As a tactical note: If you are going to venture into the danger zone of a HEB breakdown be sure to have your batteries FULL!

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 01:46 pm: Edit

Disrupted fire control is essential, whether or not the ship breaks down. Perhaps 4 impulses is enough. Otherwise this would give a huge edge to Hydran fusion boats, and also a strong edge to any crunch ships.

This also gives a huge edge to Orions, and any other 6 BD ship.

Assuming 2 hexes free, and each hex after that forces a breakdown roll, here are the odds of surviving a HEB.

hexes	4-6	5-6	6
1-2	100%	100%	100%
3	50%	66.6%	83.33$
4	25%	44.4%	69.4%
5	12.5%	29.6%	57.9%
6	6.3%	19.8%	48.2%
7	3.1%	13.2%	40.2%
8	1.6%	8.8%	33.5%
9	0.8%	5.9%	27.9%
10	0.4%	3.9%	23.3%

So a ship with a 6 breakdown rating has about a 50/50 chance of surviving a 6 hex jump, and a 1 in 4 chance of surviving a TEN hex HEB.

How much energy will this gizmo cost?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 01:50 pm: Edit

If we put too dramatic a consequence for the maneuver it will be too risky or unbalancing to use.

Just give standard HET failure consequences (including the possibility of tumbling) and you'll find the consequences of failure will be quite severe.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 02:14 pm: Edit

Yes I agree with John here. Lets keep the consequences the same for blowing a het.

I'm not sure that using the Het Bonus is applicable. maybe you should have to roll sans bonus. But I'm split evenly. But Breakdown and possible tumbling or using up your Het bonus (Assuming we go that way.) seem to be enough penalties to me.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 02:45 pm: Edit

The consequences for blowing an HET (including tumbling) are more severe than what I proposed.

I'm not sure that disrupted fire control should last longer than the HEB but maybe one impulse after the ship returns to normal speed would be in order. That gives the enemy a chance to fire first (though they could fire at any time during an approach).

BTW: I think I mis-posted by stating that BD rolles would occure on a per hex basis. It should be on a per impulse basis, since during a HEB you would move two hexes per impulse. So a two BD bonus ship would get four hexes in two impulses with out risk per turn.

This would be used by crunchers to gain a range advantage but could be used by others to escape crunchers too. It would be used to get a jump away from seeking weapons in a pinch too. Possible forcing an HET by the SW. On the other hand you couldn't launch ANYTHING during a HEB. If you tried to launch a shuttle (SS, WW, Admin, Ftr) it would be instantly distroyed.

As an additional restriction I would say that during HEB travel that you cannot turn and that each pair of hexes traveled count as one towards satifying turn mode.

I've uncovered another problem. Refere to my next post.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 03:05 pm: Edit

I can not see a ship traveling at speed 4 suddenly jumping into high warp using an HEB. So I propose this: A minimum speed must be achieved first by any normal means.

My first thought would be a speed equal to half maximum speed. An MC1 ship would then have to have a minimum speed of 15 (don't count 1 for impulse) to use a HEB. This would be the speed for most ships since X2 ships should all be capable of 31.

A MC1 ship with 20 warp left would be incapable of executing a HEB. The minimum cost being Speed 15 + 5 (HET cost) + 1 (or more).

Any ship moving less than 15 is known to be currently "HEB incapable". A mid-turn speed change to 15+ would make that ship be classified as "HEB capable".

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 04:04 pm: Edit

I like the HEB. However, its nasty on game balance if all races get to use it. What does it add to the game that really makes this worthwhile? Not enough imo.

If it was a racial tech (And this reminds me of the Umgah's ability to hypershunt in reverse from star control) it would make more sense and be less of a balance nightmare.

So in short, I don't think this is appropriate as a general X2 ability. But I still like the idea itself, just not the suggested destination.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 04:20 pm: Edit

Since this is an X-maneuver, I see no problem setting a flat minimum spaad for the maneuver. You have to be going 16 or perhaps even 20 or you can't use the maneuver.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Geoff: I don't see the nasty game balance problems if all races get it since you could use one to escape as well.

If it was limited to a few races then I see problems UNLESS it was a Pirate only maneuver. Which is something I could see.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 06:05 pm: Edit

I think disrupted fire control ought to come back on line the impulse the maneuver ends; otherwise, the temptation to use it to get that "sweet spot" is in doubt. I also agree on the effects. If it's too severe, no one will use it. Consider the old X1 fastload rule about failures. It's gone, and we should remember that.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 06:32 pm: Edit

An HET type breakdown with risk of tumbling is too great I think. Warp Engine shut down is pretty severe too but can't be that bad. (SH1.0) starts the Feds off with such a situation. However, how about a roll to bring them back on line every 1/4 turn. When you reach a total of 13 they are restarted (as per SH1.45) or you can use the alternate die roll in that rule. But with this deleat the Damage Control head start I previously introduced.

