Archive through May 19, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 Playtest Reports: Archive through May 19, 2003
By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 03:55 pm: Edit

For the purposes of playtesting to ensure a reasonable BPV I am leary of comparing X2 vs. X1 & DNL because I don't believe their BPVs to be particularly accurate.

I don't believe in comparing against Feds as the photon crap shoot can swing any game.

I don't believe you should do your initial comparison vs. Roms (cloak), LDR (gats), Orion (engines), WYN (options), Neo-Tholians (web caster) as these can have unbalancing effects.

I prefer not to compare vs. limited production or conjectural ships. The more common a ship is the more likely its BPV should be considered accurate.

Where possible the ships should be either of the same race or historical enemies.

I don't believe in using a floating map, nor a single fixed map, nor terrain. A nice 2x2 auto-disengage boundary map to fly against a single X2 ship should work well.

Using the above criteria, ships I would consider reference (all have Y175 refit, sabot, WBP and fast drones for X2 testing):
Klingon: D7K, D5K, F5W, F5K
Kzinti: BC, CM, FF+
Lyran: CA, CW, DW, FF
Hydran: LM, IRQ/DG+, TAR, LN, KN, HN, CU
Gorn: BC/CM, HDD+, BD+
ISC: CA, CL, DD, FF

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 10:24 pm: Edit

Tos,

As long as the playtest report includes HOW the ship won, I would consider it essential that the Klingons and Romulans are tested against the Feds. If the Fed jackpots, it should be mentioned in the playtest report. After all, the chance of a jackpot is part of the game, and with more ships, the chance of a true jackpot actually decreases.

Here are some X0 squadrons featuring common ships that should have reliable BPV to judge X2 against.

RacesquadronshipsShip BPVBPV
Klingon3 NCAD7W D5W D5W 169+162+162493
Klingon3 CA D7L D7K D7K 156+152+152460
Klingon3 NCL D5L D5K D5K 144+126+126 396
Klingon3 DW FWL F5W F5W 119+119+119 357
Klingon3 FF F5L F5 F5 109+ 87+87283
Klingon2 NCAD5W D5W 162+162324
Klingon2 CA D7K D7K 152+152304
Klingon2 NCL D5K D5K126+126252
Klingon2 DW F5W F5W119+119238
Klingon2 FF F5 F587+87174
Fed 3 CCH CB NCA NCA 170+155+155 480
Fed 3 CA CC CA CA 153+149+149 451
Fed 3 NCL CLC NCL NCL 151+128+128 407
Fed 3 DW DWC DW DW 115+101+101 317
Fed 3 FF FFG FFG FFG 80+80+80240
Fed 2 NCA NCA NCA 155+155310
Fed 2 CA CA CA 149+149298
Fed 2 NCL NCL NCL128+128256
Fed 2 DW DW DW 101+101202
Fed 2 FF FFG FFG 80+80160


Replacing a mainline combat ship with a scout may make a more balanced squadron.
RacesquadronshipsShip BPVBPV
KlingonD7 D7L D7K D5S 156+152+134442
KlingonD7WD7W D5W D5S 169+162+134465
KlingonD5 D5L D5K D5S 144+126+134 404
KlingonF5 F5L F5 F5S 109+ 87+94290
KlingonDW FWL F5W F5S 119+119+94 332
Fed CA CC CA GSC 153+149+166 468
Fed CCH CB NCA NSC 170+155+128 453
Fed NCL CLC NCL NSC 151+128+128 407
Fed FF FFG FFG FFS 80+80+75235
Fed DW DWC DW DWS 115+101+105 322


Since S8.0 says DNs only appear with 3 or more other ships, I won't post DN squadrons here.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 07:56 pm: Edit

I vote we start playtesting Mike's Fed designs immediately (from SSDs topic). These are perfectly logical Fed designs to show why 24-point torps won't work. Bidding will start at 3xD5K verse the XDD, but we make quickly find out we have to add a fourth D5 to make it fair. I'm serious, this should be playtested before we continue these circular arguments. Say a 2x2 map.

