By Russ Simkins (Madcowak) on Wednesday, October 30, 2019 - 01:34 pm: Edit |
If superior maneuver is the goal, perhaps allowing X2s to move last regardless of speed vs earlier ships would grant that generational advantage without further straining the backbone of the game (the 32 impulse chart).
Against other X2s there is equal footing without pushing the game engine.
By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Wednesday, October 30, 2019 - 02:55 pm: Edit |
Seeking weapon balance across eras and races is very tricky to get right. Drones are easier than plasma (if manoeuvre isn't a credible defence for the targets, they still have tractors and phasers; on the other side of the equation, if drones are useless against a target all drone users have substantial other weaponry).
By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, October 30, 2019 - 03:04 pm: Edit |
Well, X1 ships already move after standard-tech ships, unless the standard-tech ships are Nimble, which has priority over X-tech.
As far as increased speeds go, I'm concerned that this could be too big an advantage, and not just against seeking weapons. Even for direct fire versus direct fire, an "absolute speed advantage" (meaning the opponent cannot possibly match your speed - an X1 ship does not have an "absolute speed advantage" in this sense over a standard-tech ship, though the standard-tech will have a lot less power for weapons when moving at high speed) provides a big edge in controlling range, or which shields get hit. The ordinary Tholian PC is a tiger during the Early Years because it can hit speed-31 and its opponents can only hit speed 25 (and for most of them even that may be too fast to pay all housekeeping costs). The speed advantage combined with phaser-1s - against phaser-2 and non-overloadable heavy weapon opponents is devastating. That humble PC can fight at range-5, where phaser-1s are 31/2 as effective as phaser-2s (and 1.75 times as effective as disruptor while using only half as much power) and it is very difficult for the EY opponent to counter.
This advantage does depend partly on leveraging differences in weapons. A Klingon E4 against an EY opponent is not nearly so overpowering as a Tholian PC. Both ships have phaser-2s and though the E-4 can overload heavy weapons, which the EY opponent could not, an E-4 is very power-strapped if it tries to overload two disruptors.
So, hypothetically, if there were no weapon improvements from X1 to X2, the absolute speed advantage might not be so decisive. But how likely is that X2 will be published with no weapon improvements? And that would still leave standard-tech or X1 ships that depended on seeking weapons at a big disadvantage.
Maybe... maybe... there's a way to implement an absolute speed advantage without "breaking" the game as far as fighting earlier opponents is concerned. But I'm definitely concerned. If you don't see the problem; try, as an experiment, an ordinary, unrefitted Middle Years Fed CL against the (much more expensive) Klingon Early Years C4 Dreadnought, on a floating map. Unless the Fed blunders, he will easily win.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, October 30, 2019 - 03:40 pm: Edit |
There is no particular schedule for X2. I changed it from 2017 to 2022 just to stop questions about a release date; that didn't work so its now 2096 (after all of us are dead).
The problem is that X2 is all things to all people. All people want it, but each wants only a specific version of X2 which few others want. There is no consensus, never has been a consensus, on how to do the product, on core concepts and values. Every time I picked one and started working on it, 90% of the people said "if that's what you're doing I am out of here, not interested".
This topic was dead, shut down, locked, and no longer active but something glitched, it opened up again, and the players were off to the races again.
Maybe after we finish SSJ3 and R13, Steve Petrick and I will try again to come up with a concept that will get more than a few supporters, but no concept has ever had more than a few supporters. Every concept has had many times as many rejectors.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, October 30, 2019 - 03:47 pm: Edit |
The only core concepts I have ever seen were:
1. The X2 ships have to be bigger and meaner and tougher than X1 ships. This would produce destroyers with battlecruiser SSDs and cruisers with battleship SSDs. I am really not seeing the point. My solution, which you all hated, was to say that the X2 ships would be the same size/power/weapons/shields as X1 ships but that X2 weapons hitting X1 ships did more damage and those X2 weapons would really hurt Non-X ships. Conversely, an alpha strike by a non-X ship would cause limited damage (25%) on an X2 ship while an X1 ship would cause maybe 50% damage to an X2 ship. It's too late to have X1 hurt X0 more than X0 hurt X1 less.
2. Virtually every weapon would have a 240 degree firing arc. This seems based on the ring phasers seen in a future episode of TNG.
3. Take every special rule in the game and ratchet it up a not. (The creativity here excapes me.)
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, October 30, 2019 - 03:50 pm: Edit |
@SVC: To be honest, speaking for myself, I just want X2 to come out. Pick your design parameters and I'll be happy to buy the product.
