I will buy X2.

Andy Vancil is right the 1/2 for GW and 3/4 for X1 does not work. It makes the same BPV of GW not equal to the same BPV of X1 when fighting X2. I propose that the answer be 3/4 for all sub X2 tech. My reason for suggesting 3/4 is this. It results in a smaller shift between X1 and X2. This has a list of advantages 1) It will be easier to keep the game balanced. 2) It keeps the strenght of an X2 FF down to 'only' about a GW BCH. 3) It allows for a more reasonable tech development pace than 1/2 would.

By James Hallmark (James) on Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 09:48 am: Edit

Since an X2 FF modeled after an X1 FF would have a BPV of 160-180 would there be an in game reason for the empires to develop a smaller class? OR perhaps an X2 FF is smaller than the GW FF?

By James Hallmark (James) on Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 09:57 am: Edit

Post deleted by author.

By James Hallmark (James) on Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 10:09 am: Edit

I think it would be interesting to see X2 ships based on 1/5 movement cost increments. However this is not compatible with Federation Commander. Should a movement cost 1 ship be the largest for X2?

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 10:47 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Terry, that's why I am slow to jump on the high speed bandwagon. We would have to have faster drones and plasma so whats the point?

---

By Mark Steven Hoyle (Markshoyle) on Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 12:27 pm: Edit

In many sifi settings, as tech gets better, ships become larger, instead of smaller.
Though there are exemptions to that, but in those settings, it's a case of needing smaller crews due to smaller population to draw from.

Smaller ships include Whitestars and Defiant, larger would be Andromeda and Excaliber. Where any of the stand within the X1 and X2 levels is beyond what I know.
In many cases, computer/robots crew/control the ships, giving them an advantage other than just the weapons/shielding tech.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 12:52 pm: Edit

SVC: Andro goo... The SFU documentation is so huge I couldn't find the reference in the mix of everything. I seem to recall some more context though. I think it was in some sort of discussion article rather than any rule or history text. More like in a "Why" article or maybe a Prime Directive thing. And it may have only been a matter of some extremely toxic substance or maybe even something that destroyed the circuitry when opened up. It was part of some explanation as to why the Alphas didn't copy Arndromedan technology.
I think it would have to have been post CL28 or around that time.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 01:55 pm: Edit

Tholians: At the very least, I hope that the Sojourner might encourage the Holdfast to construct at least one of their X2-ships in a survey configuration, so it can be sent to and from Tholiax.

Andros: So far as the data I can recall goes, there had been several samples of captured Andro systems pulled from the wreckage of numerous destroyed ships (perhaps including the Dominator wreck used by the WYNs as a floating war trophy) and from the ruins of the second Desecrator (which was being used to construct the incomplete Devastator at the time both were subdued). But despite keeping several such samples for further study, no-one was able to figure out how these systems operated, let alone think of reverse-engineering them.

Damage reduction/increase rates: I think James might have a fair point about a blanket 75%/150% reduction/increase rate for both TL 12 and TL 13 ships against/for X2 (or TL 15: TL 14 is skipped by the indigenous Alpha empires, and is only used as a placeholder for exotic items like Andromedan tech, or certain mega-engineering projects such as Tholian Spheres). It would retain the degree of consistency which the current 50%/200% split offers, but do so in a more gradualist manner. Or perhaps the exact ratio could be left semi-adjustable for the time being, to be formally settled upon once X2 SSDs get some playtesting done for them?

-----

And speaking of SSDs, has it been decided whether Alpha Octant X2-ships would use the "classic" Captain's Edition drafting template, or one of the alternates shown in other works (such as the "FC-esque" templates sampled here and there); or, indeed, if an entirely new generation of SSD template might be cooked up instead?

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 03:45 pm: Edit

Faster ships with faster drones and faster plasma would play differently. Ranges could close and open more quickly, over fewer impulses. You would have to worry more about range 2-0 jumps, or even 3-0 jumps, when dealing with seekers. And the faster ships would provide unique challenges for GW ships facing them.

Forget what I said about speed 61. Charge double for warp movement points over 30, and you would have a top speed of 36 for a CA with 40 warp. You could put a hard cap at speed 40 from warp (or lower) just so that the X2-Orions don't get out of hand. The balance would be speed-40 drones, and sabot plasma would be standard. (Or maybe, in X2, regular plasma would be speed 40 and the sabot plasma would be 48.)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 04:39 pm: Edit

I still think that trans-tactical warp movement energy cost should be not so much about added energy to move the ship but about remaining in the tactical realm.

I mean, besides the game system limits what is the physical limit for non-X2 ships to have a hard barrier between tactical and strategic warp?

