Archive through June 27, 2020
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: New Product Development:
The Next Module:
Archive through June 27, 2020
Richard,
I've never understood that. As a player I really like partial-X refits. I do acknowledge that something like partial-X rules might cause headaches for a designer and developer that are invisible to me as a player. But kind of by hypothesis I don't know what those headaches are. And I reiterate that I really do like those rules as a player.
ASK PETRICK TO EXPLAIN THAT, AFTER DONNING AN ASBESTOS OVERCOAT.
Alan,
Appreciate your comments. below is an outline response to all.
I don't know if SVC and SPP would put X-ships in a module with non x-ships. For purposes of discussion let presume they can be added.
The ISC have the CAX which was designed to patrol on its own. CAX then is a new class of X-Cruisers. SVC HAS NO IDEA WHT THIS MEANS AND SEES NOTHING HERE.
The second class is the Light Battleships
SVC CONFIRMS THIS WOULD BE PART OF THE NEXT R MODULE.
The third class (if approved) is the Heavy RTN Hunter.
SVC IS DUBIOUS OF THESE MONTY HAUL BANDWAGONS.
The fourth class would be a standard technology post-GW Light Cruiser and a few variants (escort, drone, scout). This ship is purpose built not war construction and would have the endurance CWs lack.
SVC SEES NO SUCH NEW CLASS. JUST PAY SEVEN EPs FOR A CW AND YOU HAVE IT.
The fifth class is a category of monsters, new and strange space terrain, scenarios, and a couple of new mini campaign. RTN hunting and off map survey zone. As ships get close to the storm zone (10s to 100+ parsecs) a place for adventure (role playing), new space terrain, and new monsters.
SVC SEES THIS AS A JUNK BASKET.
This would represent, I think, a full R module
I don't know if the above, in a general sense, would be faster to develop and print than X2.
GO LOOK AT ALL THE WORK SVC DID IN THE PROPOSAL CATEGORY.
What do you all think?
For anyone who hasn't seen it by now, there is a discussion thread for Module X2 worth reviewing.
I don't wish to divert this topic by going too far into things from that thread, but one of the main ideas offered there was that X2-ships would have a 50%/200% setup when facing non-X2 ships. As in, a pre-X2 ship would have its damage scored against an X2-ship halved, whereas the damage output from an X2-ship would be doubled against a non-X2 ship. (This would prevent X2-ship SSDs from going overboard in terms of box counts, which I would be on board with.)
There's also a note that X2-ships would each have to be built from scratch, so there would be no X2 upgrades (or "partial-X2 refits") to pre-X2 hulls.
-----
So far as the Borak and Peladine go, there is a "Module C7" proposal thread, where the contents of Module E3 and Module E4 could perhaps be folded in.
I do wonder if that might be an opportunity to offer a "proper" hex map of the Delta Sector; where the locations of the Borak and Peladine home worlds, the prominent Lyran and Hydran colonies, the worlds in "leased" Klingon territory, and the planets the Carnivons once held (or would have held in the "Carnivon Empire" timeline in Module C6) could be shown. For one thing, that would make it possible to handle an Andromedan campaign out there in a less abstract manner than the current "off-map" zones permit at present.
-----
In terms of "CAX" designs, there are a few of those which exist in print already, such as the Romulan "Fire-Axe" and the WYN Carcharodon-X. Although, I might argue that, for certain Alpha Octant empires, the concept of an X1-ship "heavy cruiser" is already handled in many empires by the various NAX hulls in Module X1R.
True, a Federation NAX or Klingon D5WX has a shorter operational range than the CX or DX respectively (which doesn't quite show up in game terms just yet, but which reportedly made it non-viable to send them on Operation Unity). Even so, either hull type still acts as a viable option in terms of either serving on lone patrols within one's own territory, or filling out the ranks of X1-ship "Flying Squadrons".
The ISC are in a kind of awkward situation in this instance; their "NAX" was an emergency "system" hull, whereas their first "CAX" was built out of panic from a hull which, with a little more patience, should perhaps have been "completed" as a CCX.
Only SVC could tell us what X2 will require for development. For all we know, he has had X2 in the pipeline and has Not decided on a date to reveal it. Yet.
FIGURE AT LEAST A YEAR THAT WONT START BEFORE NOVEMBER.
In the absence of information, all the rest of us can do is focus on the data we do have.
We can speculate on which empires would be included in a possible R module. That might include (but not necessarily limited to) Fed,Klingon,Romulan,Kzinti,Gorn, Lyran, Tholian, Orion, Andromedan and various alpha octant minor empires such as WYN,ISC,LDR,,paravians...
If it is limited to the first eight or nine empires listed, each could expect 5 SSD pages (give or take).
If each empire gets a CAX clone, a light battleship, a heavy RTN Hunter, there would be room (only just) for Joes standard technology light cruiser and a smaller type (Destroyer?Frigate?) to fill out the SSD booklet.
SEE SVC COMMENTS ON WHY MOST OF THESE ARE DEAD ON ARRIVAL.
At this point, I do not believe that a list of new rules has been given. Monsters, terrain, campaign scenarios etc.
On its face, it would indeed appear to be a full R module.
Jeff,
It seems to me that
Quote:If each empire gets a CAX clone, a light battleship, a heavy RTN Hunter...
is the wrong approach. Each empire's needs will be different, depending on technology, economy, and strategic situation. To go back to my favorite Tholians; they already have 7 different X-cruiser designs, including a "real" CAX. What good does a "CAX clone" do them? And a "light battleship"... how could they even build such a ship? And if they could, would it be a good use of resources given their limited economy? Now the Heavy RTN Hunter I agree with. I have in fact proposed such a ship (build a new CoM with web caster and one of the phaser-1s replaced by two special sensors - attach to Neo-Tholian SCS rear hull) in a different thread. But the "CAX clone" and light battleship? Those might make sense for some empires, but not the Tholians.
Rather than say "each empire gets", I think it would be more useful for people to look first to their own favorite empires and ask "what does my empire need, that could plausibly be built?"
Having said that, I must confess that I have suggested a Fed "DDLX" in my 7:24 PM post above (and elsewhere). So it would be a bit hypocritical of me to say that people should only suggest ships for their personal favorite empire. But I have done more thinking about the Tholian needs and capabilities than I have for other empires, and believe (whether rightly or wrongly) that in general I have a better understanding of what is useful for them than someone who doesn't play the Tholians. In similar vein I await the opinion of Federation players as to whether the "DDLX" would be a useful addition to the Fed fleet.
I too like partial X-refits.
I am just being a messenger.
BANG BANG, HE SHOT YOU DOWN, BANG BANG, YOU HIT THE GROUND, BANG BANG, THAT AWFUL SOUND, BANG BANG, SIR PETRICK SHOT YOU DOWN.— SVC
How would Borak and Peladine differ from Module E3 and E4? I don't see any significant changes to the material you would be basically republishing those modules.
SVC GUESSES WE COULD ADD MORE SHIPS TO EACH AND PERHAPS A THIRD FAILED STATE.
>"I don't wish to divert this topic by going too far into things from that thread, but one of the main ideas offered there was that X2-ships would have a 50%/200% setup when facing non-X2 ships. As in, a pre-X2 ship would have its damage scored against an X2-ship halved, whereas the damage output from an X2-ship would be doubled against a non-X2 ship. (This would prevent X2-ship SSDs from going overboard in terms of box counts, which I would be on board with.)"
I understand that the 50%/200% solution would greatly simplify design, but good god is it an ugly solution.
I'd rather see just about any answer. It feels so arbitrary. I'd even prefer something like shields that ignore the first point of phaser damage, unless they come from a super special X2 phaser or something.
It also allows for the designs to be uninspiring. You could take a Fed CA SSD and write "X2" on it and you'd have a valid X2 ship theoretically.
I'd trust ADB to make it fun and worth the money, but from where I'm standing now it just looks so aesthetically inelegant.
THIS IS WHY SVC KEEPS PUTTING X2 BACK IN THE DEEP FREEZE. NO MATTER WHAT I ANNOUNCE SOMEONE TRASHES IT. X2 WAS CANCELLED JUST NOW FOR THE 37th TIME, ALWAYS FOR THE SAME REASON.
Alan,
In general, I do agree with you that different empires have different situations.
That said, however, it is sounding more like this module will (if the recent posts mean much) be set in the Years of the RTN hunt.
SVC SAYS YOUR ANALYSIS IS DEEPLY FLAWED.
That makes it imperative that at least some other RTN hunter designs are available for all the alpha quadrant empires.
The challenge is to dismantle the RTN system as quickly as possible.
Your approach is a bit more General and does not address the Andromedan problem.
(Not complaining. Just trying to point out that this module may not be the “business as usual” module that we have seen before.)
I am sure the Steve’s will decide, just trying to articulate that the Andromedans represent a different kind of threat.
Partial X-refits
June 1 2020 in the R2.0 Special carrier topic I opened SVC posted
"That is the best advice. I didn't realize how much Steve Petrick opposed the entire concept or would never have published it. Frankly, it's best forgotten."
Recently (last 12+ years it seems new ships appear in one of two ways: Unique to an empire; A ship class is defined then it is modified to fit each empire that would build one and not all do.
The RTN hunt is a good reason to build the proposed SSCS classes of ships. Perhaps there are other new types of tactical situations that come to mind for the Andro War period? These would be scenarios that did not previously occur before the Andro invasion introduced new challenges for the galactic powers, and the galactics developed counter-strategies in response.
Perhaps if we can first figure out different types of tactical challenges brought by the Andros, we can then determine ship designs intended to take them on. Taking out the RTN is one such challenge, and an RTN hunter is a valid design for the task. Are there any other types of scenarios that would suggest comparable design decisions?
I am trying to think outside the box, so bear with me if the following suggestion seems silly. How about a class of galactic ships that prevents or disrupts the use of displacement devices within a certain range? Think of it as a special class of ship equipped with a "sub-space scrambler" device. Such ships would be highly specialized, akin to minesweepers, maulers or SFG ships. By itself such a ship may not be terribly powerful, but it can be a force multiplier for the squadron it is attached to. And it may allow for new types of tactical challenges not previously seen.
So, does anyone else have any outside-the-box suggestions that may lead to interesting ship designs and scenarios?
And please keep in mind the need for PLAYABLE scenarios, by which I mean interesting to play for both sides, and doable in a reasonable amount of time. So, no, 2500 BPV per side battles are not that reasonable in my view. It is my experience that they will never get played (at least not since my college days 30+ years ago). Neither are one sided battles where an Andro base gets whacked by an overwhelming galactic force. Boring for the Andro and the galactic!
Kosta, I don't think you are going to get a new technology added to the game for disrupting the displacement devices.
CORRECT! THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN.
I have a sneaking suspicion that none of you have noticed that I have been inserting my comments into your posts since this started.
DD's already had their neutering done...
Along with Panels, TRs......
OK, I hear ya, no new technology. 
But can we still come up with new missions that in turn require new types of ships?
SVC HAS NO IDEA WHAT THAT WOULD BE. IF YOU DO, LET HIM KNOW.
What do the Andros do differently? How does their economy work? They probably don't have a conventional economic system requiring scads of freighters and convoys. But they must have...something. And that something may present a vulnerability that can be attacked by the galactics, with appropriately designed ships. Perhaps this would lead to the design of newer small ships, i.e. raiding frigates! More small ship battles could be fun.
YOU HAVE SEEN THEIR ECONOMIC SYSTEM WITH CARGO VARIANTS OF THEIR SHIPS HAULING RESOURCES FROM THE MINING SHIPS YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN TO THE BASES YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN.
SVC,
Yes I have read all of your comments from the beginning. My outline was a straw-man in response to Mike Grafton, Alan, Jeff, and others.
The CAX (R13.206) was a non-command cruiser 5 were built "Most served as the centerpiece of small task forces of mixed technology ships, but all of them spent at least some time patrolling alone...". That to me seemed like a potential new class of X-ship worth discussing.
SEEMS TO ME A UNIQUE ISC SHIP NOBODY ELSE NEEDS.
It is very clear what you don't like or approve of. At this point not sure what you want from this topic and discussion.
JUST BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE YOUR IDEA DOESN'T MEAN I DON'T WANT ANY IDEA FROM ANYONE OR YOU.
SVC:
I've been reading the comments you've inserted.
My saying that the 50%/200% solution is ugly for X2 is a first impression based on how the idea sounds. I haven't seen what's in your file, nor have I playtested it, nor do I know what your vision for the product is.
It is an opinion from a place of near total ignorance about a single data point. I still feel that way, but I also know that it might be the best answer for the question of how to do X2 ships. It might end up being the cornerstone of a fantastic product that I'll love. I know how I feel about the one idea in isolation, I don't know how I feel about it within its proper context, because I don't have access to that context.
I didn't expect you to take my reaction as trashing your work, I'm sorry that I offended you. Obviously I love SFB, otherwise I wouldn't be in this corner of the internet, so please take my feedback with a grain of salt.
IT IS THE KEY DEFINING DATA POINT. IF YOU HATE THAT, YOU HATE THE WHOLE FILE. WHICH IS FINE, BUT I THINK IT IS ELEGANT NOT UGLY AND THIS IS WHAT X2 WILL BE OR THERE WILL BE NO X2.
SVC,
This is from the proposals topic. Is this what you are referring to by "GO LOOK AT ALL THE WORK SVC DID IN THE PROPOSAL CATEGORY."?
Steve P and I have always strive to respond to proposals with the soul of a teacher. We never reject YOU even if we often reject most of your ideas. Sometimes we are less kind in writing rejections than maybe we should be, and somewhat more often the person proposing a new idea is just not going to be happy with any answer but yes, no matter how unrealistic the proposals were.
So understand what we are trying to do here:
1. Encourage proposals
2. Reward creativity
3. Sift jewels out of a bucket of sand.
4. Maintain the interest of those who read and discuss proposals.
5. Teach as many as possible about the game background .
6. Sometimes teach lots of people about production and markets.
We never ever set out to belittle or humiliate anyone.
NO, I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE SHIPS MOVED INTO "MIGHT BE IN NEW PRODUCT' OR WHATEVER THOSE FOLDERS ARE CALLED.--SVC
Okay....
Fresh sheet of paper time.
(Click,click,click, spark!)
Stands back to watch Joe Carlson’s Straw man dumpster fire.
New module. Right.
We could go down the list of proposals still active on the BBS that SVC hasn’t processed yet.
Just to start things off, I would very much enjoy seeing the Flower Class corvettes published. I think it fills a need for a small combatant ship between year 130 up to the end of the middle years era.
FLOWERS WILL BLOOM IN RXX. TRUST ME.--SVC
Any other proposals that should make a good candidate for inclusion?
For what it's worth, I'm fully on board with the proposed 50%/200% setup for X2-ships; there should be more than enough leeway within that to make X2-ships stand out relative to each of the eras of tactical warp-based combat we have seen in the Alpha Octant thus far.
-----
So far as a would-be "Module C7" goes: if one were to combine the SSDs from both Module E3 and Module E4, plus any additional Borak and Peladine ships which might have appeared in other places (such as in an issue of Captain's Log), how much space would that leave for new ships needed to bring a revised total up to, say, the number of SSDs seen in Module C6?
THAT SEEMS SIMPLE MATH EVEN YOU CAN DO, GARY. GO DO IT FOR ME. SAVE ME TIME WHEN I AM IN PAIN.--SVC
Actually, if Module X2 were to be done first, perhaps some of that space could be used to offer a set of X2-ship SSDs for the Borak and Peladine.
Gary, this is why SVC asks if any one actually reads his various posts.
Look carefully, I am sure you could find “FIGURE AT LEAST
A YEAR THAT WONT START BEFORE NOVEMBER “
Also, SVC addressed the E3 and E4 modules already. I would have thought you would approve of a third failed state being added, but unless you read what is being posted by SVC, how could you know?
"That was not at all nice." - Marvin the Martian.
Are the Borak, Peladine, and Nicozians too much for a hypothetical C7?
NO! THEY ARE NOT TOO MUCH. AND A FOURTH FAILED STATE, THE GARCARIANS, WHOM WERE INSIDE THE ISC BUT WERE XENOPHOBIC AND THE ISC TREATED THEM AS DANGEROUS LUNATICS.
SVC,
Thank you.