If a phaser 2 (a new x2 era phaser mount)had a 0.75 energy cost and only took up 75% of the ship board space of a phaser 1, there would be sufficient reason to retain phaser 2 in the X2 era.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - 09:36 am: Edit

Jeff, Nick;

I too would like to see some diversity in phasers, which is part of the reason I posted my suggestion yesterday. But I'm not all that eager to see the phaser-2 return, even with a reduced arming cost. Let's have something NEW instead.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - 03:27 pm: Edit

Alan,

Your last post is pointing the discussion into game balance issues. Any new phaser would have to change from the existing performance of phaser 1,2, or 3.

That means either more range, perhaps in the 10 , 15 or even 20 hex ranges which increases the leathality of phasers as weapons... or increased damage (stray into haste IVterritory...)

Point is improved phasers mean less need for maneuver. Just a variation of the hose and close tactic.

If SVC wants his game to move in that direction, fine. But we do not know how new improved phasers will impact the game.

Phaser 2 is a known commodity, and how it behaves in SFBs is documented.

Hate to see X2turn into a sequel of the dreaded Supplement #2. We've seen that movie and it didn't turn out well.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - 04:46 pm: Edit

The 50%/200% penalty vs X2 does make the X2 a more powerful ship already.
Have them max at speed 32. Have some improved activities ability.
Give them Phaser-1s and Phaser-3/Gs.
If one type of Heavy weapon system gets an upgrade or new ability (many have been suggested) then you may have to do it to all of them.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - 04:47 pm: Edit

why not have the phaser 2 and phaser 1 fire twice a turn as a phaser 3. Not on the same impulse unless the ship has Aegis. i would think that all X hips should have limited Aegis any way.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - 05:29 pm: Edit

Yeah, if you make photons do 200% damage against anything X1 and down you don't need a super-photon. You have one. Makes easier to write rules that we know will work.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - 05:49 pm: Edit

Gregory,

Huh? An X-tech phaser-1 can already fire twice per turn as a phaser-3 (against seeking weapons, shuttles (including fighters or bombers), or PFs. It just can't use that capability against ships. And X1 ships already have a special form of X-Aegis, which is limited to two firing phases rather than four, but which can be used against PFs (which "standard" Aegis cannot).

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - 06:16 pm: Edit

Alan, I ***Hope*** Gregory was being sarcastic.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - 08:51 pm: Edit

nope just not up on my X tech

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - 09:49 pm: Edit

Ah, well that is what I get for trying to give people the benefit of the doubt! Grin.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - 10:55 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Yeah, if you make photons do 200% damage against anything X1 and down you don't need a super-photon.

---

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - 12:38 am: Edit

I agree, and give them some upgraded activities abilities, some options to spend battery points on.

By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - 01:09 am: Edit

Movement:

Allow an X2 ship to "boost" its plotted movement, on demand, by using batteries at ANYTIME to increase speed. 1 point warp per extra hex gained.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - 03:57 am: Edit

What if in X2 p-3's were the new p-2?

IE instead of ships having p-3's for point defense they used p-2's (in anti-ship mode), and could downfire/multifire as P-3/G's vs drones/fighters/plasma etc in point defense mode.

They could be limited to being able to fire only 3 times a turn in point defense mode to keep them separate from actual p-g's if required ( I just don't see Hydran's ever giving up the p-G....)

You would still have p-1's as the main heavy ship phaser, while p-2's would be the main 'multirole' phaser, able to be used vs ships or in a point-defense capability.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - 07:19 am: Edit

By making phaser 2's relevant in the X2 era, you avoid having to update the weapons charts (the one with all of the various weapons used in the game).

No new weapons charts leaves only one master chart.

Otherwise, not only would X2 ships have a different weapons chart, players opposing them would have to have access to the tables and at decades into the published game, is it really an advantage to start changing the game systems primary tables? Most SFBs players have the existing tables memorized. Why mess with the existing order?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - 09:31 am: Edit

I'm not worried so much about publishing new weapons tables. But I seem to be in the minority on that.

What actually worries me more is that the combined effect of these propsed changes will make X2 too strong relative to X1 and standard tech. I particularly worry about proposals that would allow X2 ships to actually reach or even exceed speed-32. I think this would be very difficult for Romulan, Gorn, ISC, or Kzinti (the empires most dependent on seeking weapons) non-X2 ships to deal with.