Mike, can you post an integrated playtest tech list here? How does the SIF work, is speed 32 allowed, what drones can an XDD use, what EW rules are in play, etc.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 08:54 pm: Edit

The basics of my proposal...

1: The 2X Photon. It retains it’s most defining trait; enormous crunch ability. It avoids accuracy increases or range increases to focus on this, as combining them would be too much. From what I’ve read, this is the overwhelming wish of most players; that the Fed photon still be vulnerable to EW, and that it remain a 2 turn arming crunch weapon, with a fast load capability as well. The new photon is pretty much just like the 1X one was, but its arming cost and damage base are increased by 50%. This includes its overload limit of 24, and it’s fast-load limit of 16. The to-hit chart is the same as the 1X photon in every way. The other limits imposed are these:



2: Phasers. Going back to a more “pure” Fed design, these all mount almost exclusively one type of phaser; the P-V. Since it can be used in a rapid-pulse defensive mode as 2 P-VI shots, adding defensive phasers seems superfluous to the designs. The capacitors are triple caps. So, you get a Fed XDD with six phasers, and a Fed XFF with three. There is room to have this number increased when the Xorks show up, and that’s something again that we all seem to want; room for improvement from general ships to real warships. There are some ships with paired P-VI's for extra defense, however.

3: Shields. The poll showed a definite desire to modestly increase the ships shields over 1X, and add some way of dealing with damage besides that. These ships have slight increases to reflect that. Post Xork invasion ships will have more.

4: Batteries. The batteries are 3 pointers, but can store any energy type you want, including warp and impulse. I didn’t want massive amounts of reserve power, but I also don’t want ships running around with two or three batteries. I felt this was a good compromise.

5: Probes. Probes are just like always, but they have an eight track, instead of five.

6: Total warp: The poll showed a majority wanted an XCC with anywhere from 48 to 52 points of warp. This allows quite a lot of excess warp power without being too much. The ships also all have some amount of AWR. I left this on as a “lesson learned” by the Feds. In later war years, darn near every Fed ship you can find has some reactor power. In ships with saucers that can separate and be on their own, reactor power is a good thing to have. Besides…I like it.

7: The SIF: Had a heck of a time with this one. In the end, I settled on Jeff Tonglet’s proposal that the SIF basically allows for protecting the ship for a given amount of damage per turn. Rather than tie this to the ships dam con rating, I tied it to size class. The reason for this is that dam con to me is more a measure of crew availability, parts, etc. The SIF doesn’t really have much to do with those, but it does have a lot to do with the size of the ship…a bigger ship has more to protect. So, larger ships can protect more than smaller ones. The SIF has two modes; normal, and reinforced. The normal mode costs 2 points to power, while the reinforced mode costs 4. It works very simply; when activated it will protect the ship against hull or cargo hits equal to the SIF rating per turn. Any damage beyond this affects the ship normally. It also reduces the ships breakdown rating by one when activated. It cannot be destroyed by a hit and run, but cannot be operated when the ship is uncontrolled. The following lists the SIF ratings per size class, as normal/reinforced:

Size class 4: 4/6
Size class 3: 6/8
Size class 2, BS and BATS: 8/10
Size class 1: 12/16

8: Labs. Not sure about the specifics yet because it’s never really come up, but I think 2X labs would have a better chance of identifying seeking weapons and collecting data points than normal labs would. So, some Fed ships would have somewhat less labs than their predecessors, because these labs are better. I’m leaning towards a simple die shift for 2X labs to make them seem better at their jobs, and to keep it simple.

9: NWO boxes. In keeping with the “well rounded” design of most Fed ships, I put a small, small amount of NWO on each basic ship. This can be used for a lot of purposes, and would enhance the flexibility already inherent in Fed design. I won’t list the possible uses, as you all know them anyway. I do like the concept as a very Fed thing to do.

10: Shuttles. I don’t have J2, but I understand that the new advanced shuttles are like those shown on the SSD’s. They would be sturdier, and mount a P-VI instead of a P-3.

