, January 15, 2015 - 01:04 pm: Edit

One of the many things I like about SFB is that tactics are an aggregate of engineering based rules. So I am not thrilled by the halving/doubling of damage across technology lines as I think of technologal advancement as more incremental than hard boundaries. That said, I have no real alternative other than "add more boxes!" which SVC has rightly pointed out is pretty darn pointless.

It is also important that there be more differences between X2, X1, and GW than just this damage multiplier as if an X2 vs X2 game "feels" just like a GW battle then there is no point, either.

Sounds like they have a plan so we will see where it goes!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 15, 2015 - 01:38 pm: Edit

I don't think "more boxes" was the only alternative at all. Increased or additional damage mitigation methods was also an alternative.

By Ken Rodeghero (Ken_Rodeghero) on Thursday, January 15, 2015 - 03:07 pm: Edit

True, I should have said "add more/different boxes." New boxes would do the trick better than more boxes but I want it to feel like 2X ships are better but not a huge discrete leap. Of course, maybe there are reasons that they ARE a huge discrete leap forward based on some breakthrough.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, January 15, 2015 - 03:10 pm: Edit

I haven't heard a "new kinds of boxes" idea that makes any sense, nor have I heard a "damage mitigation" idea that isn't unworkable.

Seriously, guys, let's just cancel X2. You won't buy anything that works, and things that work won't won't sell. There is just no point in continuing the conversation. I tried my best and it's not going to happen in the current atmosphere of negativity. More is the pity.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Thursday, January 15, 2015 - 04:09 pm: Edit

If you make X2, I will buy it (with the usual disclaimer that it's a PDF, of course).

How about something like a small (fixed) amount of damage reduction?

GW -> X1 = 2 DR points per volley
X1 -> X2 = 2 DR points per volley
GW -> X2 = 4 DR points per volley

This would have the effect of lessening Mizia effects on higher tech gear by lower level tech.
You can also say, "Hmmm, those Klingon bastards couldn't even shoot through our sensor deflectors!"