To me, X2 and the Xorkalien invasion (presumably a C series product) complete the history of the SFU.
That's what I'd like to see as a nice legacy for the SFU - a history and product line that span two or three hundred years from early Y all the way to X-2.
I'm far more concerned about seeing the SFU history line completed than I am about any particular design parameters of X-2.
Besides, no matter what you do, you're going to get nay-sayers. So, do what you want. You have plenty of loyal customers like me who will buy it!
-T
By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, October 30, 2019 - 04:26 pm: Edit |
Omg, no more excuses, put it on the schedule and make SOME kind of X2 product. We, your loyal customers, have been waiting for far too long for that.
By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, October 30, 2019 - 04:45 pm: Edit |
Oops. Correction to my 3:04 PM post. At range 5, a phaser-1 is 3 times as effective as a phaser-2, not 31/2 times. Careless mistake on my part.
Regarding the question of an X2 module - while there are things I would like to see in X2, and things I don't want to see, I will buy it in any case.
By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, October 30, 2019 - 05:39 pm: Edit |
I'd like to see "mainstream" X1 designs filled out. So most new construction for all roles is X1 whilst the older stuff is used until it wears out.
So, for instance X1 tugs/ LTT/ theater transports.
etc
By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, October 30, 2019 - 06:33 pm: Edit |
Perhaps that would go in an X1 topic?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, October 31, 2019 - 12:58 am: Edit |
Yes, X1 will go into X1B or whatever it ends up being called.
As for "just out it on the schedule" the schedule is full for now with SSJ3 and R13. After that, we will talk.
By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Thursday, October 31, 2019 - 01:07 am: Edit |
Ships don't have to be bigger to be better. They can instead be more efficient. Reducing movement cost increases available power without the need for 30-box warp engines, as does giving certain bonuses for power allocation (for every 4 (whatever) power you allocate to a system, it counts as 5 etc; although some may find the later messy.
The problem with the ring phasers is it removes manuever and makes everyone the same. The argument that heavy weapons make up for this is flawed I believe since X1 ships can fire their heavy weapons every turn (plasma 2 turns) which removed the dynamic that previously existed with heavy weapons that varied from 1-3 arming turns. So now X2 ahips all have 240 degree phasers and one turn heavy weapons.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, October 31, 2019 - 09:08 am: Edit |
Not in favor of super cruisers with move costs less than one.
I can see the argument about ring phasers but it was what people agreed to.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, October 31, 2019 - 10:44 am: Edit |
Having done game design work myself, I'd say it's probably best if SVC just designs everything for X2 from scratch and maybe vaguely considers some of the ideas we've put forward. Overall the system will work better if it's built from selected design principles and created as an integrated, balanced whole, rather than trying to fit everyone's otherwise good ideas into the product.
As for SSJ3 and R13, well, to quote Larry the Cable Guy, "Git 'R Done!" We want X2 and Xorks in the next 5 years!!!!
By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Thursday, October 31, 2019 - 05:42 pm: Edit |
I am on board with the 50%/200% penalty vs X2 ships (it would make it easier to write rules that would work).
By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Thursday, October 31, 2019 - 06:10 pm: Edit |
For the record I am one of the people that wants ring phasers, I just think we need to be careful with them. I don't want to see the same thing happen that happened with the overloaded phasers in Module X1.
SVC I'm not sure what you mean by "super cruisers with movement costs less than one". While no two people are going to envision Module X2 the same, I think everyone expects X2 ships to have more power. I can only think of 2 ways to do this. You either bump the ships up in power to the next size by adding boxes (super cruisers) or you keep them at the same power as their X1 versions (more or less) but make things more efficient. There is already precedent for the latter: X1 ships have more reserve power by making their batteries hold more power but not increasing their numbers, and your idea of the penalty of non-X2 ships vs X2 ships is in the same vein. I did not expect you to be in favour of a 3/4 movement CA. But I was trying to make a bigger point, which is this:
We have to ask ourselves what we want this product to be. Do we want X2 ships to be different or do we just want X1 ships + a few more boxes?
If we want them to be different, then we are going to have to leave our comfort zone of what has been established and the norm over the last 40 years and think outside the box (such as a 3/4 movement CA, just as an example, or your idea of the different damage for different generations of ships).
Or do we just want Module X1.5 with 50 warp, movement 1 heavy cruisers with 60 box shields and 50% more weapons. If that is the case, then what is really the point?
Ted; I know you are joking (I hope). This is the most anticipated SFB module and was promised as the "next" for a long time. I understand the circumstances that have delayed it, but if we are looking at 5-6 years then perhaps it would best to simply remove it from the schedule altogether until it is ready to avoid further frustration and questions about when its coming out.
I will buy this produce no matter what (and I am sure most of us will) SVC comes up with, just to see the timeline fleshed out and to get the Xorks in the game. I have been waiting for both for 30 years. I used to joke about seeing them in my life time. Now the thought isn't a joke any more.
By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Thursday, October 31, 2019 - 06:21 pm: Edit |
Aren't Ring Phasers 4X Tech? I was under the assumption that 1701A was X1, NX2000 and 1701B were X2, 1701C was X3, and 1701D was X4.
Also isn't X2 putting the cart before the horse? I mean X2 ships need to be an improvement over X1 ships, but aren't they supposed to be able to fight the Xorks? Do the Xorks need to be defined first?
Do X2 Ships need to be able to fight off a potential Andromedan Second Wave Invasion of Andro Improved Ships? I mean Technology always marches ahead, but doesn't it jump ahead with war or threats of war?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, October 31, 2019 - 08:12 pm: Edit |
The Xorks exist enough for X2 to be done. You do not need to see them yet. The Xorks come in all flavors: W, Y, MY, GW, X, 2X.
But remember the Prime Lament: "ADB can do anything, but we cannot do everything this year."
SSJ3 and R13 are first. We'll take a run at X2 after those are finished.
By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Thursday, October 31, 2019 - 10:58 pm: Edit |
All good
By Jay gustafson (Jay13) on Monday, November 04, 2019 - 08:30 pm: Edit |
What would an X2 shuttle be like
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, November 05, 2019 - 10:03 am: Edit |
@Jay: Well, if you're moving in the direction of the TNG level of tech, the shuttles will be closer to PFs or INTs in capability - and even capable of medium range missions.
Pure speculation, of course.
By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Tuesday, November 05, 2019 - 10:49 am: Edit |
Seeker Skiffs in a shuttle bay? Yeah, I think that's a bit much...
By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, November 05, 2019 - 11:41 am: Edit |
With all due respect to Ted Fay, I think it would be a mistake to make X2 admin shuttles that powerful. They are, after all, Administrative vessels. If an admin shuttle has that much combat power, how much combat power would a similar-sized vessel, designed with X2-level technology from the ground up, as a fighter have? While X1-tech didn't make fighters and PFs completely disappear, at least not in the short term, it did shift the emphasis back to combat between "real warships" rather than fighters and PFs.
But this suggestion would reverse that trend.
If a standard, "jack-of-all-trades" admin shuttle can be made as powerful as a PF, or even an INT, a custom-designed fighter should be far more powerful. And the X2 era will be dominated by carriers, unless actual X2 warships are so monstrously powerful that X2 frigates will crush dreadnoughts or X1 cruisers without breaking a sweat. And if that's the case, why bother making X2 compatible with existing SFB at all? The raw difference in power levels would render them incompatible in any case. How many American Civil War era ironclads would you need against the USS Iowa?
As a counter-suggestion, make the direct combat-relevant improvements in X2 shuttles (speed, damage, weapons) modest. Instead, improve them in ways that won't encourage "super fighters". Improve their laboratory capabilities. Make them more effective as wild weasels. (Suppose an X2 ship, protected by an X2 wild weasel, could move up to 8 without voiding the weasel? Suppose it could fire its phasers as phaser-3s (but no other weapons) without voiding the weasel? This would make the X2 shuttle considerably better in that role, but wouldn't encourage X2 "super fighters" and the resultant X2 carriers.
Just my .02 quatloos worth.
By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Tuesday, November 05, 2019 - 11:46 am: Edit |
I wouldn't make it a skiff.
But I might let an X2 shuttle have a shield (one shield that covers all aspects, 8 boxes or so), and I might give it 5 or so energy (which can be used for movement at 1/6 movement cost or so), HET, shield reinforcement, 2 power to repair 1 shield, EW, or weapons the shuttle having a 360 Ph-3 and one other weapon with a FA.
There's an omega race with shuttle sized units with 4 points of power IIRC.
By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, November 05, 2019 - 12:00 pm: Edit |
Douglas,
It seems to me you still have the problem of "X2 super fighters" with your suggestion. An admin shuttle will have a significant amount of volume and mass devoted to "non-combat" functions, everything from scientific work to short-range cargo hauling. Suppose you take all that volume and mass and optimize it for combat? And suppose you start building X2 ships carrying many of these combat-optimized "shuttlecraft"? I think your suggestion needs some explanation as to why the can't be done, unless you want X2 fighters and carriers.
Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |