I was thinking about X2 as I found myself unable to get back to sleep earlier.

I'd like to cast my vote in favor of new technological diversity between different races. We have some examples of non-homogeneity in the MY and beyond.

Example: Three groups, other than the Hydrans, ended up using Ph-Gs, to at least a minor degree. None of them was the race that really should have: Klingons. The Klingons had, by Y205, seventy years to capture, dismantle, and analyze what is essentially a branch of a known technology. It would have been beneficial against the Kzinti and Federation. Maybe they would have developed a less capable version (only three shots? consuming more power?). Or, maybe, they fully understood how they worked, but decided, for whatever reason, they just weren't going to be bothered fielding them.

Further, I'm sure the Federation could have built disruptor-armed ships, but they were happy with the effect of photons and elected not to fix what wasn't broken. In a similar vein, just because the Kzinti understand how the Klingon disruptor variant works doesn't mean they're going to stop using their own disruptor variant.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, February 02, 2016 - 12:02 pm: Edit

It was four groups (other than the Hydrans) that used P-Gs, the WYN, Orion, LDR and the Feds.

I don't think they should spread any farther.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, February 02, 2016 - 03:14 pm: Edit

I was thinking a bit about what kind of shield distribution one might expect to see on an X2 ship, or whether or not there ought to be a trade-off when adopting this new generation of shield technology.


I was thinking that it might make things more interesting if there was a fixed total of shield boxes which a given X2-ship with a certain Move Cost from a given empire could have, and that it would depend on the class in particular as to how said shields would be distributed.

Or to put it another way, consider the differences between the Federation CA/CC/CB and GSC, or the CX and GSX. One group of ships each has a heavy #1 shield, while the other group has an even number of shield boxes across all six facings.

So, if there were to be a Star Fleet XCA (to succeed the CX) and possibly an "XGS" also (to pick up where the GSX left off), perhaps both ship classes could have the same overall number of shield boxes across all six facings. But while the XCA could have a stronger #1 shield (and a proportionally weaker #4 shield, and perhaps even with a few boxes shaved off of the #3 and #5 shields to boot), the would-be XGS would have an equal number of boxes from #1 to #6.

That could help put more of a premium on maneuver (since, as in the Middle Years, the "standard" cruiser design would have to be careful about exposing its aft shield facings), while indicating that there may be some areas in which X2 shields still involve the odd compromise.


Indeed, perhaps X2 shields might also use the leaky shield rule by default, akin to the shield burn-through rule over in Federation Commander?

Given the 50%/200% rule, the threshold value for pre-X2 ships would effectively be twice as high as it would be for X2-v-X2 battles.

Since one might hope that X2-ships would end up being ported over to FC sooner or later (once the SFB rules are hammered out, at least), this might perhaps allow both games' incarnations of these ships to work that little bit more similarly.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Tuesday, February 02, 2016 - 04:59 pm: Edit

In all of known history weapons get better and then defenses get better. Are as defenses get better weapons must get stronger to break them. With X weapons doing more damage then GW ships. The defenses must get stronger. Heavier shields and better reinforcement energy. So 1 point of power gives you 1.5 points of specific reinforcement. While 2 points of general will give you 1.25 points per say. Mind you my math sucks but that would be helpful i think.

By Tim Pearce (Komotomo) on Tuesday, February 02, 2016 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Richard: I'm not suggesting they do. I'm stating that there are examples, already, of different races following different evolutionary paths with similar concepts without everyone copying those paths. I.E. I'd love to see the above suggestion of ISC, Romulan and Gorn plasma torpedoes advance in different directions in X2, different evolutionary paths for the various disruptor-using races, etc.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, February 03, 2016 - 06:07 am: Edit

The second you create three different evolutionary plasma paths the overwhelming majority of players will demand that their empire also get the paths the other empires took. Given the engineering there is no logical way to deny that.

Remember that we already did it (G Gorn, R Romulan) and players rejected it so, the players already said no to that.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, February 03, 2016 - 06:07 am: Edit

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, February 03, 2016 - 06:09 am: Edit

Weapons and defenses all get better at whatever rate they can. There is no universal axiom that one always leads the improvement race.

By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, February 03, 2016 - 09:38 am: Edit

I'd think that perhaps X2 shields might be more of the same as the existing AND with a small "rotary shield" or "shield block" equivalent.

they will, by this time have the Darwin data and can see how others do it.

