Archive through March 31, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
The "X" Files:
OLD X2 FOLDER:
X2 plasma:
Archive through March 31, 2003
Give me SuperSabot over plasma cannons anyday please.
Geoff. Using the std Sabot rules posted. You can't interrupt the Plasma's move for a last second shot at it. So std Sabot (sp40) 8 impulses it could jump from R2(3) to R0. But SuperSabot (sp48) could do it 16 Impulses out of the turn. Simply making it much more powerful. And much harder to balance vs GW.
He just doesn't like the plasma cannon.
Quote:Geoff. Using the std Sabot rules posted. You can't interrupt the Plasma's move for a last second shot at it. So std Sabot (sp40) 8 impulses it could jump from R2(3) to R0. But SuperSabot (sp48) could do it 16 Impulses out of the turn. Simply making it much more powerful. And much harder to balance vs GW.
On the contray.
GW ships do not, repeat do not, fire rapid pulse phasers at incomming plasma...they Fire Ph-1s and Ph-2s, usually everything that can be be brought to bear.
The difference between An R2 Phaser Alpha and an R1 Phaser Alpha against the plasma is minimal.
Considering how many capital Phasers can be brought to bear against an X2 ship because of it's astronomical price tag, it'll be a waste of BPV to even mount X2 plasma on X2 ships.
On the other hand Plasma Sabot correctly timed ( speed 40 or 48 ) is pretty good against the Rapid Pulse phasers of the X1 vessels.
Against X2 vessels with Rapid pulse Ph-6s and Ph-2 ( the Ph-6 being very likely and the rapid pulsed Ph-2s being merely likely ) the Plasma Sabot and indeed the super sabot will not apreachably alter the game to such an extent that the game is an auto-win for the X2 plasma chucker.
The plain truth is that the speed 48 super sabot is not a GW killer.
"Considering how many capital Phasers can be brought to bear against an X2 ship because of it's astronomical price tag, it'll be a waste of BPV to even mount X2 plasma on X2 ships."
Its not the plasma that's the problem.
MJC,
...and you have playtest data to back that assertion up?
Lacking solid playtest data, the plain truth is there's no compelling reason *for* a super-sabot.
If X2 ships move faster than speed 32 then there will be a compelling reason to use a super sabot.
If they don't then the super Sabot will just be another touched up little improvement in one of the many systems aboard the ship.
Look it's like speed 40 drones.
You can shoot them down with phasers at R2, sure you'll be firing a few more phasers to get the kill but you have a few more phasers in an equal BPV battle if you are the GW ship.
The only GW ships that will have any real difficulty dealing with speed 48 plasma is the Kzinti and they do not have a natural Plasma using opponent and therefore can be counted out of the calculations...and R2 Ph-3s arn't horrendously bad so they'll still be able to defend themselves.
The idea that weapons can seekers could jump on ship that didn't move from R2 to R0 and that without the R1 shot the defender is defensless just doesn't hold water.
You can shoot at R2.
R2 shots are only marginally less effective than R1 shots!
Whether the potential for it to happen, happens 8 times a turn or 16 makes very little difference.
If (and I say **IF**) ships move faster than 31, I would be willing to reopen the super-sabot question. If they don't, there's no reason for a super-sabot and it has the potential to break the X2 vs GW matchup.
Allowing ships to go over 31 will very likely break the GW vs X2 matchup, so you'll find me opposing that too.
Same notation for speed-40 drones. They're nice but there's no compelling reason for them, they don't add fun and they canmake life a little too hard on GW.
I'm not sure that it'll make any differnce.
I mean other ideas like having a super EPT that generates tripple the damage of a standard warhead ( an anlog of the 24 point photon, if you will and a much more pleasent weapon due to the numbers being far more likely to be divisible by 6 ) would undoubtly be a much more deadly weapon than the speed 48 plasma.
What would a GW ship have!?!...If you have a Fed CA (125 BPV) and I have an XFF (130 BPV) and my XFF is armed with all of 2 Plasma L, then what can we expect to happen?
I'm afraid that you'll weasel and so I string out the plasma.