11: Dam Con. The dam con tracks for some of these ships are higher than the 1X counterparts. The reason is that the new 2X systems are bound to have a higher cost of repair than 1X systems do, and they’ll need those points just to be able to repair systems in a timely fashion. A 2X photon you can’t repair for three or four turns isn’t doing you much good when it gets damaged. However, the tracks don’t have as many “levels” as you’d expect, and this reflects the finicky and advanced nature of 2X technology. You can only efficiently repair it so many times, before it gets harder to do.

12: Shield shunting. The version of this I’d seen before came from my old group. Basically, you could transfer points from one shield to any adjacent shield, up to a maximum number determined by size class. A shield could therefore only receive points from two shields at a time, keeping a player from dumping a ton of points onto their number one and charging in, guns a’ blazing. Further, you could only transfer points from shields to damaged shields; you can’t reinforce over your normal shield maximum using this method…doing that still requires good old general and specific reinforcement. The number of points you could move from any one shield was this:

Size class 4: 5 points
Size class 3: 8 points
Size class 2, BS and BATSA: 10 points
Size class 1: 12 points

Using this formula, a Fed XFF could pump 10 points into a damaged shield by stripping five points from the two adjacent ones, but only if it had damaged 10 points of shielding previously. This system can be used in conjunction with general and specific reinforcement, but cannot be used in minimum shield mode. It is plotted and recorded during EA. Certainly this system can be refined, but I have played with it, and it wasn’t a game breaker by any means. In fact, it can be downright dangerous to do if facing an EPT or hellbore armed ship. It’s an option and adds to the protective abilities of the 2X ship, but it isn’t foolproof by any means.

13: Loren's special bridge. Has some scout like abilities. For more detail, see the X2 EW rules thread.

14: Drones. I stole Tos’ idea about 2X drones having paired magazines for faster loading. I like it…it’s a good advance for the racks themselves. I haven’t addressed the actual drones. Though, long ago, many of us did agree to the 2X ADD table shown on these SSD’s.

That's about it. I personally don't believe we're at a playtesting stage quite yet...still too many variables to be worked out. However, if anyone feels up to it, go for it.

Tos, do you really beleive that XDD can whip 500 points of D5K?

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 09:11 pm: Edit

Mike, may I suggest that for this first run, we do without the extra rules for the photon. Instead, allow the 10+2 for 24 option to see if it really is as unbalancing as others have suggested.

-----------------

Can we do this in a PBEM format?

-------------

I doubt if Tos means that the XDD can handle 3 D5s, but it's a place to start the bidding.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 09:32 pm: Edit

Mike R.
Photons: What's to stop me from "Planning" 20 point war head on turn A and allocating 5 then changing my mind on turn B and allocating three for a holdable 16 point warhead. Then, suddenly, circumstances provide a great shot so I add 2 points of Reserve Warp for a twenty pointer. That is still an even 5 + 5.

Phasers: Triple Caps? Did you mean three point caps (two Ph-V shots) or 4.5 point caps (three Ph-V shots)?

Labs: Ya, gains more information and a bonus for I.D.ing non-X2 drones.

Shuttles: I have a proposal in Attrition Units that is based on the J2 Advanced Shuttle. Use it if you like (or in part).

Drones: Advanced in ways that don't show up in the basic stats but has new payload types. Maybe give them a sort of "Close Combat Maneuvering".

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 09:36 pm: Edit

Three point caps.

The photon; good question. Gotta think about that one.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 12:27 am: Edit

"Tos, do you really believe that XDD can whip 500 points of D5K?"

No, I think 500 BPV of D5K will win. Your non-16+ photon proposal radically alters the first battle pass from what I based my assumptions on. With holdable 24-pointers I think your XDD can beat 3xD5K.

Two 24-point photons + 2 P5 will slow a D5 enough to make it a non-threat. If you come to range 4 with a –1 shift (hit 1-5) and narrow salvo pairs of photons + 2 P5 you will likely gut two. They may score some internals in exchange (provided they didn’t alpha at range 8) but that won’t slow you down. Dance for 3-4 turns, recharge everything, repair your damaged phasers then return to finish them off.

Using your non-holdable proposal it could do the same thing but the 12 extra power on the close turn will translate into 12 extra internals on the XDD. Haven’t run the math to determine that effect.

I apologize that I’ve written this prior to reading your full proposal. The last line just caught my eye.