So A CA has 32/ 28/ 28/ 26 shields with a 8 block rotary shield "for free every turn..." that can be reinforced at 1 to 1.

This would alter the Alpha paradigm enough...

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, February 03, 2016 - 10:18 am: Edit

Why is the proposed #4 shield weaker than all the others? A lot of early ships (like the Klingons prior to the B-refits) had particulrly weak #4 shields but this became rarer and rarer as time went on. Why re-introduce a known design deficiency?

By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Wednesday, February 03, 2016 - 12:13 pm: Edit

How would this rotary shield work with Hellbores?

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Wednesday, February 03, 2016 - 01:43 pm: Edit

Dal,
Triangulum handles it by saying that the rotary shield is considered to be part of the shield it is currently covering.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, February 03, 2016 - 03:19 pm: Edit

I'm not so sure I'd want to see the rotary shied concept spread beyond its current Juggernaut or Helgardian usage. Although it would be interesting to see if the Helgardians ever get around to developing X-technology of their own, and how an X-version of their RSH system might operate.


As for "regular" X2-ship shield facings, I would say that the "design deficiency" which might force a given empire to choose which facings to strengthen (and at which others' expense) may be a side-effect of the new leap in shield technology - as suggested in my last post.

Over in the military history thread, I recently mentioned the F-111 (the real one, not the one in the SFU). While that plane incorporated a number of innovations which would later be adopted by several later aircraft (not least the variable geometry wing option), the development process was long and controversial. It took quite some time for the craft to mature in USAF or RAAF service, and the F-111B variant failed to meet the design standards which the US Navy wanted (hence the development of the F-14 Tomcat).

And more recently, the F-35 program has not gone quite so smoothly either; be it in getting the three main variants into production, or in establishing its supposed superiority over the competition (to include upgrades to older airframes).

While X2 may represent a technological leap forward, that ought not mean that the "package" of X2-tech should be without its quirks or shortcomings.


Plus, from a game design perspective, it may be worth considering a break from the relative sameness of Alpha Octant shield evolution up to that point. Especially with the primary phaser arcs are going to be FX or RX; there may be more options in terms of which facing you shoot out of, but that could be partly off-set by having weaker shield facings one might have to be more careful about exposing.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, February 03, 2016 - 03:39 pm: Edit

You don't build a lot of your mistakes so if there are quirks and short comings they sound like special scenario rules to me.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, February 03, 2016 - 04:10 pm: Edit

It would be interesting to have a scenario or two cover the "working out the kinks" phase of X2-ship evolution. (That "dark future" scenario suggestion might be an ideal place to use it, by having a prototype Klingon XBC rushed into the fray before the engineers have time to make sure everything works as it is supposed to.)

But I perhaps should have been clearer about suggesting what might count as a "bug" or a "feature".

In terms of shielding, it might seem a "bug" to not have the #4 shield facing be as strong as shields #2-#6, if an X2-ship has a stronger #1 shield it plans to fire its photons (or other direct-fire heavy weapons) behind. Under the known paradigm in the TL 12 and TL 13 eras, why wouldn't Star Fleet (or another Alpha Octant navy) avoid such a shortcoming?

But what I was trying to get at is that, in being potentially forced to weaken one shield in favour of strengthening another, this may have been a "feature" - something which would simply be a part of how X2 shielding works, and therefore could not be helped.


That said, I don't want to belabour the point any more than I should. So if that concept is a non-starter here, fair enough.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Wednesday, February 03, 2016 - 05:22 pm: Edit

I do not think a rotary shield is a good thing for the alpha quadrant. If it was they would have done it they saw it on the juggernaut. Better phaser arcs and stronger phasers i can see. The ability to fire your ph-I as two ph-III on the same impulse like a ph-g i would love to see. (To include limited aegis)

As i said above more shield reinforcement for less power. A higher number of minimum shield boxes is already part of X ships.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, February 03, 2016 - 05:37 pm: Edit

How about a system that allows you to apply your shields as you see fit?

The SSD would have 10 lines (allowing for 10 turns) on each shield facing. The ship would have a total number of shield boxes it could apply, and can assign them to any shield facing at the start of a given turn.