You Centerline yourself with the first at R2 ( and do 6R2 Ph-1 shots for 29 points of damage which reduces the warhead strenght by 14 points of damage and take the other 6 on your shield #1 ( although you might use BTTY to make that only 2 points ) and then you take the second on your shield #2 for 20 points of damage at your oblique fire point.
Your spead of four 16 point photons hit me 2/3 of the time for 42.6' points of damage.
I get three of my 5Ph-5s to fire and inflict a further 15 points of damage.
I walk away with ( after Caps to SSReo and investing my two 5 point BTTYs and removing my 20 point shield ) some 2 points of internal damage.
You walk away with 7 points of internal damage or as little as three depend on what you did with the BTTY you had availible.
You will have your weapons fully recycled in 2 turns. I must wait three.
You have more internal boxes than me.
I reckon that, that will be a pretty balanced situation and I can't see how the fact that the plasma was fired upon at R2 instead of R1 was in any way game breaking.
Quote: If they don't, there's no reason for a super-sabot and it has the potential to break the X2 vs GW matchup.
It's not likely to break the GW Vs X2 match up, it has more potential to break the X1 Vs X2 match up than it does the GW Vs X2.
More over there are bound to be a bunch of things that just won't be needed that will be added to the ships.
8 mid turn speed changes!?!
Quadrupple your speed or +20 which ever is greater!?!
Who could possibibly need either of those, let alone both, but both are bound to be given to X2 ships!
MJC,
What bargain-basement XFF would be caught dead with cheesy little L-torps? I think even an X1 FF had S-torps.
I *know* the X1 DDs did.
Try M-torps. S-torps at the very least.
Anyway, your low-end example isn't where the problem lies. As I have said and you should have read any number of times, the problems come when the BPV on a side goes up and the tech difference can really be explioted for outright kills and cripples.
Guys here are the answers from the Poll. Regarding Speed of ships and Plasma.
Quote:3.What Top Speed should an 2X Ship have? (By any means)
A. 31 (7)
B. 32 (4)
C. 33-35 (1)
D. 36-40 (2)
E. Undecided (2)
4. What Speed should Plasma Topedoes have?
A. Normal 32+Sabot (3)
B. 40 with NO Sabot (3)
C. 40 with a faster Sabot(48?) (7)
D. 48 No Sabot
E. Undecided (3)
F. 32+48 Sabot(1)
Speed 31/32 for Ships seems to have been the consensus. And Super Sabot got a large number of votes. But IIRC that was with the premise that you could interrupt the Plasma movement to fire at it. Which the Std Sabot rules do not support.
We were a little more favorable to a super-sabot them. I know I've cooled on the idea, but I forget what my vote was.
The Romulan SEX has 2 Plasma Ls and the Gorn don't have an X1 Frigate.
If the Gorn were to have an X2 Frigate with a HEAVY Plasma then One Type M would be at the top end.
A Single M torp would probably be obliqued at R2 ( 4R2 Ph-1 shot is only 20 points of damage so it'ld be 10 points reduced from the warhead ) and the remaining 30 points of damage would dish it'self up against the 28 sheild boxes for 2 internals...there and then.
The three odd Ph-5s that could be brought to bear latter ( assuming the same shield ) would inflict another 15 points of damage so the CA would walk away with 17 points of internal damage, which whilst pretty hard core compared to the 2 internals the CA will inflict back, is still not likely to be a game breaker.
The half a point of damage each phaser inflicts at R1 more than R2 when one halves it to reduce the warhead strength means that every 4Ph-1s will have 1 points of damage inflicted by the plasma less if one fires at R1.
Firing at R2 instead of R1 with Ph-1s and Ph-2s will only be about 10% less effective than R1 shots.
It's not going to be a game breaker.
That's not to say that a faster Sabot will provide an increase in the FUN FACTOR but let's not throw it out without playtesting that proves it's a game breaker.
One Plasma-S mounted on that Gorn XFF would have a pretty balancable outcome with the CA so I would think that if an XFF were to have a Plasma M it'ld come in around 160 BPV.
Quote:Anyway, your low-end example isn't where the problem lies. As I have said and you should have read any number of times, the problems come when the BPV on a side goes up and the tech difference can really be explioted for outright kills and cripples.