Just found my first error. Your proposal prevents using reserve power to bump a 16 point photon to a 24 point photon. I doubt that restriction or the even loading restriction will fly past the interested onlookers.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 06:46 am: Edit

Yeah, I know. But without some pretty hefty restrictions, I just can't see 24 point warheads.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 09:11 pm: Edit

Okay, here are the playtest results from my first X2 match up. We used two of my own ships, but both have been gone over several times by people on the board, and they both feel pretty solid. The match was a Fed XCA vs. a Klingon XBC, Y205. I was the Fed, and Hal (the other player) was the Klingon. We had a closed map, no terrain, and EW was not in play for this match. Here are the ssd's, for review:

Klingon XBC
Federation XCA

Special Systems Used
We used Loren Knight's S-bridge. Questions that came up during play included:

  1. How much power does the S-bridge cost?
  2. Does the S-bridge function, in all respects, exactly as a special sensor in regards to it's abilities?
  3. For "labbing" drones, do you still have to have a lab box "linked" to the S-bridge, like with a special sensor?


We also used Chris Fant's version of the SIF. Put in 2 points of power, and it will guard against the first six points of hull or cargo hits. Put in 4, and it will protect against the first eight. Further, it decreases breakdown by one when operating.

We used X1 drones, though in a G2X launcher.

We gave labs a +1 bonus on ID rolls, and on collecting information.

The disruptor is the "heavy" version with a six point damage base, integrated UIM/DERFACS, and four point capacitors with no change in arming cost.

The photons use a 10 point damage base, with 15 point fastloads and 20 point full overloads, with a slightly modified chart.

Results
We only had time for one game, but here's the down and dirty. The klingon started out at speed 12, the Fed at 10. Both were at WSIII. We launched drones that first round, but that was about it.

On the second turn, we increased speed. I was going 20, the Klingon at 22. We both ID'd and destroyed the drones we had fired. We ID'd them using the lab with a +1 bonus, and also using the S-bridge ID Drone feature. The P6 does an excellent job of destroying drones. All were destroyed using rapid-pulse P6's. As range decreased, we ended up on impulse 32 at range 8. He did not fire his disruptors, fearing the eight impulse delay would let me sink him if he did.

On turn three, we both continued at speed 20. At range five, I fired four fully loaded photons, hitting the #6 shield. I hit with them all, doing 80 points. I also fired five P-5's, doing 21 points. After reinforcement, he took 59 internals.

The SIF protected him against the six first hull hits I got. This was actually pretty darn cool, as he actually ended up with two aft hull boxes surviving. Looking at the DAC, those hits would have taken all his hull, and four of his APR had the system not been active. Not bad. He did loose two disruptors, several phasers, a drone, and a significant amount of power. He returned an impulse later, but was unable to penetrate my forward shield due to loosing some weapons. I had five boxes left when it was over.

Turn four, we both slowed signifcantly...me to rearm, him to repair and because he'd lost some power. I was in his rear quarter, but he was out of my forward arc. I allocated to HET, and as it happens, he did too. We both turned and fired, each hitting the number one shield. I hit him with four 10 point standards, and all the phasers that would hit. He fired three overlaoded disruptors, and all his phasers he could. Damage was similar, due to his having a shield and me not. The game was declared over at that point, as he could not really continue.

Problems noted
  1. The photon may be too much. 80 points, followed up by 40, was a ton of damage for any one ship to dish out. Had they been the 24 point kind, he'd have suffered an additional 16 internals on that first exchange, stripping him of all hull, and most of his APR.
  2. The disruptor may need to go back to a non-integrated UIM. It is astoundingly accurate. Further, with wide firing arcs, it will pick an opponenet apart. We both agreed that had he been using the Y215 version of the ship, he'd have killed me.
  3. This SIF, while simple to use, tends to favor ships with more hull, stretching out the amount of time they can survive. Might need something different, here, that protects ships equally regardless of the hull they have.


