Archive through June 07, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 Speed Limit: Archive through June 07, 2003
By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 05:50 pm: Edit

No, you're making sense! I just think that three point batteries make sense for a variety of reasons. For one, it allows you to carry more batteries but get the same power. Also, being more advanced doesn't have to mean just bigger or better. For 2X batteries, the ability to store warp and impulse power is a big advantage...better in some ways than just being four point batteries, IMHO.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 06:02 pm: Edit

That is a good point. Makes deciding to do a HET alot easier. Or my Impulse Power Turn (IPT).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 06:18 pm: Edit

Actually, X2 damge is, at least to start with, looking a lot closer to X1.

Sure, we have the P-5, but we have less of them. 10x P-1 is evolving as the standard phaser allotment and I'd say that it compares well to 12x P-1. Advantage P-5 at distance, advantage P-1 up close. Then there's heavy weapons damage and that's where X2 shines, but at a proportionate increase in energy cost.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 09:10 pm: Edit

Power, speed, bats, life. If an X2 ship has speed and bats he can't be hurt. Once the X2 ship runs out of bats he has two choices, continue the fight or recharge for a couple turns, then continue the fight. X1/X2 require patience to win and a patient Captain will win, especially if his first volley drops his opponent(s) to less than max speed.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 09:14 pm: Edit

Quote:

I was the original proponant of the 1.5 power thing but it wasn't well recieved. I liked it because it gave a benefit and a weakness at the same time making X2 very different. Also, I like the way 16 point engines (2 x 8) look on the Fed. More like their long engines types.

I have switched over to the more boxes side. It is, ultimately, simpler.


I thought I proposeed 1.5 power and Orion Warp Doubling ( for the Roms ) and more boxes, depending solely on race!?!


Quote:

While part of me has no objection to 2X warp boxes producing more energy, I do recoil from making them even more eggshells with sledgehammers than they already are. Having more warp boxes doesn't just mean more power; it also means more ability to take damage. Unless we install uber-sheilds (something that, apparently, very few people want) I'm afraid having only 30 warp boxes will be a problem when the ship starts taking damage. Not 100% on that, but that's my initial reaction.


The combination of the More Boxes per SSD ( like X1's have, maybe even more ) coupled with the A.S.I.F. will mean that the ealy damage will only result in A5 and A9 Warp hits and thus will only really take away three points of warp power.
Not enough to make them into Eggshells with Sledgehammers, plus we're taking the Sledge-hammers away. And then with Sheild/Damage Shunting or Caps-to-SSReo we get even less damage being inflicted.

I'ld say at some point well into the ship taking damage ( say whe she starts loosing lots of Warp Boxes and when shee loose all the boxes that the ASIF can protect ) then she should quickly dwindel, it's one of the few things that'll keep the BPV down.


Quote:

I have swung rather dramatically from the smaller/lighter camp I started in. Go ahead and give your cruisers 45-48 warp but make them 1.25 MC. In this way they have more power than X1, more damage resistance than X1 but less disposable power at max speed. Technobabble, X1 relied on after-burner tech, it gets you there but its prohibitively expensive. Finally, something to give X2 a reason to move a speed other than 31.

Quote:

Tos,

I think we're going to give X2 enough things to do that they won't need an increased move cost for balance.

I could be wrong.


Let's just look at these and see where we are:-

Phaser got 50% more energy consuming, even though there was a 33% reduction in their numbers.

Overloaded Photons can now fire as 16 Point Fast loads or 24 point two turners!?! So we're using 8 to 6 points of war per tube per turn or 24 to 32 points of warp power!!!

We want some kind of expensive movement cost to move at higher than speed 31, either 10 points of warp ( MC1 ) to move at speed 32 ( has anyone realised that that means 48 warp ships are going to go at speed 32 and have load ordinary standards and having nothing else? ) or 5 warp ( MC1) per point of movement over speed 31 ( with an upper limit of 37 ( or maybe less ) and with 48 warp you can go at 34 when using one point of Imp and will have 3 warp left over...not increadibly fast! ) so there isn't all that much power to go around.

8 points of ECM can be generated.

You need to power up the A.S.I.F.!!!

Your BTTYs have a 66% increase ( assuming 5 point BTTYs ) which will gobble up a lot of power.

Transporters and Tractors are looking at non linear costs to opperate at longer ranges.

The bridge can be run as a special special-sensor and thus will cost an extra point ( probably added to the Active Fire Control line of the E.A.F. )


And to counter all the new and massively increased costs we are propossing a 20% increase in warp power.

Well that's it' I'm now both in favour of Xork; Phaser refit, BTTY refit and a warp engine boc refit.


Quote:

One of the failures of X1 IMO is that every ship can fight at speed 31 for 2-3 turns (then it runs out of gas/bats). I would like X2 to be less one dimensional.