I don't think that is too severe but enough to make you consider carefully before going for a long HEB. It would suck to loose all warp for a 3/4 to a full turn while only a few hexes from the enemy.

I agree that the penalty should be too severe but it got to be bad or it will be ignored.

Using the breakdown bonus makes a lot of sense to me because that represents the ships ability to withstand extreme stress which is what an HEB would cause. But not the same type of stress as a HET so the bonus is reset each turn. IMO.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 07:16 pm: Edit

I think warp engine shutdown has the potantial to be worse. There is precedence to using the breakdown rules for an effect like this.

This situation is similar to hitting a 12+ strength Tholian web at speed 12+. You roll for breakdown, burn your bonus, just to NOT take the breakdown damage.

Given the tactical advantages of this move (being able to jet away from impacting seeking weapons (especially plasma), assessing breakdown effects isn't too severe for the potentially massive advantage it gives.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 07:28 pm: Edit

Loren, you're definitely going in the direction I'm thinking. I'm still weighing shut down v. tumbling. I can see the argument both ways but in the end I'd go with the breakdown that's not too nasty to scare people from using the maneuver. The maneuver is intended to give a captain a "last minute" edge. John T's post above makes an excellent argument though.

I agree with the Imp4-28 restriction though for X-ships I'd adjust it to Imp3-29. Also if the bold choose to perform more than one HEB (e.g. using Reserve Warp Engine Power) there'd be the X-ship delay of 6 impulses between HEBs, and the first-use bonus only applies to the first impulse of use that turn. Also no HET could be performed in that period nor could a HET be performed with a HEB.

Perhaps the maximum number of hexes a ship could perform during an impulse should be Size Class + 1 (i.e. SC+1 hexes).

Also I agree with Mike that fire control is only disrupted during the HEB impulse. Also no shuttle launches or transporters. Would tractors be affected? I think shield and EW manipulation should be unaffected.

However if fire control is disrupted would an ECM bonus of +2 during that impulse be in order? Also would a cloaked ship be able to perform a HEB?

If this becomes a race-based maneuver I'd recommend it goes to the "stodgy" maneuvering races. Personally I don't have a problem with it being a generic X2 ability, for now.

Excellent chart, Jeff.

Have I missed anything?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 07:37 pm: Edit

I would suggest that all effects of disengaging by accelleration be attached to HEB use.

I.e. tractor links by the HEBing ship are lost, etc.

Question: What happened to a HEBing ship IN a tractor beam. Is the HEB a way out like a fighter HETing?

Could be.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 08:14 pm: Edit

Hmm, interesting. Have to think about that one.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 09:48 pm: Edit

John, I agree with the effects of disengaging. I would also suggest the a ship that performs an HEB be incapable of disengaging by acceleration that turn.

Re. Ship in tractor trying to HEB: I think that the ship would be held from performing the HEB due to the fragility and balance of the warp fields. The HEB is probably a finiky thing so a tractor would prevent it.

I'm reluctant to see a ECM bonus since the extra speed is a big benefit and the primary goal of the maneuver.

Re. Breakdown: I have trouble seeing a failier causing the same type of damage that breakdown for HETs cause. But for simplicity sake it might be the thing to do. I still like engine shut down, especially the latest version (use SH1.45 but roll every 8 impulses. That makes the average shut down time to be 3/4 of a turn).

Oh, crap! That wont work. That would cause a mid-turn allocation and that is WAY too complicated. Sorry folks.
OK, I'm for using the standard breakdown rules except in the case of HEB use the bonus is reset each turn. Having no warp power for multiple turns is too much and a shut down till the end of the turn being a possible 4 impulses (due to a late turn maneuver) is hardly a penaty.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 10:52 pm: Edit

Considering the advantages of the HEB, I'd want it to burn a HET bonus permanently or force a breakdown roll, same as with a Tholian web decel or a HET.

The HEB alters balance against seeking weapons as-is. You give people a free HEB every round...ewww.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 11:26 pm: Edit

John, can you explain that further. I think I see what you mean but it's not gelling.