What has been defined is at dash warp speed the ships are nearly blind so that says to me there is a threshold at which systems become "incompatible" with certain levels of warp field generation. According to previous doctrine (I believe) a ship is at strategic speed at warp 3.3. I think of this as a sort of sound barrier transition. It is one thing for an energy weapon to move faster than this and even for a drone, but a ship that has to also freely maneuver, track targets, maintain shields, and fire weapons this is a whole different thing.

So if trans-tactical warp is a thing I don't think the movement cost should be the main thing but rather the penalties be against maneuver, sensor/scanners, shields, and weapons fire. Then the player spends energy to keep these things normal (well, not maneuver, that should be a pure cost).

So a ship could pay additional cost for movement at the normal rate. But it will suffer 2ECM against it. Using EW rules or not it can pay 2 points to counter this. It will need to double the shield cost each time it passes over the speed 32 threshold or shields will be reduced to minimum. I'm not sure if individual weapons fire should incur a penalty. Certainly there should be no launching of seeking weapons (except sabot plasma) and not shuttle launches. No drogues either. Tractor beams would be broken.
And it should be REALLY bad to hit web of any sort. And forget about it in any terrain, especially asteroids.
Mines would be unaffected (still fast enough to hurt you) but you couldn't drop any.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 06:49 pm: Edit

Loren: Until you find a published reference to Andro Goo I cannot sanction it.

Still not convinced on speed but we'll see.

I don't like 3/4 damage as it's much harder to calculate and slows down the game.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 07:09 pm: Edit

I know. I wasn't trying to push that it was. But I did think there was something that prevented the Alphas from copying Andro tech. (or delayed it beyond recorded history.) As for my story, well, it isn't critical and is an issue for another time.

By James Hallmark (James) on Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 07:19 pm: Edit

With 50% / 200% it makes me wonder if X2 will have fewer boxes than the same X1 class. If that is the case then there may be damage allocation issues to work through and a need to increase the capacity of tractors/trans/shuttles (not just better but more actions per box).

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 10:31 pm: Edit

I really did not care much for X ships when they first came out. The thread here does say there is a lot of interest in the X2. One each warp box could generate 1.X power. That power could be used to power weapons shield reinforcement are other X type equipment. No new boxes needed and a ship with all that extra power would just tear up a GW ship of =class.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 19, 2015 - 02:02 pm: Edit

One idea I had about X2 warp some time ago while thinking of ways to make tougher engines was to have these easy to replace warp augmentation modules. The engines would have normal for move cost engines then a series of augmentation modules that would produce the extra power you'd expect from X-Tech. The full proposal is in the X-files but recently I had a different idea. What if X2 ships had a new type of AWR (lets call it Auxiliary Warp Augmentation Reactor) , always located in the rear hull. This bank of AWAR was connected to the warp drive power systems. When a warp engine takes damage it can be applied to the warp engine call on the DAC or to the AWAR bank. A black line would connect to the engines to show the relationship (like on a mauler). Obviously AWAR could be used for any sort of energy requirement (except as impulse energy of course.)

Whether or not this energy could be used for movement could be a matter of debate. Perhaps it could be said that the AWAR can apply energy to movement through any undamaged warp engine box (E.g., sort of doubling its power throughput for movement.) So if you had 6 AWAR and only 3 undamaged warp engine boxes you could only use 3 AWAR for movement. AWAR would be repaired at a rate the same as AWR (yes, a benefit).

Actual engine box count would be X1 like or less. I'm thinking X1 engine size plus 6 AWAR boxes for a cruiser. But whatever works.

Strategically, AWAR could be a system module replaceable at a base. Indeed, what if the "Any box" was actually a 6-8 box mission module? Not something attached but a replaceable hull section; an interior pod like thing. A system grown from the HDW concept. (A similar concept was discussed in the X-Files I think so certainly not a new idea.)

By James Hallmark (James) on Wednesday, January 21, 2015 - 10:06 pm: Edit

For the Fed's I could imagine something that looks like a fast cruiser, with 3 photons, and 40 warp and shields.

By James Hallmark (James) on Wednesday, January 21, 2015 - 10:11 pm: Edit

Would a 200% phaser 1 need a way to be split into more than 2 shots? A 200% phaser 3 does up to 8 damage. It seams like you might, at times, prefer a way to do 6 damage 3 times over 8 damage twice.

By James Hallmark (James) on Wednesday, January 21, 2015 - 10:17 pm: Edit

I think it would be fun to have class 2 huls even if they are less X2ish than class 3 and 4 huls. It might be fun to have a BPV profile like so: 400 BPV CC, 450 BPV DNL, 500 BPV DN. This makes X2 Galacitic DN's match up with Andro DN's. The scaling would be done with the # of heavy weapons and warp boxes. The Fed DNXX may look oddly similiar to a 100 year old forbearer but be X2 tech.