Good Stuff
The phasers we've developed are right on. They outperform the originals, but not ridiculously so.
The S-Bridge was a big hit. Very handy device, but not so unbalancing as having the full special sensor. Need to work out the power cost, and how it really works (does it need associated labs, etc.)
Power and shields seem okay. In early stages, you have lots of power. As we started getting hit, we were scrambling for more...which is as it should be. Three point batteries seem to be fine.}

I realize that this was just one test, and that not all systems have been worked out yet (drones, transporters, tractors, etc.) but I definately learned a few things I wouldn't have otherwise. Some definate take-aways are that 24 point photons are a no-no, the SIF needs work, and that disruptors that have the UIM/DERFACS built in are very nearly the perfect weapon.

If I mis-represented anyone, or used anyone's proposed systems incorrectly, it is entirely my fault. I hope this date will be of some help.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 09:47 pm: Edit

Quote:

How much power does the S-bridge cost?
Does the S-bridge function, in all respects, exactly as a special sensor in regards to it's abilities?
For "labbing" drones, do you still have to have a lab box "linked" to the S-bridge, like with a special sensor?


I think L.K. already covered those.
IIRC they are 1 point, No ( EW effects are out, it doesn't get blinded ( and I'ld like to make Lock on breaking work as a short range than attracting drone because you get three likely attempts instead of 1 garrentteed) and Yes, you need to link in one Lab.


Quote:

The photon may be too much. 80 points, followed up by 40, was a ton of damage for any one ship to dish out. Had they been the 24 point kind, he'd have suffered an additional 16 internals on that first exchange, stripping him of all hull, and most of his APR.


Let me see if I'm following this correctly, you Fired four 20 points and four standards 5 and then 8 and all four of them hit...the chance of that ( assuming you didn't narrow volley is ) 1 in 28 ( or 1/256 )...or was something else going on like Better to hit values at R5 or there was some kind of negative shift on the die roll.

I'ld say you hit with such a high percentage of the Photons, that you don't have a good basis to call for the removal of the 24 pointers.


Also why was the A.S.I.F. the only defensive improvment?
You should have had Caps-to-SSReo or Damage shunting or something.


Quote:

He did not fire his disruptors, fearing the eight impulse delay would let me sink him if he did


I've been saying that the Disruptor should get as one of it's improvments, a 6 impulse double broadside penalty.


Quote:

The disruptor may need to go back to a non-integrated UIM. It is astoundingly accurate. Further, with wide firing arcs, it will pick an opponenet apart. We both agreed that had he been using the Y215 version of the ship, he'd have killed me.


Like I've said before, the Disruptor is a wonder weapon and six of them is increadibly deadly.
Intergates UIM & Defracs, Disruptor Caps, a six impulse double braodside penalty and a refit to six of them is all a Klingon Cruiser needs to keep up with just about anything the Feds can build.

I woudn't have thought the Fed would die unless it failed to get refitted with the final four Ph-5s...in which case it would.
On the other hand with 4 Fully maxed out Photon launchers to start with the four Disruptor vessel is going to be a little behind, particularly because of the 15 point fastload you mentioned.


Quote:

This SIF, while simple to use, tends to favor ships with more hull, stretching out the amount of time they can survive. Might need something different, here, that protects ships equally regardless of the hull they have.


I think you mean forward Hull as the Dac has a bias towards doing forward hull damage.
Another reason why I'm for the A.S.I.F. protecting all Hull on low power and a bunch of system box types on full power is to make the A BIG HULL IS IMPROTANT aspect of the DAC less so.


I'm glad you had fun playtesting though.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 10:09 pm: Edit

Actually, only the first four photons were at range 5. The second four were at range two. Standards at that range hit on a 1-5. Nothing going on with the tables...just pretty good rolls.

With the refitted P5's and another 2 disruptors like those we used, he'd have almost certainly killed me. As it is, it's fairly balanced against other 2X ships. But, against GW, it's way off. No single GW ship save a BB could handle getting smacked by 80 points of photon damage, plus the phaser damage.

