Thats what I did with it. Its the eight impulse thing you don't like, correct?

But I wanted to encurage the use of Reserve to Crit Overload it. If you use reserve when ever it is you want to fire it the eight impulse thing isn't an issue. The eight impulse restriction makes it so you can't enter the scenario with crit. OL and hope to use it.

The eight impulse restriction isn't written in stone. I may say 16 impulses. But I wanted it to be less than a full turn to encurage reserve warp use so that if you get to dish out that kind of damage you can't take as much. I figure it balances well that way.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 11:53 pm: Edit

12 point fastloads.
24 point two turn overloads.

All this messing around with trying to make a longer penalty for the fastload after an overload avoid the obvious answer.


And as I've said before, the 24 photons are balanceable against the 6 Disruptors of the fully refitted Klingon not the four of the unrefitted Klingon.
Unless we make our playtesting on ships that have a hope of being actually close to the same BPV, we'll just dig a hole for ourselves.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 12:51 am: Edit

Go for it MJC.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 08:06 am: Edit

---

Quote:

And as I've said before, the 24 photons are balanceable against the 6 Disruptors of the fully refitted Klingon not the four of the unrefitted Klingon.

---

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 09:32 am: Edit

Loren, don't take this the wrong way, but the more you guys are messing with X2 stuff, the more I look at it and say, "Gosh, if this is in the final product, I'll never buy it and refuse to play with it."

So, while I wish you luck in your proposals, I flately hope that they get rejected.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 09:41 am: Edit

For what its worth I am in agreement with Chris. X2 is becoming way too bloated for my tastes.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 09:47 am: Edit

What specifically do you guys not like? Added complexity? Too much power to play with GW nice? There are things I don't like as well (some of the more bizarre defensive systems, speed 48 anything, etc.), but I'll stay in the conversations in hopes of having some effect.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 09:49 am: Edit

---

Quote:

So what, then we start with unbalanced ships? Why? The Fed CA was balanced against the D7.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 10:06 am: Edit

---

Quote:

He didn't loose because I "milked" the table (a silly statement, as you seem to imply that I shouldn't try to win, but should "play nice" instead. Bullshit. I did what any player would do, and that's the way to test.)

---

---

Quote:

He lost because he played his first turns incorrectly, and didn't fire when he should have, or turn away to keep me out of range. He also lost because my opening salvo was devastating. So what if he could have used the caps to reinforcement? So could I. He already had more reserve power, and enough energy in his disruptor caps to fire twice without ever "reloading". He had as good or better shields, more hull, more power, a better turn mode and vastly better firing arcs. He had a comparable phaser suite, parity in drones, and all the same special abilities I had. In short, his ship compared very favorably to mine. He just made some bad moves...he even said that at the end. When we play again, I'll be the Klingon, and I bet I can get some better results because I play them well.

Bottom line is, it's going to take multiple tests of the same ships before we can really say what works and what doesn't.

---

---

Quote:

For what its worth I am in agreement with Chris. X2 is becoming way too bloated for my tastes.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 10:14 am: Edit

---

Quote:

You knew because CEF told us that the range brakets were changed and took what CEF called a small improovement and capitalised on it to make it major, the fact that you did it so easily makes me think that keep all the range brackets exactly where they are and look at warhead strength solution is the way to go.

---

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 12:29 pm: Edit

Its just all too much. X2 will represent less than 10% of the SFU and needs to successfully integrate with the other 90%, particularly during the trade wars. X1 ships already push the compatibility envelope and I fear these X2 ships if, allowed to survive, will break it. Maybe my fears are unfounded but I would prefer working with something I know will work. If we make Y205 ships on combat par with X1 ships but with moderately improved tech we know it won't break anything and opponents will never be hard to find. What I don't want is a stand-alone module that doesn't integrate well with existing ships. Not integrating well is when cross-generational battles require a 3:1 ship ratio.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 12:49 pm: Edit

I don't disagree, not at all. That's why I'm opposed to things like 24 point photons, or speed 48 plasmas, etc. I think some of the designs we have now will play well, if we can get the weapons down pat, and the other "gizmo" techs. The only way to do that, though, is to tie it all together and play it. I'm working on playing this weekend (found not one but two people in Greensboro, now...yea!!!) and will see about using the SIF of John's, and some kind of shield shunting. I suspect, though, that when tested vs. GW ships, some of these systems will be very, very hard to get around.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 03:13 pm: Edit

CFant: I don't take it the wrong way. I'm cool.

I wonder though if you are seeing the vastness of this X-Files discussion and are thinking that X2 is bloated. I would point out that much of what is in the board is tweaking out of ideas and some of those are not viable or are parallel proposals.
I have been working on, in my spare time, an integrated proposal for the entire module (not one race). Currently it looks to be smaller than X1. If X1 is super bloated then this is a little bloated but I expect it isn't.

In the beginning of this whole thing many people wanted every thing changed. I was and am still opposed to that. It also seemed to me that people expected really new stuff and I could certainly see that. That means some whole new rules. What is X2 to be worth getting if there isn't something fresh and new? X2, IMO, needs to breathe fresh air into play. Why would I play X2 if it's just like GW or X1? I would want to have a new style of play, something that challenges me as a veteran player.

Should X2 be a huge module? No way, not needed, but like writing a good story you put in everything you think of then edit out the bloat and impertinent stuff.

All in all this is the table for ideas. Everything is here. This isn't the production discussion but a, albeit massive, discussion of idea that might be included. The Photon is probably the most difficult thing to work with. The place of perfection is between whole numbers. So, we keep working. I proposed this current Photon because I felt that 20 point warheads will turn out the way of Supp. 2 without restrictions. Personally I felt the idea of Critical Overloads was new and interesting. Otherwise I would propose a 18 point max OL and leave the photon unchanged further from X1. (No ten point standard, same chart.) But that seems lacking for the grand new era of high technology.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 04:03 pm: Edit

@4-point photons are alredy a leg up on Supplement 2 simply because we don't have OLs going out to range 12.

Chris,

As MJC alluded, we have a lot of stuff that is mutually exclusive. We aren't going to have everything proposed on this board in any proposal. Not even half.

Each system is a color on an artist's palette and we all paint from different combinations. Feel free to assemble/suggest your own.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 06:07 pm: Edit

Part of the problem, as I see it, is balance. I think most people feel X2 should probably be both a)better and b) different from previous material. That's tough to do without making the ships too powerful. One way around it is to make ships feel different. Different firing arcs, different performance for weapons, things like that. But, most people seem to want to retain the same racial flavor as before. So, another way around it is to give improvements that have conditions (e.g., Loren's eight impulse limit on critical photons) but that also still "feel" like the race always has. Those kind of conditions by necessity make the game more complicated...some not by much, but some by a good bit. The KISS rule is the best guideline to follow, but sometimes things that are simple are going to carry a high price tag.

One of the very earliest examples of a 2X ship was one I did of a Fed XCC. It had 50 warp, and was somewhere between a BC and DN in size. It had a move cost of 1.25, to keep it from having excess power, but the extra 10 warp boxes gave it both a comparable power curve to X1 and a big increase in durability. It had DNH or BB like shields, lots of weapons, and not much in the way of special gizmos. It didn't have an SIF...but it had lots of hull. It didn't have shield shunting or caps-to-reo...but it had lots of shields. In short, it was simple.

It was also flatly disliked by pretty much everyone, myself included, as a model for X2 as being too big, too powerful, and above all too boring.

I guess the point is that X2 is going to require alot of work, and much of that is going to be trial and error. The cycle of "propose, refine, playtest" has really only just begun. I hope that you two, Chris and Tos, will keep throwing in your ideas. You both have made good contributions...as good as anyone elses. Yes, there have been disagreements, but that's part of any R&D process.

Apologies for the long post, but I don't want this thread to just die out from lack of agreement/lack of interest. There are good people working on this who all bring something to the table. Let's try to continue!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 07:33 pm: Edit

Exacly Mike.

Chris Fant and Tos, you guys have contributed before with good stuff which has indeed affected the path of this thread. You two were integral in this threads crowning achievement; the Phaser Five.(IMO)

We are hardly at the point of anything final. SVC may not look at this for years. I'd bet that if SVC suddenly jumped all over the idea of producing X2 it would be a minimum of 2 years to just get to it and as of last I heard its not even on the books.

Tis only the beginning...mmmmuwhahahaha.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 07:38 pm: Edit

Yes guys please continue. I dont post as often as I should. But I heartily approve of having more ppl in the discussion.

The big ship method is the simplest way to 2X. But like Mike said they would be Boring. If you want something with the size of a DN simply make it a DN. Not a jacked up CA.

So new rules/techniques seems the way to go.

24pt Photons N
20pt Critical Maybe
SIF N (To close to franchise wont fly IMO.)
Spec Bridge Y
Shield shunting Y (A lot better than SIF IMO. Probably easier to use. And less like ly to provoke the Sledgehammer of Judgement from SVC/SPP.)
Sp.48 Sabot N. (Speed 64 is shot down regularly. It's an auto reject item IIRC.)

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 08:04 pm: Edit

Well, thanks guys. I don't really think I have contributed much that was looked at. But, my gripes.

Many of the weapons and systems I see proposed throw in "extra" stuff. Like the 8 impulse delay for a 20 point warhead. This thing already sucks huge power from the ship, and must be armed over two turns. Adding that little something "extra" just seems too much. Not for the weapon, or for the ship, but just one extra rule for the sake of it. THat is how it feels anyway.

And, I realize that only some, if any, of these proposals may go into whatever X2 becomes, but it just seems that there has been too much.

I have seen an upgrade for everything.

Upgraded phasers
Upgraded heavy weapons
Upgraded shields
Upgraded targeting systems
Upgraded defensive systems (S.I.F in a magnitude of forms).

Upgraded drones
Upgraded Bridge (A sensor in the bridge?!?!)

I like to design big fun kill everything ships too. But, I would never buy a product with them in it.


Now, things I really do like.

The phaser 5/6. I like this. Been using something like it on my alternate universe ships for years. I also like the P2 races using X1 P1s and a few X2 P5s.

That really is about it so far. The SIF needs to be simple if used at all. I do think that it should benefit ships with more hull, as it is solidifying what hull is present.

Shield shunting......really don't like this, and I think that the SIF should be plenty of a defensive upgrade.

S-Bridge. REALLY don;t like this. A scout should have sensor channels. A ship that is desigend to patrol the border does not need them, as bases will be there. Giving all ships a partial benefit of a sensor channel is gonna wipe the floor with GW ships.

Speed 48 anything is a BAD idea.

Anyway, I like the concepts of all this. But seriously, so far these ships are going to cream any GW unit that they find, and probably an X1 ship too. THey really should NOT be that advanced, at least to start with. I mean, X1 is better than GW, but a BCH can give a CX a good run for the money.

Ok......venting off. I jsut think they need to be scaled back in a big way.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 08:19 pm: Edit

We've actually made quite alot of progress, when you consider. So far, we have pretty much universal agreement on:

1. Phaser V
2. Phaser VI
3. Basic size and power level of the ships
4. Refit patterns (i.e., Y205 is basic, better stuff by Y215
5. Battery capacities (mostly that they aren't five)
6. Top speed of 32
7. S-Bridge

1. 8 points
2. 10 points
3. 12 points
4. Other

1. 12 points
2. 15 points
3. 16 points
4. Other

1. 16 points
2. 20 points
3. 24 points
4. Other

1. None
2. No holding overloads over 16
3. Required even-arming of overloads over 16
4. Discharge time limit of 8 impulses for overloads over 16
5. "Cool down" period of 1 turn for any tube that fired a photon over 16

1. The standard table from X1
2. A table with slight changes to range brackets
3. A table with no changes to the range brackets, but improvements to hit
4. A table with both changes to the brackets and improvements to hit
5. A table based on 2-6 to help offset the effects of EW
6. Other

1. None
2. Better firing arcs (more than 120 degrees)
3. Different firing arcs (LF+L or RF+R instead of FA)
4. Downloaded photons
5. Enhanced proximity fuses
6. Proximity overloads
7. Something else

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 08:25 pm: Edit

Chris,

Thanks. All good points. Having played at least one game, though, I think these can be balanced vs. GW or X1 provided we get the weapons down. The ships themselves so far aren't too bad. The SIF I used (yours, in fact) hasn't been canned yet...at least, not by me. I just want to try them all, and see what happens. I like yours as being the simplest to deal with. But we should try them all and make certain that's what we want. The two ships we tested, if given the right weapons, can still be pounded by a GW ship if they screw up. I wouldn't have it any other way. The S-bridge thing is quite usefull, but the way it's designed is very limited. I honestly don't think it will hurt a thing. No self protection jamming, no extra EW, no drone control. Those things are what makes the combat scout so dangerous, and these ships just don't have it. In any case, it's still in testing. Thanks for the thoughts, though!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 08:29 pm: Edit

CFant: I would like to share something I wrote to Mike R. in an E-mail about the photon. First I would like to point out that there was not 8 impulse DELAY proposed. It a "Onced armed over 16 points it is Critical and must be fired or discharged within 8 impulses". I expalin why below.


Obviously, I'm glad you are going to play test my proposal and I think it's a good
thing because it includes the main concept of the X1 photon. Indeed it is the
X1 Photon plus. You could even just use the regular photon chart with the
arming rules. 10 point standards, 5 point proxies and 20 point critical overloads (8 impulse time
limit). That's quite an improvement in its self and basically simple. I
know I keep saying this over and over but the 8 impulse thing makes the Feds
consider carefully if they want to pay with their precious reserves or not
with out actually requiring the use of only reserve (why could the power only
come from reserve? Why isn't EA energy good enough?) So the 8 impulse
limit makes use of reserve power the most flexible way to use Critical
Overloads. Feds running around with 20 point Photons all the time will be
as much fun as the old X-Ship phaser hose tactic was. Really fun...once.
However, that shouldn't stop the 20 pointer from existing. A Feds that plays
well and sets up his enemy well should get to pound him to dust. Now that's
Fed flavor. With the Critical Overload idea, that's fully possible without
creating a Supplement 2 factor. IMHO.

About the ASIF: I wanted to keep it simple too. Thats why I said it protect only Hull and Cargo (cargo is physicaly the same as wide open hull). Powered with 2 energy it absorbs the first hit of every three hull/cargo hits. Reinforced it protects the first of every two hull/cargo hits (basically doubling you hull and cargo). There were some other benifits as well but tactically that it. The extra benefits include:

Cargo that is damage while protected by the ASIF can have 50% of its contents salvaged when the cargo box is repaired.

And

Shuttle boxes that are damaged while the ASIF is active and have shuttles in them do not destroy the shuttle but the shuttle is recovered as crippled AFTER the shuttle box is reapired. There were a couple other little things but that gives youthe feel of it.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 09:26 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

But, again, 24 points is too much. It isn't a question of compatibilty with 2X ships...even though it's probably still to high. It's too high to play fair with GW ships without driving the BPV of 2X ships through the roof. That is my concern, and has been so from the start. No cruiser of any generation should be wandering around with the direct firepower of a battleship. Period.

---

---

Quote:

What I don't want is a stand-alone module that doesn't integrate well with existing ships. Not integrating well is when cross-generational battles require a 3:1 ship ratio

---

---

Quote:

In the beginning of this whole thing many people wanted every thing changed. I was and am still opposed to that. It also seemed to me that people expected really new stuff and I could certainly see that. That means some whole new rules. What is X2 to be worth getting if there isn't something fresh and new? X2, IMO, needs to breathe fresh air into play. Why would I play X2 if it's just like GW or X1? I would want to have a new style of play, something that challenges me as a veteran player.

---

---

Quote:

Shield shunting......really don't like this, and I think that the SIF should be plenty of a defensive upgrade.

---

---

Quote:

Anyway, I like the concepts of all this. But seriously, so far these ships are going to cream any GW unit that they find, and probably an X1 ship too. THey really should NOT be that advanced, at least to start with. I mean, X1 is better than GW, but a BCH can give a CX a good run for the money.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 09:41 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Phaser V
Phaser VI
Basic size and power level of the ships
Refit patterns (i.e., Y205 is basic, better stuff by Y215
Battery capacities (mostly that they aren't five)
Top speed of 32
S-Bridge

---

---

Quote:

4. If the overload is over 16, what restrictions would you choose to place on having an overload that high, if any?

---

---

Quote:

Thanks. All good points. Having played at least one game, though, I think these can be balanced vs. GW or X1 provided we get the weapons down.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 10:07 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

The BCJ already has the ability to do 96 points of Photons.
The DN+ has the ability to do 96 points of Photons.

---

---

Quote:

You forgot the method I've been saying for months.
Any photon that has more than 6 points of warp power added to it becomes unstable and can not be continued or held during following turns.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 10:24 pm: Edit

And if X1R has a BCHX or a DNX, will they be limited to 4 X1 Photons or 6!?!


The more I look at it the more I dislike any kind of improved Fastload. 24 points over two turns and 12 point fastloads will save us from the damning effects of follow up damage and I wonder what these ships are doing after the first punch such they get hit on the same shield 8 impulses latter.
Still GW ships can follow up with phaser fire (& drone launches ) and assuming you've moved closer for the final kill with these fastloads, I would say that whatever you are getting smashed by ( say 1 Torp, one drone and four Phasers) were lost in the initial exchange from the GW ship, the B11 that is your most reasonable GW oppentnet will probably hit you with 7 Disruptors and 16Ph-1s ( and launches 7 drones ) unless it turns from it's oblqiue all of 60 degrees, in which case you are fireing through a new sheild and being hit by 17Ph-1s and 3Ph-3 with those 7 Disruptors.


An Equal BPVed X2 opponent is going to be far worse off fighting your fastloads than one GW ship of your BPV, but the X2 ships should be able to run faster and thus stop those fastloads from being more than an annoiance.