I realize we can't know for certain until X2 is actually written and playtested. But the possibility makes me uneasy.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - 12:00 pm: Edit

If using the x2/x0.5 rule, then I have no trouble simply putting Ph2 on many X2 ships and declaring that the upgrades required to make the phaser an X2 phaser-1 are hard enough that some empires brought back the X2-Ph2.

The fact that they could build all Ph1 boats at X1 is IRRELEVANT, these ships are using a new system that's twice as damaging as a X1-Ph1 and that guts those X1 ships at equal size.

Similarly, losing the X1 ability of a Ph1 to downfire as two Ph3 wouldn't bother me at all, this is a new system with a really significant added capability, I'd be surprised if it did not lose SOMETHING from the previous state of the art for that added ability. If ONLY the X2-Ph2 could be multiply downfired that would give X2 a real reason to retain Ph2.

Either explanation could be used to explain why X2 ships have Ph2 when X1 ships don't.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - 12:13 pm: Edit

I think Speed 32 is not much of a jump. We already have sabot plasmas to deal with those speed 31 Andros.

And drones can be bumped up to match sabots. If it is too big an advantage for drones make it a module so there is a tradeoff between speed and firepower.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - 12:28 pm: Edit

Jon,

But drones faster than speed-32 would be X2-tech. Maybe I have misunderstood the situation, but I thought that (unlike XP refits) no non-X2 ship can be refitted for X2 tech. So how do you deploy "faster than speed-32" drones from X1 or standard tech ships? That seems to me to be an option that has already been precluded - though as I said, maybe I have misunderstood SVC's intent.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - 12:34 pm: Edit

Douglas,

I don't understand your reasoning. If you could build X2 phaser-1s that do double damage, why would you build X2 phaser-2s that also do double damage? To save money? That seems "penny wise but pound foolish" to me. I am assuming that X2 warships will be expensive and (at least within the timespan covered by SFB) rare. The cost savings for building X2 phaser-2s would be minimal relative to the total cost of the ship, but would make it less effective and therefor more vulnerable.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - 12:43 pm: Edit

Jon,

Addendum to my previous reply. Speed-32 may not be much of a jump, but some people have proposed allowing X2 ships that could go even faster than 32, which I think would be too powerful against non-X2 opponents, especially the ones who are most reliant on seeking weapons. That's my main worry, but I didn't really make that clear in my 9:31 AM post.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - 12:47 pm: Edit

My 2 cents...

By definition, X2 Ships should have the same X1 abilities with following exception.


All multi turn arming weapons may be armed in one turn without penalty, including overloads.

All APR are AWR.

All batteries hold 5 points of power.

X2 ships have more APR, BATTERY, LAB, SHUTTLE, TRAN, TRACTOR, HULL. In particular, +2 APR, +2 BATTERY, +2 LAB, +2 SHUTTLE, +2 TRAN, +2 TRACTOR, and double the HULL.

X2 ships have more WARP. In particular +10 Warp.

X2 ships have more IMPULSE. In particular +2 IMPULSE.

All X2 Special Sensors are shielded. I.E. they are not blinded by weapons fire.

All X2 ships have a minimum of 2 shielded Special Sensors.


This keeps the number of weapons the same - no new tables needed.

An X2 should be better than an X1. To accomplish this they have more and better ship systems. X2 warp can handle more ship systems without reducing speed - no table changes needed.

To make X2 unique from all other ships, X2 technology allows Shielded Special Sensors.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - 01:39 pm: Edit

One thought I had to improve 2X ships is that they may move up to speed 8 for free, only paying for movement speed past that. They may move any speed at all, but speed past thirty takes four times the normal amount of warp energy (and cannot be achieved by unplotted speed changes) and adds one to the turn mode per point over 30 and adds one to the side slip mode for every second point over 30.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - 01:41 pm: Edit

I think X2 should I have less hull than the X1 counterpart. Why? Even in today's standards, as modern warships become more and more self-sufficient, less crew are needed. Of course, that tends to have more over-worked sailors. At least that was one of the possible causes (at least in part) for the most recent incident with USS John McCain. Perhaps, that may one of the few Achilles Heals X2 may have, albeit not a big one.
Personal PS, I am not trying to insert Modern Military history into this thread, just using it as an example of my line of thinking.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - 02:46 pm: Edit

Of course, that tends to have more over-worked sailors.

Tired sailors report to the poop deck.