This would require the strengths of shields (but not reinforcement energy) to be announced at the start of the turn (allowing players to try to figure out the opponent's intentions and try to maneuver to hit a shield that has fewer boxes allocated to it). It would make facing "enveloping weapons" more difficult.

It is not as simple as allocating all of your shield boxes to the #1 shield for an attack run, as your enemy can plan on hitting your unshielded sides (more of a problem in squadron and fleet actions where flanking fire is more possible).

It does allow you to review the damage your ship has taken while planning for your next maneuvers ("the port phasers are gone, but the starboard phasers are still intact, so we need to lead with the #1 and #2 shields this turn") and there would not really be such a thing as a "down shield" at the start of a turn unless you just did not have any shield boxes remaining.

It might make combat more interesting since (provided there are no pesky enveloping weapons . . . blankety blank Hydrans) you could enter a battle with virtually no rear shields, but exit the battle with all of your remaining shield boxes on your back end to cover your retreat.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Wednesday, February 03, 2016 - 05:42 pm: Edit

The Souldra basically do this with their Soul Shields.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, February 03, 2016 - 05:58 pm: Edit

I do not like that idea. It destroys any maneuver tactic.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, February 03, 2016 - 06:03 pm: Edit

Perhaps SPP's take on shield shuffling could be used for a new X2-era monster?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, February 03, 2016 - 07:54 pm: Edit

I think it might be a lot more interesting to allow SOME moveable shields.

For example, perhaps a ship that had 30 box shields on the front and 24 in back might also have 8 movable shield boxes on the front and 6 in back. Perhaps movable after direct fire is declared by non-x ships and units and such (and at the end of movement for use against seeking weapons).

By Patrick Sledge (Decius) on Thursday, February 04, 2016 - 07:42 am: Edit

I was looking at this, and wondering about the possibility of rather than having a full reallocation each turn (as SPP mentioned), allowing X2 ships to, at the start of the turn, transfer boxes between adjacent shields only, limited to a maximum of the shield's original strength.

So if your 30 box #1 was down, you could (for example) transfer 10 boxes each from your #2 and #6 to bring it back up to 20. You could not transfer from #3,#4, or #5 to your #1. You also could not transfer shields to bring it to a strength over 30. (In theory, you could use this over the course of multiple turns to balance your shields evenly again by transferring from 2/6 to 1, then 3/5 to 2/6, then 4 to 3/5... but your opponent is probably not going to just sit back and let that happen)

Effectively, this would mean that X2 ships have a window where a shield is actually down, followed by a window where it and the surrounding shields are thinned, which still preserves an an advantage to maneuver. It also adds a tactical choice for the player of how much energy to transfer over (Do I just put one box over to cover the down shield so I can throw up some reinforcement, or do I bring the shield back up to a decent strength to make a pass out of that facing at the cost of increasing my vulnerability elsewhere).

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Thursday, February 04, 2016 - 08:07 am: Edit

Hmmm, not sure how practical this would be in game play, but how about, for X2, allowing for a ship to redo its entire EA on impulse 16 (reapplying unused/unspent energy)? It might get complicated with movement but I've given zero thought about this until just now.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Thursday, February 04, 2016 - 08:17 am: Edit

As SVC mentioned movable shields tend to reduce the importance of maneuver.

If you want a similar effect it might be best to just give X2 ships a small, easily repaired shield that largely acts like allocated general reinforcement.

Say 10 boxes that can be repaired for 1 point of power each and don't use the damage control capacity.

The first few points of damage each turn hit that and go bye-bye, but you can still have one facing that's definitely weaker due to damage or original shield design.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, February 04, 2016 - 08:56 am: Edit

As an alternative to movable shields, we could introduce a "energy sink" feature for X2 ships.

In effect, it would function as a real world energy sink would to divert or "bleed" a portion of the energy/heat away from damage to a X2 ships shields.

In X2 verses X2, the energy sink value equals zero. We could increase the effectiveness for every tech level removed from X2. So, for example, X2 verses X1, the energy sink value is +1. In X2 verses GW or middle years the energy sink value is +2, and in early years, X2 verses EW the energy sink value +3.

In game terms, any damage inflicted on a X2 ship by an earlier tech lvl hull would have 1,2 or 3 points subtracted from a damage volley every impulse, per each shield.

Not a huge difference, but such a modification would add up over the course of a game.