By James Hallmark (James) on Wednesday, January 21, 2015 - 10:21 pm: Edit

As for phasers arcs. Could the design idea be that in each race we are looking for 1 (or 2 if symetrical) banks to erase? The idea being that you would move those phasers to another bank and expand the arc by 60 degrees.

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Friday, March 13, 2015 - 11:50 pm: Edit

I'll note here that H5.5 (at least as of the latest electronic Master Rulebook revision) establishes that X2 batteries are 5 points/each and can hold "warp power" for multiple turns.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, March 14, 2015 - 01:15 pm: Edit

That gave me an idea.

IF 5 points turns out to be too much what if you had a thing I'd call Overloaded Batteries. Value Added Batteries? Batt+? Exenteded Capacity Battery (ECB)?

It would work like this. The X2 battery would hold 3 points normally like an X1 battery. But the X2 battery could hold an additional 2 points of reserve capacity. This energy can be any energy type, but must be used or is lost by the end of the turn. It's about energy allocation flexibility.
I think it would only require the use of one of the extra lines on the DAC. Call it "BOLE" (battery over-load energy).

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, March 14, 2015 - 11:38 pm: Edit

Loren,

Just a general game question... should there be a "cost" involved with having a "ECB" or "BOLE"?

some options might be to use the Orion Engine model... just like hyping (or over loading) and Orion pirate ship engine results in damage to the engine at the end of the turn, use of "ECB" or "BOLE" results in one battery box being destroyed at the end of the game turn the batteris were over loaded.

If that's too extreme, what if, at the start of the scenario, the batteries start with the capacity you indicated, but that after each turn of overloaded batteries results in a minus 1 being applied to the total capacity to reflect the degradation such use puts on the batteries.

just my $0.02 worth.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, March 15, 2015 - 01:19 am: Edit

To much. My basis is to have something that still have the noted rule still applicable... they hold five points. So my rule idea is built off that. Think of it as a X1 three point battery with a two point capacitor on it that can hold energy for one turn (not 32 impulses but one turn.)
You cannot start a turn prior to allocation with five points in the battery or rather, you cannot start a turn with energy in the battery capacitor. You can start a turn with three energy in the battery and zero in the capacitor. Then you can, during EA add two points of any energy to each battery capacitor.

This system gives you X1 battery capability while increasing per turn reserve power. Sure it is a little more complex (a note on the EAF) but it's kinda cool I think in that it is also a little inferior to Andro batteries which are a straight five point hold.

Tracking degradation from turn to turn as a regular operation would not be fun IMO. On the EAF you only treat my system as two separate battery systems. One holds power over turn breaks and the other does not.
Think of it as a kind of shelf for energy when the pantry is full.

By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Sunday, March 22, 2015 - 08:06 pm: Edit

Just some ideas...
* I'd like to see "return to the roots" for Tholians - building Neo hulls again, and maybe a new PC-derived heavy weapon.
* Maybe the Kzintis dust off the disruptor cannon. Maybe the Feds invent seeking photons! There are all kinds of fun things ESGs could do. I'm in favor of new ways of using weapons, not just more range & more damage.
* I like the variety of phasers in the GW and pre-GW era, but maybe this time around the Lyrans would have the good phasers and the Gorns have the lousy ones.
* I don't think more range alone would be an extremely valuable upgrade for transporters and especially tractors. But there are lots of fun things that could happen. Transporters could beam through (friendly) shields, could be used to launch and recover shuttles, or could recover T-bombs. Tractors could rotate things more often than over a turn break, or could maybe operate at extended range for less power (1 point at R0-2, 2 points at R3, 3 points at R4, maybe).
* Powered armor for marines would be fun (I bet it'll be in use on Earth sometime this century...)
* I'm in favor of faster-than-32 speeds, if only to be a "thing older ships can't do" but have no opinion on the exact mechanics. One thing that comes to mind is that the problem of a super-fast seeking weapon trying to hit a super-fast target when both are moving more than one hex per impulse might create either new tactics or new headaches but would certainly change things somehow.
* Better energy management (batteries, capacitors, whatever) and lower energy costs for things might be as much of an improvement as just more power, without adding boxes to the SSD.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Sunday, March 22, 2015 - 09:41 pm: Edit

Well as X1 incresed combat damage and all that. Would you not think that defenses would keep up? Not just more shield boxes. Was there better ecm with X ships?