I'm not sure there's anything that can be done to offset that fact that a XCC will bust a CCH plus an NCA plus an NCL...other than to say in the R section that a BB is the real opponent for an XCC and that things will even themselves out when a BB lead command limit maxed fleet goes up against an X2 taskgroup.
The real problem is that there is no GW BBH that can opperate without consorts, not that X2 cruisers will be too powerful.
That's strange I can't find the CL with battlefore 1750 in it.
Oh well.
Lets consider a fleet action against an X2 squadron.
The X2 Squadron...the XCC would be about 410 BPV as it's meant to be as costly as a CX plus a DDX.
It would then have two cheaper cruisers so they would be about 380 BPV.
Then it would have a destroyer which would be as capable and as costly as a CX and therefore be 240 BPV.
It would have a Scout built on a destroyer hull for about 225 BPV and a Frigate which would come in around 130 BPV.
The total BPV is 1765 BPV.
| Ship | Number | BPV | cummulative total |
| XCC | 1 | 410 | 410 |
| XCA | 2 | 380 | 760 |
| XDD | 1 | 240 | 240 |
| XSC | 1 | 225 | 225 |
| XFF | 1 | 130 | 130 |
| | | TOTAL | 1765 |
Now if we grab a copy of CL 16 and look at the Battle Force 1400 (Pg 24-25) we'll see that the second generation X ships stiop being nearly as invincible as they look...particularly once you through in the 365 extra BPV worth of ships.
It's only in the range of 180 ( a BCH ) or 240 ( and X1 cruiser ) upto to the BPV of the single most exspensive X2 vessel, that that one can gain an advantage by having the X2 vessel over the GW ( or X1 ) ship.
If players are careful to choose fights of less than 180 BPV ( or 240 if they want to employ X1 vessel although X1R module should blow that out to maybe as much as 360 for the BCHX ) or greater than the most expensive X2 cruiser ( greater than about 450 ) then players will have workable battles. And this only if one want to apply S8 restrictions, if one allows BBs to duel with X2 cruisers then the masive blow problem with the BPV of a single X2 cruiser stops being a problem.
Maybe once the X1 BCH comes out in X1R this problem will completely evaporate.
But for the most all we need to do is warn people in the designers notes that it's better for a XDD to fight a CX or for an XFF to fight an NCA than for an XCC to fight it's own BPV in anything.
365 BPV!?!
HMMMmmmmmm... I wonder if 2 DDX would fit the bill. A GW fleet can have 2 X1 ships in it and it'ld be more realistic for the GW fleet to have a couple of X1 vessel in it in Y205 or latter.
Indeed some of these fleets have no BCH ( although some have a CCH which may constitute a BCH, I'm not looking at the S8 restrictions at the moment ) and as such a CX could be slotted in nicely.
Two DDX would make for nice fleet escorts with their rapid pulsed phaser-3s and huge quantities of reserve warp.
MJC, you really think that a X2 Frigate is going to be able to take out a GW Cruiser, or an NCA?
MJC,
If we cannot allow unbalanced matchups if we can avoid it.
A warning that an equal-BPV contest isn't equal is unacceptable.
I'm not so sure it'll be that much of a problem in the long run.
When X1R brings in the DNX of each race then you'll have 400 BPV ships that can take down the 410 BPV XCCs.
An FFX is just one BPV cheaper than a Y122 D6.
A DDX is more expensive than Y dreadnought.
To some extent the two tech level shift is too great to allow for the complication of a mixed tech.
The only ways it can be done are:-
Warn players in the S, R or Z sections that XDD and XFF battles are the ones that have low enough BPV to duel against a single oppoent.
Invent some technobable sliding effiency divice such that each races XCC is priced ( and only as powerful as ) a BB.
Or Alter the R sections so that the X2 Command Cruiser ( and simply not have an XCA ) is like the DN in that it must have atleast three consorts, forcing players into full GW fleet battles against XCCs if players insist on playing with an XCC.
Personnally I'ld just go with a warning because you never can tell what will be in future products. The Xorks may well have their cruisers be very nicely priced with XCC and the BCHX may also be very nicely priced against the XCC and there might just one day be a BBH that'll fit the bill.