The SIF problem isn't huge, it's just that it favors ships with more hull. Say I have 12 hull. I have six protected using this method. You have to hit me seven times to touch my hull. If you did 10 hull hits, I'd loose four. On the next turn, I could loose another four. All this time, all those things AFTER hull on the DAC haven't been touched. But someone with less hull won't last so long, and will start taking more damage more quickly. For example, once he ran out of aft hull, he would immediately start taking APR hits. The SIF protected several of those. With forward hull, he started loosing lots and lots impulse. The reason is that the way we used the SIF, it only protects agains the damage taken over a given turn. Hitting him one good solid time overwhelmed the SIF and he didn't have enough hull to deal with it. A ship with more hull might go a turn without loosing any key systems, and then will have another turn of protection from the SIF, all without loosing anything past that first column. More testing is needed, and on other proposed systems.

Didn't use other defensive systems, mostly because none have been really well defined yet. Might work on the shield shunting thing for next time, though.


More testing is certainly needed, but it's a fair start. Next time, we plan to trade ships, and try it again using EW.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 11:07 pm: Edit

Interesting playtest. Some major concerns that limit its value:
1) Don't let a Fed get to range 8 when flying a Klingon. Dance, dance fast and dance faster.
2) Play with EW.

Still, its good to see some actual progress and I don't disagree with your assessment.

From an SSD perspective it would be cool to have the boom/saucer warp be part of the Y215 refit.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 11:52 pm: Edit

The S-Bridge is supposed to opperate the selected functions exactly as a special sensor would. (I must apologise but we use our own EW rules so I'll have to review the Scout Sensor rules to recall how much power it requires. I fear I might recall the wrong thing.)

I would like to point out that my version of the ASIF is that 2 points absorb the first of every thee hull or cargo and reinforced at 4 absorbs the first of every two (i.e every other hit)hull or cargo. If powered on a ship with no hull remaining it absorbs one hit each turn before internals can be fed through to the next column.
There were some other benifits to but not needed at the moment so I'll save comment here.

Smaller ships are going to be less durable. I don't think that the problem mentioned with the ASIF is one. However, the BPV value of more hull+ASIF should be considered. (i.e. one hull more could mean six hits more.)

Great news about the Ph-5. Cheers folks!

Here the thing about the disruptor. The UIM/DERFACS integration does not increase the chance to hit over previous versions. These systems are already there. THe only thing integration adds is durability of the UIM (one for each disruptor that can't be H&R'ed). THe best thing is that is simplifies the firing chart and you don't have to decide or announce the firing mode. In X1 UIMs can break down but they have no effect/penalty on the systems (so it is possible to run out but you usually get three. It is probably rare to loose all three in one scenario.) In my presented version of theIntegrated Disruptor UIM burnout is not an issue and this is really only a minor improvement givin the previous comment.

UIM/DEFACS integration only means you can't take away the accuracy the Disruptor already had. And that "Can't" is only a minor improvement over "Probably wont" from X1.

EW will temper both weapons (Disruptor and Photon). I agree with the assesment of the Photon though you did get a little lucky on the rolls and the Klingon should have danced for four to six turns.

Good show, Mike. Great report!

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 10:11 am: Edit

Quote:

I don't think that the problem mentioned with the ASIF is one.



Not with all proposals it won't be...just with the one I used. But, that's why we test.

RE the Klingon should have danced. He tried. I didn't give him much choice in the matter, as I had pretty much charged in guns a blazin'. I figured if I let him play it his way, he'd tear me to peices with those disruptors. So I went for a quick kill...and I got it. Next time I might not be so lucky. And, even after suffering 59 internals he still managed to do a quick turn and knock down my #1 shield. The combination of increased damage, very good firing arcs, integrated UIM and DERFACS and capacitors really makes the 2X disruptor a nasty, nasty weapon.

This was a first, and very simple test. We'll keep on trying, and see how it all pans out.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 02:49 pm: Edit

Here's a question.

If GW ships had more or less followed the same moves, would the result have been the same?

I know not entirely because the Fed would have no 1-turn fastload for a followup volley.

Shield-shunting could make a big difference in how these ships play.

I'm also curious to see how my ASIF plays.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 05:04 pm: Edit

Yes and no. The big, big difference was the follow-up on the next turn. GW can't match that. One game isn't a big enough sample, but it does (IMHO) strongly hint that the 16 point photon may be just fine as it is...especially when backed up by P5's and the extra power the 2X ships we're testing have.

