Archive through January 30, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
The "X" Files:
OLD X2 FOLDER:
X2 BPV:
Archive through January 30, 2003
Its not better now. The problem isn't the Xorks. We can up gun our starships to warships to deal with the Xorks. The problem is getting X2 to play nice with X0/XP/X1. Aside from the fact that an X2 fleet can’t be matched (maybe we should make an X2 ship count as 2 command slots?) it is unreasonable that a DD(X2) takes out a CB(X1) in Y205.
An X1 fleet can't be matches by a GW fleet either.
That goes with the territory.
Otherwise, I agree.
300 is the X2 target if the published CX is as high on the weapons-denisty scale we're going to go w/ SC3.
If we assume that a BCX1 will eventually be built, go to 350-375
X1 BPV Range (core empires excluding scouts and Hydrans):
FF (16 warp max): 105-130
DD (24 warp max): 120-170
CL (32 warp max): 185-228
CA (42 warp max): 240-315
Quote:The purpose in making cruisers first is that they are always the first ships to be upgraded, and the benchmark others are designed against. It was that way for module Y, and that way for module X1. Why would we discontinue this trend for X2?
Answer:- $$$
If the Testbed ship is DDXX and it's cheaper to have one dud DDXX trhan a CCXX then you'ld actually build the DDXX first.
That being said there is something about a large ship that makes it easier to start refiting and adjusting things, so if you've got the money , you build the big ships because you can then make changes and still fall within certain design constraints ( such as the volume of each watertight compartment )...if you turret system fits exactly into one compartment on an Frigate and you need to add something to it that was forgotten in the design process ( like pass bigle pumping pipes through the compartment aswell ) then you got a problem because there is no space in which to stow that extra equipment, but on a big ship the turret will have plent of room the pipes will just go arounnd the turret mechanism ( sure, each elbow will lower the output water pressure, but thems the breaks, and all sister ships will be redseigned no the need those elbows ).
SO it's a question of money Vs margin of error.
Quote:Its not better now. The problem isn't the Xorks. We can up gun our starships to warships to deal with the Xorks. The problem is getting X2 to play nice with X0/XP/X1. Aside from the fact that an X2 fleet can’t be matched (maybe we should make an X2 ship count as 2 command slots?) it is unreasonable that a DD(X2) takes out a CB(X1) in Y205.
Squadron Theory.
Just no more than 2X2 ships in an X1 Fleet, or else you have toi feild an X2 Squadron with upto 6 X2 vessels.
Quote:An X1 fleet can't be matches by a GW fleet either.
That goes with the territory.
Otherwise, I agree.
300 is the X2 target if the published CX is as high on the weapons-denisty scale we're going to go w/ SC3.
If we assume that a BCX1 will eventually be built, go to 350-375
Like I say, aim for 320 and 360 and we'll find good old 410 waiting for us.
What should the BPV of a maxed out BCH(X2-Y225) warship be after the Xorks invade?
It looks like we have finally come to a consensus. A CA(X2-Y205) should have a BPV between 250 and 500 with various votes scattered in between.
Unfortunately that's still a bit too wide and most are sticking firmly to their guns. What do we need to do to narrow that down a bit?
This seems to be more of a design/history/balance issue than a BPV issue. From a design perspective there are at least three Y205 camps:
1) Lower BPV plays better with X0/X1/XP during the trade wars and is less likely to break the game.
2) X2 represents a revolutionary advancement over X1 and can be balanced by applying a sufficiently high BPV.
3) Everywhere in between.
Again, how do we narrow this gap and fit everything into the history? Should we be concentrating on a consistent history and get inside the heads of the builders? Should we build them and fly them and worry about the how and why later?
We are in a circular discussion and I'm getting dizzzy.
I would think that you look at the type of ship that the XCA will be.
It will be both a command ship and a waive the flag on the border ship yes?
So, a big ship. 500 is way too much I would think. Whatever happend to around 300?