MJC: Just read you post in SVC topic and I would like to point out on thing. Your point of view is very singler when you say that it's a fact that multiple small ships are at a disadvantage against a larger single ship.
Indeed, quite the opposite it true. For example, two CWs can easilly whip up on a DN (or DNH). They have more maneuverablity, more weapons, more shields, more internals.
Now, if those two smaller ships try to go in a slug fest it with the Big Ship they are at a disadvantage, but it only takes a little tactical planning to nullify that and gain an advantage. I speak from many years of experience with a player who prefered to only take multiple small ships. I can never get him to take a big ship and he usually wins (he is a really good player). I think the last time he took a big ship was when the Andro Shiva appeared in SF Times (where he soundly beat me into dust but I don't feel to bad, it was the SHIVA after all).
That all said, and I know you asked SVC so we can wait and see what he says, I do think we need to keep the BPV of a XCC below (or at least equal to) a GW BB. I say that for the purpose of keeping the game flexable. Indeed, it may end up that no one plays a XCC against a GW BB but what an interesting study it would be to compair the merrits of technology over girth.
As I have stated before, all things could be improved with out those improvements all being reflected at the game level. Perhaps some game improvements can be made by simply changing some simple stats like repair cost. For instance, X1 applied the new technology and, game wise, it still works like X1 but the system is more relyable and cheaper to build. It takes two less crewmen to opperate and is modularized to facilitate easier repair. So the only change you would see, game wise, is that it takes one less point to repair on the chart.
In X1 it states that there were no X-BCHs because the hull design could not handle the stress but that eventually these problems were solved and that's what X2 is. The "Problems solved" could be such impovements to systems such as above and thus reflected as improved by the exsistance of the ship the system is on.
So, as I finally get to my point, we can keep the BPV down by NOT changing every thing in only ways that are reflected by the limited scope of the game (i.e hit factors, speed, damage output etc).
Lastly, even though you may not agree with me (and thats fine), I do hope I at least made sense. 
Fairly equal BPV in small ships. Should regularly be able to take out a single Big ship.
IE 2FFGa can and should beat a CA+r.
According to BPV it's a fairly even match. But it can really go bad for the CA if it's not Extremely careful. (Same for FF's if they are stupid enough to go hth.)
Future products have to deal with what has gone before--just as we have to.
To just toss off a warning that some BPV matchups might not be even is to skip out on your responsibilities.
Quote:Lastly, even though you may not agree with me (and thats fine), I do hope I at least made sense.
Mostly.
Quote:IE 2FFGa can and should beat a CA+r.
That's 152 BPV Vs 143 and the AWR refit for the CA is very important for the situation.
I think in that situation ( Unbalanced BPV and unbalanced speed through the lack of the AWR refit ) makes for a bad example.
But yes, two smaller ships have been known to bust one bigger ship...from time to time...heck lots of small drone armed ships will have a hellovalotta scatter packs at higher WSs.
Quote: Future products have to deal with what has gone before--just as we have to.
To just toss off a warning that some BPV matchups might not be even is to skip out on your responsibilities.
If the BPV of the XCC is okay in a Fleet Vs Squardon battle and the XDD and XFF are okay in duels and the XCC is a correct follow on from the XDD and XFF then things will be okay.
The fact that there is no BBH doesn't consitute a reason to alter the BPV of the XCC.
S.V.C. has made this pretty clear.
As you noted elsewhere, duels have a different character than fleet engagements.
300+ BPV engagements are big engagements.
I know I've seen a battle of 250 BPV ( on each side not both ) last over 12 hours.
Having a warning in the Z sections saying, it'll be better to "choose a 240 BPV XDD and have an engagment that your opponent will be able to bring in an opposing force against, without getting bogged down in a massive action" is enough.
We're all big boys and girls, we can walk away from a game that's just too many BPV to finish before bed time and we know it. Let's not assume that other players don't have that ability, particularly once we make a written warning.
If there are no "solid" opponents to fight the XCC, that doesn't mean the BPV is wrong, it means that players should look for a new BPV LEVEL at which to play, you do after all, play by mutal consent to the BPV or through a Published scenario whose designer has already wrestled with this issue.