We'll try your SIF next time, John, if you like. Can you send me the specifics?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 05:26 pm: Edit

Mike,

I'll edit your test ships and give them my ASIFs and post them to the SSD section.

My ASIF gives you a little more free power because it only costs 1 point to keep active.

The rules for all my X2-tech are at this link and the ASIF is the first thing.

http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/x2-tech.htm

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 07:08 pm: Edit

Good test Mike. Thanks for using my SIF first :)

I would think that the ships with more hull should be able to live longer.

I know it is not Next Gen or anything, but the Fed ships have always been able to take more punishment, as they have more hull, more lab, more general systems than the other races.

If you leave the photons at about 16, allowing a normal fastload, that would be fine I think.

Anyway, I like the test. Keep up the good work.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 07:17 pm: Edit

Mike,

Decided that here would be easier for posting playtest ships with my ASIF.

Here's the slightly altered Fed.

...and the Klink.

For the sake of one-stop shopping, here are my ASIF rules. Please ask question now.

The Advanced Structural Integrity Field (ASIF)

Designer's Notes: I had one or two ideas on advanced technology based on thinking about doing ships from Babylon 5 in SFB. I came up with the ASIF when I wondered how I would do the super-advanced Vorlons and Shadows in SFB. How would I make them tougher without padding the ships with a lot of pointless hull or other systems. I didn't want armor because armor is 1) restricted to old-tech and 2) it only provided surface protection. It would not give a feeling of "toughness." Big shields by themselves have the same problem as 2). So I decided to shield each line of the DAC. I could control how tough a ship would be at each column by varying the amount of shielding. Applied to 2X ships, I could also vary the depth to provide additional racial flavor.

Concept: All starships use structural integrity fields to hold the ships together during warp travel and against the intense energies thrown at a ship in combat. This is done transparently in previous grades of technology, more or less enabling the ship to take damage according to the DAC. The ASIF takes this to a new level by actually giving an amount of defense against damage.

Cost: The ASIF costs the same as the cost of going from minimum shields to full shields. For SC4 units, the cost is 1/2, SC3 is 1, SC2 is 3. The power may come from any source. The power may come from reserve power.

Operation: The ASIF is raised or lowered at the same time and same manner as standard shields are raised and lowered. The ASIF may be raised and lowered independently from any other shield. It may not be raised in response to combat damage. The ASIF may be raised and lowered under the same rules as normal shields. The ASIF is independent form other shields on the ship. It may be raised regardless of whether the ship is using full, minimum or no shields.

Procedure: The ASIF is a single 360-degree shield that blunts penetrating damage by shielding some or all of the columns of the DAC. The ASIF display on the ship's SSD shows the shield boxes designated for the DAC columns it defends. When a point of damage would normally be done to a column protected by an undestroyed ASIF box, a box on the corresponding column of the ASIF display is marked off instead. When all boxes for the column are marked as destroyed, damage is allocated normally using established DAC procedures. The player must record damage to the ASIF before recording any damage to the corresponding column of the DAC (or deeper columns). He may not choose to let some damage through.

Reinforcement: The ASIF may be reinforced by either general or specific reinforcement. It may be reinforced in response to combat damage. All reinforcement is cut in half, round fractions down. Reinforcement fills in the ASIF starting from the deepest columns working out toward the "A" column. Each column must be filled in before reinforcement can fill in the next column. If the "A" column is entirely filled, the reinforcement adds onto the "A" column.

EXAMPLE: An ASIF with all its "A": column boxes destroyed and 4 of 6 boxes of its B column destroyed, is reinforced with 6 points of specific reinforcement. All 4 points of "B" column damage would have to be filled in before any reinforcement would defend the "A" column.

Repair: Damage Control may be allocated to repair ASIF shield boxes. The cost is twice that of regular shield boxes. By the X1 rules, 1 point of power allocated to Damage control will repair 1 shield box. Under these circumstances, 2 points of Damcon energy will repair 1 ASIF box. The ASIF box repairs similarly to reinforcement. All deeper ASIF columns must be repaired before a shallower one may be repaired.

EXAMPLE: An ASIF has been destroyed down to the "D" column, which has 4 points in it and has taken 2. 6 points of power is allocated to Damage Control, repairing 3 ASIF boxes. The two "D" column boxes must both be filled in before any "C" column boxes can be filled in. Result is 2x "D" column boxes and 1 "C" column box get repaired.

Sample ASIF Chart: XCC:
http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/XCC-ASIF.gif

This Chart shows
8 boxes of protection to the "A" and "B" columns,
7 to "C" and "D",
5 to "E", 4 to "F",
3 to "G" and
2 to "H" and "I".



Balance:
1) Reduction - ASIF uses the "leaky shield" rules, allowing 1 out of every 5 hits through.
2) Reduction - Transporter are considered to be blocked as if by a facing shield when the ASIF is powered, raised and has any undestroyed
boxes in the "A" or "B" columns.
3) Improvement - The ASIF can be made more effective by allowing it to repair at the same rate as other shield, thus making it more durable.
4) Improvement - Reinforcement to a ASIF is not cut in half
5) Improvement - Reinforcement and/or repairs may be made to a new column if there is at least one box in a previous column.
EXAMPLE: If we have a "D" column down by 2 boxes and repair 3, we could skip repairing more "D" row boxes
(there's) 2 already there, repair 1 "C" column, box, which would enable repairing one "B" column box, and finally repair one
"A" row box. The "A" row could then be reinforced if needed or repaired further in a future turn.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 07:24 pm: Edit

Okay, I got it. Couple of questions, just to be sure:

  1. Are there any systems the ASIF will not protect?
  2. Does it affect the break-down rating of the ship? Some proposals let the operating ASIF reduce the breakdown rating by one.
  3. Is it ever possible for it to be turned off? Say, if the ship is uncontrolled, or some other circumstance?


I'll be sure to give it a whirl, and we'll see how it goes.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 07:34 pm: Edit

...and answers

1) No. My ASIF protects all systems equally. it is completely decoupled from hull boxes. Its protection is based on DAC columns only.

2) Technically, no. I never considered the question of affectnig a ship's HET bonus. Feel free to play with the idea.

3) No. It is not possible for the ASIF to be involuntarily turned off.

That said, one ASIF optional rule says that any boxes in the ASIF's A or B columns would block transporters. If you play that rule, a ship would have to voluntarily drop its ASIF to beam out things like T-bombs.

EDIT: Also note that the Fed and Klingon do not have identical ASIF's. The Klingon ASIF is designed to slightly tougher at the surface at the cost of deeper defense. The Fed's is better all-around. the Fed uses the same ASIF as the ISC. Both tend to try for elite ships so this makes sense.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 08:30 pm: Edit

Cool. I did notice the different charts, and it makes sense. We'll see if that makes any big difference. The idea about it adding one to the breakdown was actually one of mine. Seems like I remember that sort of thing from the shows, that the SIF helped the ship handle stressful maneuvers. It also, IMHO, adds some extra dimensions to the SIF.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 10:16 pm: Edit

M.R.:


I think you should take a look at my version of the A.S.I.F. as it'll bve the one to hold up better under playtesting.

You see, the idea of creating a barrier to the destruction of the general internal systems or even specific internal systems is going too close to the vilotation of what SVC has said, that ships shouldn't get a protective value that rerepairs every turn that is free, because it becomes a barrier to lots of little ships throwing up a lots of little hits and finally wearing the vessel down...any such barrier must be kept small and we already have such a small barrier in X1 ( free shield repair ) so there isn't much room to move.

( Shield shunting and Caps-to-SSReo actually do cost something, in either less power in the caps ( which is a form of damage ) or damage to other shields .)

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 06:57 am: Edit

I still think going to R5 was milking the chart and doesn't say much for the value of the 24 point photons statement.
1/2 of 24 is 12 but 2/3 of 20 is 13.33 so one would expect the 20 point more accurate photon to be an even more deadly weapon if a player is to fly to the exact point he needs to go to to milk the chart....followed by R2 which is either a guy finishing off the battle as fast as he can a guy who knows that the enemy already thinks he's dead in the water and thus won't blow your doors off at R3.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation