How about X2 ships having unlimited High Energey Turns? They never break down from HETs. The ship would have to spend power for every HET, of course. And if it is deemed necessary to further restrict the capability; perhaps any HET performed within 8 impulses of a previous HET would have double the power cost. This rule would enable X2 ships to maneuver in ways simply not available to older designs and encourage new, maneuver-based tactics.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, September 15, 2017 - 12:15 pm: Edit

I wonder if such new abilities that X2 brings to the game could be balanced by increased energy costs?

Several people have suggested extended tractor and transporter ranges... what if there were a variation of the energy inverse square law in physics involved?

For example:existing tractor beams have a linear function for ranges 0/1 equals energy cost f 1 point of energy. Range 2 costs 2 points and range 3 costs 3 points.

Now we're could debate what new abilities X2 should have, but let us start by considering X2 tractor energy cost function of doubling the energy cost as range increases.

Consider:
Range zero energy cost for X2 tractors 0.125 points of energy for each object tractored at range zero. (Could be one ship, or 10 drones or 100 shuttle craft...). Range 1 cost would be 0.25 energy points per object, range 3 cost of 0.5 energy points per object, range 4 cost of 1.0 cost per object tractored. Range 5 cost of 2 points per object, and maximum tractor range of 6 hexes energy cost of 4 points per object. Of course tractor auctions could increase the cost a lot.

Gives X2 ships a significant edge at ranges zero to three but extended ranges would cost a lot more.

The values could be adjusted but X2 tractors would be materially superior to existing tractors.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Friday, September 15, 2017 - 12:19 pm: Edit

I like Alan's unlimited HET suggestion, it "feels" to me like a tech improvement. Here's this thing you could do once or twice in Y140, and two or three times in Y190, now you can do it as often as you want.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Friday, September 15, 2017 - 12:35 pm: Edit

Putting a tractor beam's cost at less then one point of energy for each effective point would mean that the attacker would have a big advantage in using anchor tactics.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Friday, September 15, 2017 - 12:36 pm: Edit

I don't like the idea of unlimited HETs. The risk of breakdown added to the suspense and risk a captain had to make.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Friday, September 15, 2017 - 12:38 pm: Edit

X2 seeking weapons that can't be distracted by non-X wild weasels.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, September 15, 2017 - 03:31 pm: Edit

Randy, I appreciate the intent to make X2 stronger but I think making non-X wild weasels unable to attract seeking weapons too powerful.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Friday, September 15, 2017 - 04:51 pm: Edit

I do not know as a plasma player. I would love to have better sensors on my plasma that allows them to ignore a wild weasel.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Friday, September 15, 2017 - 08:08 pm: Edit

Hmmmm, on X2 EW - they start with 2(-4?) free EW points and can go up to 8 ECM and 8 ECCM plus opposing ships lose two powered EW points (of the owners choice, but cannot go below zero)...

Tractors at 0.5 power per hex out to five or six could work along with transporters at 0.2 to range six and 0.4 to range eight-nine (think TBombs)...

X2 plasma with 4 ECCM possible increased to five with extra power (last turn arming)...

X2 drones have 2 ECCM built in (X2-ECM lends 4 ECM?)...

WWs - X1 fails to attract on a 6, GW on 5-6 (per seeker) [could be 12 and 10-12?]...

Makes X2 vs X1 or GW easier (FFs, PFs and fighters can still swarm but there's a cost to do so)...

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Friday, September 15, 2017 - 11:40 pm: Edit

The X2 can work with some of the improvements.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, September 16, 2017 - 12:11 am: Edit

Can you simplify the X2 EW?

Scratch the idea of the opposing ships losing any powered EW points... if you want to preserve the margin just increase the maximum X2 EW limit to 10 points of ECM or 10 points of ECCM, but do include the two points of free EW points.

Why complicate both players energy allocation sheets?

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Saturday, September 16, 2017 - 12:42 am: Edit

Allow the X2 to WW at a higher speed say 8 or 12.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Saturday, September 16, 2017 - 12:43 am: Edit

Give the X2 the PF EW swing points.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Saturday, September 16, 2017 - 12:55 am: Edit

Working from the base SC4 hull types FFs, DDs, giving them improved activities, like faster launch shuttle rate.
The tractor that can tractor more units (a half a point power each). Better speed changes (every 6 impulses).
Move shield boxes two help reinforce a shield (max say 2 each battery can be move total a turn) The weapons like the photon, disruptor, plasmas and others improved in some way for the X2.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Saturday, September 16, 2017 - 01:05 am: Edit

The X2 with battery at 5 points energy each, have the shield boxes for reinforcement cost power to move (2 boxes for 1 power). Some of the other improvements may cost energy as well (you want to spend the extra battery power on optional things available to the X2)

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Saturday, September 16, 2017 - 01:16 am: Edit

With plasma perhaps you can quick load (in two turns) to the full size plasma for the launcher for the X2.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Saturday, September 16, 2017 - 02:08 am: Edit

Too much improvement to the tractor beam will mean X2 drones will need some kind of anti-tractor mechanism.

X2 ships will probably have to have two free ECCM like X1 ships. I would say up the limit but do not give them more free EW. X2 ships are almost certainly going to have more power and they need things to do with it.

Disruptor: Maybe a twice a turn firing option if neither shot is overloaded?

Photons: Able to fire overloaded at range 1 with no feedback. Same fastload as X1 ships.

Drones: Speed 40, automatic ATG and extended range. Allow ships to control and fire at greater distance (50 hexes?). Anti-tractor modules? Free ECM for X2 drones? Same half damage effect as ships.

Plasma: Fast load to full strength in two turns. Some equivalent of wire guided plasma? Damage to plasma torpedoes halved from non-X2 ships.

Cloaking Device: Small improvement, maybe free ECM while cloaked or cloaking/decloaking that does not count against generated total? Maybe modify the speed chart in regards to lock on to allow an X2 ship to more reliably break enemy lock on at higher speeds?

ESG: Some kind of pulse attack that lets you shoot a wave out of the ship that diminishes with range? Ability to phase through friendly ESG fields?

Fusions: Suicide overload just shuts down the beam for a turn?

Hellbores: Fast loads?

Hydran Fighters: Some kind of super-speed fighter? Speed 32 or 34?

Web: Web is already scary enough.

PPD: Ability to overload at longer range? Fast load?

Attrition Units: Would probably show up only late in the X2 era. X2 units get the same aegis effects X1 ships have and have the double damage effect.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Saturday, September 16, 2017 - 03:40 am: Edit

More energy cost to tractor more X2 drones than the X1 or earlier drones with improved tractor.

Web, is scary, perhaps improved the web strength for the energy put into the caster.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, September 16, 2017 - 11:03 am: Edit

Wayne Douglas power: careful, some of your suggestions are straying into supplement #2 territory(particularly fast loading plasma torpedos).

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Saturday, September 16, 2017 - 11:46 am: Edit

Just suggestions, I will try to not stray to far looking for ways to upgrade weapons for the X2.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, September 16, 2017 - 11:49 am: Edit

I still think it might be interesting if the X2-tech versions of certain weapons adopted new firing modes based on how those weapons were adjusted to work over in Federation Commander.

So, for example, an X2-PPD could get a "rapid-pulse" mode which allows up to four sub-pulses' worth to impact at once (as PPDs can do in FC); or if X2-ESGs had a "burst mode" which produced an "expanding sphere" akin to how its FC counterpart functions.

Of course, these would be in addition to, not in place of, those weapons' pre-existing modes of operation here in Star Fleet Battles - and, looking forward, would preempt the need to "port back" anything new into FC proper.

-----

Speaking of FC, I was thinking of an adjustment to the "warp gearshift"-esque engines I proposed in my last post, with a certain aspect of that game's movement system in mind.

What if, as the "gears" shift upwards, the cost of moving backwards proportionally increases to match?

In the last post, I suggested having engines which, in FC terms, produced 1 point of warp power per warp box at Baseline Speeds of 0 or 8; 1.25 points of power at a Baseline Speed of 16; and 1.5 points of power at a Baseline Speed of 24. (In SFB terms, this would mean that the 1:1 ratio is for speeds set between 0 and 15; 1:1.25 for speeds of 16-23; and 1:1.5 at speed 24 and upwards.)

So, what if the ship in SFB had to pay an additional 1/4 cost per movement point to fly backwards at the 1:1.25 speed bracket, or an additional 1/2 cost per movement point in the 1:1.5 bracket?

For example, if the proposed XCA mock-up in my last post had two 16-box engines and a Move Cost of 1, it could set a speed of 24 and generate 24 points of warp power per (undamaged) engine - yet while it would pay 1 point of warp power per point of forward movement as normal, it would have to pay 1.5 points of power per point of movement to move in reverse.

In FC, where most ships already pay double to fly backwards, perhaps this would go up to 2+1/4 and 2+1/2 times (or 2+1/2 and 3 times) respectively?

-----

To clarify, this is by no means intended to herald a broader attempt to retrofit a host of FC-isms into SFB. Rather, it is intended to see whether (or not) there are any specific rules, or concepts, from FC which could be used as potential sources of inspiration, in terms of providing "something different" for the X2 era in SFB.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, September 18, 2017 - 03:52 pm: Edit

In the "General data" for this topic, there is a statement that

---

Quote:

We will NOT have overloaded phasers or superphasers; we may just have phaser-1s and phaser-3/G.

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, September 18, 2017 - 03:57 pm: Edit

Addendum to the above - if further strengthening of the phaser-1 is required in order to make both types viable, allow an X2 ship to use rapid pulse firing at any target, not just AEGIS-eligible ones. The phaser-1 would now not only be better at seeking weapon defense, it would be better at shooting up enemy ships at very close range. But the phaser-x would be better at long range.

One problem with the above suggestion is that it might encourage the same tactics that made overloaded phasers so problematical. I mention the idea here for discussion about whether that would actually be the case.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, September 18, 2017 - 08:37 pm: Edit

As others have said, variation in the weapons suites of the empires makes for interesting contests.

I regret the loss of the phaser 2 offensive defensive phaser.

That was why I suggested adopting a less expensive energy cost to help make it viable. So long as the phaser 2 uses the same energy amount as a phaser 1, it will always be an also ran entry.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Monday, September 18, 2017 - 09:11 pm: Edit

A 0.75 phaser.? I like it.