Giving it the ability to fight at 32 or 35 for one turn as a different option before it runs out of puff takes away some of that one-dimensionality. High energy heavy weapons ( like a double overload damage disrupto that cost 10 points of power to arm ) will also take away some of that one dimensionality.


Quote:

I'm not sure about 3 point batts but I'll agree if playtesting shows the ships have too much power then the four point batts should be the first to go.


Let's playtest 5 point BTTYs as per H5.5 before we even begin to bother with 4 pointers.


Quote:

X2 ships are really going to have a high priority of mitigating damage. Even X2 vs. X1 or GW. X2 has more damage out put so it will die faster against another X2 (unless it puts a priority on mitigating damage with Shield Reinforcement and such). Against X1 or GW it will face either a larger opponant or multiple opponants. Multiple opponants always have more internals, more shields and more maneuverability. Ultimatly X2 needs the power. Make the BPV to high without the power and you get the opposite. A ship facing equal BPV and dying all the time. And I believe the difference between not enough and enough could be just a few points. The same goes for too much power. If they have too much power their BPV will be higher than their real offencive potential and they will get creamed.

Wack me if I don't make sense. I'm not sure I do (in type anyway.)


I'm less sure that having a higher BPV matched to Higher power will cause the larger numbers ( or superior numbers ) cause the X2 to get creamed.

Consider the MY Fed DN, she's sometimes refured to as over power and sometimes refered to as under gunned?
She has more power than her weapons need and therefore can run around at speeds like 26 when the enemy is going at 23.
Does she die in a duel against a BCH which also has 180 BPV ( skip the MY Vs GW rhetoric as we are talking about different tech levels already X1 or GW Vs X2 ) because she is quinticencially undergunned?...no!?!
Does she win hands down because she is over powered and therefore faster with her combat arming?...no!?!

X2 vessel will be the same if we give them "too much power" in that if the BPV is right then the ship will do okay.


Quote:

No, you're making sense! I just think that three point batteries make sense for a variety of reasons. For one, it allows you to carry more batteries but get the same power. Also, being more advanced doesn't have to mean just bigger or better. For 2X batteries, the ability to store warp and impulse power is a big advantage...better in some ways than just being four point batteries, IMHO.

Quote:

That is a good point. Makes deciding to do a HET alot easier. Or my Impulse Power Turn (IPT).


Could work but I'ld rather not have more BTTYs than X1s...it'll look too much like padding the 7H non underlined phaser hits.


Quote:

Actually, X2 damge is, at least to start with, looking a lot closer to X1.

Sure, we have the P-5, but we have less of them. 10x P-1 is evolving as the standard phaser allotment and I'd say that it compares well to 12x P-1. Advantage P-5 at distance, advantage P-1 up close. Then there's heavy weapons damage and that's where X2 shines, but at a proportionate increase in energy cost.


Yeah, 12Ph-1s Vs 8Ph-5s fights nicely.

Couple this with the fact that Shields will get 5 to 10 boxes largeer than X1 and give the vessel Caps-to-SSReo or Shield/Damge Shunting and you have move considerably away from the Eggshells-with-sledgehammers situation of X1.

Couple this with the fact that the Overloaded Phaser was done-away-with making X1s not the Eggshells-with-Seldgehammers we remember them as.

Throw in a few other special additions.
Like X2 WWs being able to move at speed 6.
And or X2 Admins taking 8 damage and moving at 8 and having boostpacks ( for escorting the ship ).

And you winde up with ships that are able to aford putting weaknesses down in the depths of the DAC without ruining playablity.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 12:57 am: Edit

MJC: In the first X2 topic...Major X2 changes... is where I first proposed going back to normal sized engines and produce multiple power.

MAJOR X2 CHANGES... (Wednesday, Dec. 18, 10:00pm)
Then again (Thursday, Dec. 19, 1:36 pm) in the same topic.

You first mention it on (Saterday, Dec. 21, 10:13 am)

In these posts I had full engine doubling but some time later some one suggested using 1.5 power and I adopted that. I thought it was John Trauger but it may have been you. I couldn't find it.

In any case it not all that important. My point was that I was pretty attached to that idea and still am but I have found it unpopular. When ever I finally finnish my integrated proposal it may be clear how it fits in but until then I don't care to push for it.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 07:59 pm: Edit

Well, as I say, since the A.S.I.F. protects the Warp Engines until late in the battle, having 1.5 power from the warp engine means that there is a late in the battle rapid decline in availible power, which I think should be one of those really cool pitfalls that X2 ships might fall into unless the Captains are careful with their brand-new and highly prices ships.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 08:37 pm: Edit

MJC: I couldn't agree more. That is exactly how I see it and wanted it.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 02:20 pm: Edit

Loren,

I did put my 2 cents in on 1.5-per-box warp engines, namely suggesting an "afterburner" system that created the stable 1.5x effect. It was multi-box and was destroyed on hits associated with the engine and functioned fully until completely destroyed.

If you're going to do something like 1.5x warp boxes, I figured, why not do it with a little texture to it rather than just multiplying power by 1.5

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 12:03 am: Edit

I thouhg that was the case. That's when I went for 1.5 since full double is too much power, really. And there is some texture to my idea. Ships would normally run and 1:1 power and during battle the engines are easier to repair if running at 1:1. But full power there are generating 1.5 per box. My most recent plan did away with the "takes double damage when running at 150%". That made them too fragile. So a Fed XCC gets two 16 box engines that can generate 1.5 power each box for a total of 48 power. The ASIF helps protect the warp by protecting the hull first. Shield Mitigation also can help preserve a ship but eventually there will be a point when the ship is going to start taking damage faster. That's when the battle is decided. Now, can you disingage before you are destroyed?

You see, it's a different game paradigm. But still SFB.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 01:18 am: Edit

But, when the ships does start to take internals to power hits, it will lose more power per hit than a GW or X1 ship. And, you end up with strange, 17.5 points of warp power, etc.

Keep things simple. Nobody wants to do multiplication when trying to figure out how much power they are going to generate. What's wrong with 2x25 box warp engines?(or 3x17 for the 3 Engine folks.)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 11:37 am: Edit

Well, 2 x 24 (or 3 x 16) is what I have come to acceptdue to the unpopularity of the idea. And yes, the rapid loss of engine power was to be the achilies heel of X2. But getting to that point is exceptionally hard since X2 is not going to just sit and take it.

It would beone way to keep the BPV down.

Picture the battle effectiveness curve of each era (after shields are down). The GW has a pretty straight decline. The X1 with more weapons and more boxes has, lets say, three levels a full effectiveness before there begins a decline which mirrors GW. With X2 I hoping to achive something like five or six levels before the decline occures then have a sharper decline ultimatly only out lasting the others by a single level or two. It is hoped that during the initial extention of full effectiveness that the battle will be decided and the X2 will not entere the state of rapid decline. If it does it should attempt to disengage. Knowing when that is will take some tallent.

Regarding the math. It can be simplified by using a visual lay out. The engines could be laid out in two collumns. That way it is simple to just count every two boxes and count three power. Each row count 3, 6, 9 etc. Where there is only one box then add the 1.5. No math at all really.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 04:17 pm: Edit

A little background before I begin: I've been deployed since early December and missed all of these discussions until recently. I'm slowly reading through the X-Files posts to get myself up to speed. So if I mention something that's already been done please let me know and what the results of that discussion were.
For the past two years I've advocated X2 being able to exceed Speed 31+1. My current incarnation is the High Energy Burst, or HEB. It's allocated much the same as a HET except that instead of turning the ship it moves the ship more than one hex in an impulse.

Boiled down, allocate warp engine power to peform a HET, add warp engine power equal to the number of hexes desired (up to some pre-designated limit), and slap on the label HEB.

At the impulse of use, announce as per HET, roll against break-down (but with less chance of breakdown), and perform manuever. X2 ship then goes into post-HEB (post-HET) "cool off" period before next HEB could be performed.

The manuever is performed in the same timespan as a single-hex movement, the ship simply moves more than one hex. No chance to shoot at it until the movement is completed, just as per normal movement.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 06:56 pm: Edit

I kind of like that. Regarding break down: You could use the ships breakdown rating and bonus but on a per turn/ per hex basis. That would limit many X2 ships to just two hexes extra movement before taking a chance of breakdown. The results of break down might should be different than HET as well. Perhaps simply total engine shut down and must be restarted using the activation rules. No damage but no power from the engines either.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 08:11 pm: Edit

RBN, nice and welcome aboard.

But this rings like the 'Picard Manuver'?
Help on this?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 09:40 pm: Edit

Quote:

The manuever is performed in the same timespan as a single-hex movement, the ship simply moves more than one hex. No chance to shoot at it until the movement is completed, just as per normal movement.


It may force speed 32+ drones to be built. I'm not sure if people want to go there.


Quote:

Perhaps simply total engine shut down and must be restarted using the activation rules. No damage but no power from the engines either.


Or perhaps Orion style damage to the Warp Engines, say 3 boxes per extra ( product of MC and Burst distance ).


Quote:

RBN, nice and welcome aboard.

But this rings like the 'Picard Manuver'?


Ditto
& Yes but I don't think we are looking for a Picard manouver, just because the ship jumps range does not mean that the ship can fire and leave before the target ship is able to react and all ships have the ablity to hit better at closer range anyway, so if those 12Ph-1s jump to R3 to do better damage than those 8Ph-5s it'll only be a small change in the dame dynamic ( perhaps as small a change as if that much extra power we dumped into SSReo ) so it's not a game breaker like the two target Picard manouver would be.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 02:18 am: Edit

I woudn't be bad it it were phrased as an occasional thing, like a HET.

If it alowed a ship to run like a 1/2 turn above 32 that'd be different.

That would mess up seeking weapon balance, not just drone balance.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 02:58 am: Edit

While not hugely keen on the idea in general, I'd suggest that the blip into high warp of a HEB disrupts the using ship's fire control - having a Ranger-XX move from "all the way over there" to "range zero, centerline, anything before fire?" is going to hurt whatever is on the receiving end...

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 04:00 am: Edit

You could go like the Booster Drones will probably ( if they come to be ) and just hit it with a +10 ECM bonus to anything it tries to fire on for the entire impulse of the "double movement" forceing it to take lot of internals from the enemy if it does that or shoot wildly...assuming the enemy descides that, R0 Centreline is the point the enemy is planing to fire from and fires at the right time...heh.


Another penalty to suit the booster drones easiness to kill, would be to state that all internal damage inflicted would be doubled ( although the A.Si.F. still functuions ) except warp engine hits which are trippled.

That should just about be enough to make that Ranger XX think twice about the ZOOM-BLAM.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 04:51 am: Edit

Ugh......next Gen is invading my favorite game system. Make it stop.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 04:53 am: Edit

Also, I really would prefer not to have to do multiplication and division in the middle of the battle after I have taken a few warp hits. COuld you please just increase number of boxes or reduce the movement cost? Anything, just keep one box per one power.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 03:04 pm: Edit

Okay first off, those who know me know that I am NOT a Franchise Trek fan. My intention is NEVER to create a Picard Maneuver. I recommend the HEB have a restriction stating that the X2 ship must be moving (at least speed 1+) in order to use. In fact the HEB would have to be performed in the same direction as movement (no turns but maybe sideslips). I do NOT want X2 to become a surrogate for TNG because (1) ADB is not licensed to produce such a thing and (2) I'm not a Franchise Trek fan.

Also keep in mind that a HEB could be used as an ESCAPE maneuver vice attack maneuver, or a captain may decide that his oblique scheme would be better served if he skipped a few impulses. I don't have a problem with limiting the effectiveness of fires during the HEB impulse but I don't want to restrict the use of weapons that impulse.

Loren, I like the power down on breakdown. X2 warp engines would be able to power back up quicker though.

John, there would definitely be a post-HEB period that prevents constant HEBs (not to mention power restrictions).

And thanks Roger Dupuy, it's good to be home.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 05:55 pm: Edit

Sounds good. We'd have some details to work out. Off the top of my head, I'd say:

  1. energy cost
  2. move limit
  3. bonuses for nimble ships (if their are going to be any X2 nimble ones, that is)
  4. Length of breakdown
  5. other limitations.


I think having disrupted fire control while performing the maneuver is reasonable. It could return to normal the impulse on which the maneuver ended.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 10:17 pm: Edit

6. Restrict HEB's to the same impulses as a std Speed change.

IE: Imp4-28.

That way they can't be used at on imp32 to jump to point blank range for an alpha on imp1 of the next turn.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 10:58 pm: Edit

If I may suggest:

1) RBN had stated that is would cost the amount of energy for an HET plus the movement cost of the ship for each extra hex. Sounds fine to me.

2) Move Limit: Each hex would have a break down chance. If the ship get two breakdown bonuses and has a BD rating of 5-6 then it could go two hexes with out a chance of break down. The third hex would be a 5-6 chance. The fourth a 4-6 and so on. Unlike an HET this rating is per turn instead of per scenario. A Legendary Navigator would have a +1 bonus per turn.

3) Nimble ships already have related bonuses so would apply here. I.e. they usually have a BD of 6 and get a third bonus.

4)If an HEBs breakdown occurs the warp engines shut down and must be restarted. Use (SH1.45) to restart the engines except start with the ships current Damage Control rating and add to that to get to the 13 total required. (we don't want it to be too difficult to recover. Having your engines shut down for a whole turn is pretty bad already!)

5) Disrupted Fire Control for the HEB ship is a good idea. Other ships should be unaffected (i.e. the HEB ship should gain any ECM). A tiny drone yes but a big star ship putting out huge energy signatures should be as targetable, IMO) On the same hand the travel is brief and damage shouldn't be doubled.

6) Kenneth Jones' idea is right on. Restrict HEB's to the same parameters as a mid-turn speed change. i.e. impulse 4-28. (Just repeating for clearity Ken.)

Now this is R. Brodie Nyboers idea, but most of this was aready stated and RBN seemed to like my idea of the breakdown rule so...there ya go. Hope this is helpful.

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