300
However, trying to pick a BPV is a mistake I think. Sure, find a range but really we should be designing the best ship for the least cost. THat's what real world designers do. That doesn't mean building cheepo either. Sometimes you put in more money now to save in the long run. Like so it doesn't get destroied against common threats or is easier to maintain.
This I will post is other topics. I think it's important. I copied this from the AO topic. I've been sticking to a nomaclature for a while and here is proof that it's what ADB uses. The Caps are SVCs reply.
"Can the D5DX be changed to XD5 so it fits on the counter better?
NO. IF THE X IS IN FRONT, IT'S 2ND GENERATION X-SHIP."
Understand also that I haven't seen 500 BPV show up on any SSDs, but some of the SSDs presented with 400 BPV printed seems unrealistically low to me. It is easier to underestimate BPV then to get it right.
If we went with the 300 target presented and add +/- 10% that is a range of 270-330.
I think we're going about this wrong. Don't worry about the BPV. You can't calculate it at this stage, anyway, because we don't know anything about the non-SSD abilities these ships may have. Just make the ships how we want them, and then BPV will be calculated via playtesting. Once that's done, if they're too high, they can be altered to get them down. Trying to shoe-horn abilities, weapons and the like into a pre-chosen BPV range isn't going to work, IMHO...too many variables.
Mike, ya that's it exactly.
But it doesn't work. As we design the ships we are naturally going to make them wonderful with all the bells and whistles. When we price out our new car with options we realize we can't afford it. That is a receipe for 400-500 BPV ships and I haven't see a great deal of support there. Certainly not much support in Y205.
Neither does saying "I want a 300 BPV ship" without knowing the BPV of the weapons or systems under discussion. Make the ship, then worry about the BPV. If it's too high, pare it back. If it isn't high enough, pack on some more. It's the only way to do it.
But we still need a target range.
We peg capabilities according to a best-guess of 300, or according to some wish-list and see how they play.
The consensus seems to be 300. the only reason I go higher is to differentiate X1R and X2 a little better.
"The consensus seems to be 300. The only reason I go higher is to differentiate X1R and X2 a little better."
300 BPV is a battle value. There is no reason that an X2 starship has to be as strong in battle as an X1 warship; it simply has a different mission. There is equally no reason why an X2 ship couldn't have 500 BPV. The question is at what level does all this nifty new technology play nicely with what has come before.
"Make the ship, then worry about the BPV. If it's too high, pare it back."
How will we know if it is too high if we don't know the target?
I have tried to keep up with everything but I have been very busy.
300 seems a bit low.
Taking some examples from X1.
LDR CCX 240
ISC CCX 315
Gorn CMX 240
Kzin CCX 243
Rom K7X 280
Most of the othe CCX's way in at around 225.
So almost all CX's are right alongside the DN BPV.
So IMO the XCC ship should Rank in at BB BPV. To keep the progression smooth. Meaning the XCC should be running around 330-350 for the Fed/Klink's with normal racial variation in BPV for the other races. So an XCC should be able to deal with a BB on a fairly equal footing.
Tos,
Within the backstory, no. There's no reason why a X2 CA has to be as good as a X1.
From a sales standpoint there is.
People will be expecting X2 to be the same sort of improvement over X1 as X1 was over GW. From a what-the-ADB-will-publish perspective, yes it does mean that a XCC (to adopt Loren's standard) must be demonstrably and solidly better than a CX.
There's a push-pull. The push is wanting powerful, shiny new ships to play with. the pull is the need to play nice with GW-tech.
The higher combat capability goes, the more expoitable the tech difference is. That alone is enough reason to veto a 500 BPV XCC. I don't think the ADB has enough playtest resources to execute the careful balance a 500 point XCC would need.
Yup. I in no way advocate a 500 point XCC.
Quote:How will we know if it is too high if we don't know the target?
You can't. But, the reason you can't is because we don't know how to calculate BPV for all these undesigned systems. Certainly having a BPV guideline is okay, but at this stage, there's no way to look at any finished SSD and definitevly say "that's too high." I don't know about the rest, but I only make them to spur ideas and conversation about what looks right. For example, the very first one I posted was the one with 18 phaser 1's...and that led to the idea of using less but better phasers, hence the P5. I don't believe at all that the ones I make are anywhere near ready to go, but they do help the process. If I've led anyone to think I do consider them anywhere near a finished product, that certainly isn't the intention.
That being said, a range of 350 to 400 is about right. Whether or not any of the ships posted by any of us will fall in those ranges is yet to be seen.
"People will be expecting X2 to be the same sort of improvement over X1 as X1 was over GW."
I guess that is the crux of the issue: 'What do people want to buy'. I am more concerned that the background history makes sense. I find I prefer the mid-range ships and use heavier ships infrequently or as the flag. When building a fleet I am much more likely to reach for R2/3/4 then R5/6/7.
If a CA(X2) is going to have BB level BPV then I propose that we treat it (or make it) size class 2 for the purposes of S8. It can still retain movement cost = 1. Then when the Xorks come we lift the S8 limits and allow multiple SC=2 ships to participate in a battle. That should be a compromise everyone can live with, no?
That sounds fair. Don't want to make them actually SC2 but the S8 rule is good. I thought that this was basically agree on so it shouldn't be a problem.
As to incremental improvements: It is possible to make seemingly small changes to a ship and have it opperate much better. I can think of a few GW ships that could use two more points of power and would be VASTLY improved. In another thread there was a proposal to add a second 15 box engine to the Fed SC. That is almost a game breaker.
We have been talking general improvements to every aspect of the X2 design including Hull and Bridge (well, that was mine), every Phaser and Heavy Weapons. The improvement over X1 is going to be no problem reaching. It's going too far that is the damger. Supplement 2 went too far and that was less of a change than the general feel is here.
That is not to say what we are doing is too much of bad. If we can keep these ships dynamic and fun to play (I most all situations) the these can be powerful.
The 1.5 engine thing was just one of the dynamic things I wanted to present. I know it's weird but as much as it is a benifit it could be an Achilies Heel and something to try and exploit by X0 or X1. As I see it so far, there will be little chance for these eras to compete class for class. S8 is another thing and BPV or VC will balance things out.
I guess what I was hoping for was something that makes them run great but provides a weakness if not cared for.
Do I make any sense?
Wouldn't it be cool if it took some time to learn how to play these ships. To figure out their dynamics. To get the feeling of "Oh, Cool!" when we read a new batch of "Term Papers on X2". The fun that we had when we were still learning this game.(Well, we're still always learning but you get my point, I hope.)
To Feel Young Again! 
Quote:Again, how do we narrow this gap and fit everything into the history? Should we be concentrating on a consistent history and get inside the heads of the builders? Should we build them and fly them and worry about the how and why later?
We could always say that at some point after the Xork invasion the Ph-5 was replaces with a Ph-4 derived weapon, with a longer sweetspot for dealing with those horrid coreward raiders.
That way a 360 point XCA jumps out to being 480 real quick.
Quote:If we went with the 300 target presented and add +/- 10% that is a range of 270-330.
Hello...the ISC CCX is already 315 BPV.
Quote:I think we're going about this wrong. Don't worry about the BPV. You can't calculate it at this stage, anyway, because we don't know anything about the non-SSD abilities these ships may have. Just make the ships how we want them, and then BPV will be calculated via playtesting. Once that's done, if they're too high, they can be altered to get them down. Trying to shoe-horn abilities, weapons and the like into a pre-chosen BPV range isn't going to work, IMHO...too many variables.
RIGHT ON.
Quote:But it doesn't work. As we design the ships we are naturally going to make them wonderful with all the bells and whistles. When we price out our new car with options we realize we can't afford it. That is a receipe for 400-500 BPV ships and I haven't see a great deal of support there. Certainly not much support in Y205.
Yeah, and then you start looking the point of veiw of WHAT CAN I DUMP to get the BPV (price down ) down and you get down to the price you want with most of the Bells and Whilst you want.
If you want 16 Ph-5s and the BPV is 600, then consider dropping it down to 12 Ph-5s and the BPV will likely drop down to 520.
Do you know how many times a Naval Architict to recalculater the weight of the vessel in order to get the displacement correct for the resistance and powering calculations, about ten times, and almost every new hullform and every new draft, requires a different engine which weighs a different amount requiring a new and different calculation.
Fortunately for Naval Architects, being 0.5 knots too fast and the feul costs there in will be lost in the beer of celebrations after the sea trials, being 0.25 knots too slow and the massive long term fuel saves therein won't spacre you from being sued for breach of contract.
...For those that want to know, it at least 10 times, maybe more.
We can re adjust our SSDs until we get the BPVs the way we want them, but let's just see where our open BPV SSDs take use so that we have a starting opoint to workfrom.
A Naval Architect doesn't look at the resitance and powering of his vessel and therefore doesn't choose a motor until after he has his first weight calculation.
Quote:So IMO the XCC ship should Rank in at BB BPV. To keep the progression smooth. Meaning the XCC should be running around 330-350 for the Fed/Klink's with normal racial variation in BPV for the other races. So an XCC should be able to deal with a BB on a fairly equal footing.
A DNH + an NCA.
Really a BB is only a 33% increase over a DN and we really need a 50% increase over a DN to make it obvious that they shipos are a generational leap forward.
Quote:From a sales standpoint there is.
People will be expecting X2 to be the same sort of improvement over X1 as X1 was over GW. From a what-the-ADB-will-publish perspective, yes it does mean that a XCC (to adopt Loren's standard) must be demonstrably and solidly better than a CX.
There's a push-pull. The push is wanting powerful, shiny new ships to play with. the pull is the need to play nice with GW-tech.
The higher combat capability goes, the more expoitable the tech difference is.
We should really put in an XBC and XCCH with a YIS of something after the start of the Xork invasion.
Then the XCA can be the testbead vessel but still relatively cheap with the "handful of Phaser Vs Mizia" drawback and the then XBC and XCCH can have much higher BPVs than the XCA.
Quote: That being said, a range of 350 to 400 is about right. Whether or not any of the ships posted by any of us will fall in those ranges is yet to be seen.
That'll drift to 360 to 450 which will be about right.
It depends though, are we talking about full capable combat vessels or penny-pinched capital-ships that exist purely to make a statement during the tradewars and not actually expected to win an actual engagement of a full combat capable vessel of the same basic hull?
Quote: If a CA(X2) is going to have BB level BPV then I propose that we treat it (or make it) size class 2 for the purposes of S8. It can still retain movement cost = 1. Then when the Xorks come we lift the S8 limits and allow multiple SC=2 ships to participate in a battle. That should be a compromise everyone can live with, no?
Right on.
Quote:The 1.5 engine thing was just one of the dynamic things I wanted to present. I know it's weird but as much as it is a benifit it could be an Achilies Heel and something to try and exploit by X0 or X1. As I see it so far, there will be little chance for these eras to compete class for class. S8 is another thing and BPV or VC will balance things out.
I guess what I was hoping for was something that makes them run great but provides a weakness if not cared for.
Do I make any sense?
X2 ships should have more than one achilies hell.
But they shouldn't be easybeats by the DNHs and NCAs of this world.
"X2 ships should have more than one achilies hell.
But they shouldn't be easybeats by the DNHs and NCAs of this world."
Of course and I hope I didn't imply that either.
John T.: "...yes it does mean that a XCC (to adopt Loren's standard) must be demonstrably..."
Just wanted to say that that not my standard. It's ADBs since Supplement 2. Some basic stuff from Supp. 2 have stayed the same. Just not most of it. 