Loren, you have a great way of working these things through. It's fun to watch.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 11:51 pm: Edit

John, aren't we talking an extra two hexes per turn on average? The energy cost is quite a lot. On a MC1 ship it is six warp for the first extra hex. Seven for two. Try for three at 8 and you risk break down. If you are going slow, say speed 15 (the minimum speed) and you HEB to speed 64 (that's really what we are talking about) then the most you could gain is two impulses of fast movement whith out serious risk. Thats a maximum of four extra hexes IF performed on impulse 16. You would move on Imp. 15, the two on 16, then two on 17 (drop out then one on 18. Six hexes in four impulses. Any faster or less well timed and the net gain is less.

Against Seeking weapons it isn't much. It is a little and gets better if well timed but Plasmas WILL have Sabot and drones have endurance. And if drones get Boosters...

Also, other will have the option. Smaller ships may have better power curves and be able to do it better.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 02:54 pm: Edit

By Loren Knight (Loren);

Geoff: I don't see the nasty game balance problems if all races get it since you could use one to escape as well.

Who's talking about escaping? I'm talking about the seeking weapon balance issues. If your target can simply 'het' by them and blast you with direct fire and deal with the seekers in flight later, there is a huge balance issue.


If it was limited to a few races then I see problems

I meant some kind of new race, not an existing alpha race.

I would suggest that all effects of disengaging by accelleration be attached to HEB use. I.e. tractor links by the HEBing ship are lost, etc.

An altogether bad idea imo.

Combined with the ability to 'jump' seekers in flight and get out of an anchor, this WILL screw all seeking weapon racial balances.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 03:25 pm: Edit

Geoff: Earlier I suggested that anchores would stop a ship from HEBing. What was meant by Johns post was that if the HEBing ship goes into an HEB with active tractors they would be lost. But if a ship attempts to HEB while tractored the HEB would fail. If you are anchored then your anchored.

Jumping by seekers is a posability with the HEB but can be mitigated by:
A) Plasma Sabot
B) Spreading out drone waves (which is common, anyway, due to the T-Bomb).

I mentioned escaping because of the precieved problem of "Crunchers" getting an upper hand with the HEB. All races or none should get it to avoid this problem.

Part of my personal vision for X2 was that battles would take place at longer ranges. The HEB actually would promote that (ironically enough) because of the threat of a quick closure of ranges, players would open the ranges typically. Or at least I would.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 03:30 pm: Edit

Loren,

Hex amounts as high as SC+1 have been proposed.

That's *4* hexes for your standard cruiser-type.

This is currently phrased as an unplotted temporary jump to speed-64 that occurs on-demand regardless of whether the units is allowed to change speeds normally.

Spot me an extra 4 hexes against a Plasma torp when all I need is a max of 6 impulses before can make a speed change and the potential difference is huge.

This also opens potential tactics against drones such as dropping a mine and jetting away via HEB. Since a laid mine only requires the ship move out of its detction range to arm, you have the potential for next-impulse mine activation.

That does raise a thorny question: How does HEB interact with mid-turn speed changes?

Could be messy.

R. Brodie Nyboer,

If you were looking for example of how seeking weapon balance would be altered, this should fill in the gap.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 04:03 pm: Edit

John, good points. That doesn't mean its a breaker yet, but good points none the less. Can tactics be devised to off set this? Remember, its expensive.

I thing the each impulse of HEB should use an HEB bonus (which equals the ships HET bonus and rating). That limits most X2 ships to two impulses of HEB for a cost of 9 warp on MC1 ships. I think I miss-calculated before. An MC1 ship should have to pay for each hex and each impulse is two hexes. HEB hexes should be separate from normal movement (that is if you were supposed to move anyway on that impulse you end up paying double for it.)

SO the formula is: HEB = HET cost plus movement.
5+2=7 warp for one impulse of HEB.
5+2+2=9 warp for two impulses of HEB.

By separating the move costs and paying independantly you avoid the problems of having to calculate the cost differently for different impulses during the turn.
OR HERE IS AN ALTERNATE:
One way to eliminate the problems of Seeking Weapon imbalance would be to require full Plotting of an HEB during EA. Technobabble wise I could see this. You could then reduce the cost by paying exactly for the added hexes + 5, instead of what I posted above. You cannot change when you perform the HEB but you could elect to use all, some or none of it. Make it independant of Mid-Turn Speed Changes.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 08:47 pm: Edit

What if this maneuver is limited to ships that have fulfilled the conditions for Disengagement by Acceleration?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 10:45 pm: Edit

That would mean you must be going full speed. That would usually be speed 31. An XCC would have to loose more than 17 warp before it could move slower than 31 under those rules.

I did think of that but felt that the limitations would preclude its use.