Archive through June 08, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: Major X2 tech changes...: Archive through June 08, 2003
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 06:16 pm: Edit

Quote:

I couldn't see the movement change in the EAF you suggest, but I could see an unplotted deceleration using reserve warp for breaking energy. It would come at a stiff BPV penalty and probably cost double movement (caped at current speed * movement rate).


I don't think double the cost to decellerate using reserve warp would be fun, but a Reserve Warp Unplotted speed change would be great!...even if you paid the full maxed-out cost for travelling at super 31 in order to decellerate...but limited to the MTSC rules of cause.


Quote:

I don’t think the complexity added to your LPFC suggestion is worth the effort.


It's not very complex, it just probably not worth the effort because ships so rarely use Low Powered Fire Control.


Quote:

I can see the impulse 1 restrictions being removed, particularly if ships are allowed to move 32. But against an X0 ship it would have a significant BPV advantage. Effectively it removes the ability to hack and slash as the X2 ship always gets to pick the shield impulse 1. That’s gonna cost you, I’m thinking maybe as much as 10%.


And how often will a GW or X1 ship get to hack and slash the X2...when an XFF fights a CA, maybe it'll happen.
When an XDD fights a CX maybe it'll happen.
When an XCC fights a task group, it's not even remotely likely.

But most of the time the X2 phasers will cause the X2 to drift through R8 on an impulse and because of the increadable ability of the X2 to move at speed ( 1.5 Warp Power generation per box ands X ship numbers of box / 5 Point BTTYs that can hold warp power over a turn / speeds above 31 ), that impulse is bound to be something other than Impulse 32.

I don't actually think that the BPV improvement of ship that is allowed to Tac or Het on Impulse 1 is going to be a 10% increase in BPV. Stopping the Hack and slash is; A) already unlikely to happen and B) not a big issue.
If I made something that caused the Kzinti/Gorn Anchor to not work ( especially against non-cloaking targets but also against them ), would I really up the BPV by 10%...and the Anchor is someything people use quite often despit it being increadibly hard to organise...so long as I didn't annihilate every other Tactic, no.


Quote:

I'm not thrilled with any of those suggestions.

We'd be playong too different a game.

and good luck trying to play balance two related but not identical game systems.


I'm just removing a few, "you can not"s from the game for the X2 ships.

Next you'll tell me that I can not balance a game that uses two different sweetspots ranges for the main offsensive phasers.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 06:50 pm: Edit

S.P.P.:

If you were to guess at the correctness of an estimate, would you say higher or lower...or more importantly what percentage would you say it was worth.

In a certain group of ships ( say X1 but it could be a new race ) were allowed to Het or Tac on Impulse 1 and that made the HACK AND SLASH tactic less effective, would you say that that created a 10% increase in the BPV of the ships that could Het or Tac on Impulse 1?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 07:55 pm: Edit

Heavy weapons have an 8-impulse delay over a turn break before they can refire. The Selt stinks partially because it has a 12-impulse delay. What if X2 ships had a 6-impulse weapon delay?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 08:17 pm: Edit

Quote:

Heavy weapons have an 8-impulse delay over a turn break before they can refire. The Selt stinks partially because it has a 12-impulse delay. What if X2 ships had a 6-impulse weapon delay?


That's one of the issues I'ld like to bring up or more accurately akin to one of the issues.
I'ld like to see the double braodside reducing 8 Impulse delay stay as is...but...


It's silly that an X1C-rack can take no less than 13 impulses to put 4 spaces of drones on the board and usually 37 ( including both the first and last impulses of the launch ) but a MY era A rack can put 4 spaces of drones on the board in some 9 impulses.

The C-rack is supossed to be fast firing.
The X2C-rack should have a six impulse delay between firing including over a turn break!


Its a pity the X1C-rack didn't move to 8 Impulses between each shot.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 09:07 pm: Edit

Maybe the X2 C-rack should.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 10:06 pm: Edit

The following was posted by SVC today. 4:10PM 2/15/02 Hey Steve Cole topic:

Quote:

Q: Has the fate of the galaxy (probably module X2 or X3) after Operation Unity ever been determined? Or is that still a void waiting to be (maybe) filled?

A: It hasn't been determined. While one should never say never, I don't foresee us going there. It's so far away from the TV series that marketability would be diminished.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 10:53 pm: Edit

I read that. :(

Are we waisting out energy??

All I can say is that the marketability is 100% with me!

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 11:26 pm: Edit

That comment was made well before we began discussing X2. I doubt he has made up his mind. As to the marketability being too far removed from TOS, what's Omega?

By Aaron Gimblet (Marcus) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 11:27 pm: Edit

And besides... its fun. Thats why were doing this, right? If were doing it because we hope it gets done by ADB, and done in our fashion, or for any other goal... we are fools. We should develop, design, and playtest these systems because we enjoy doing so... at least I do. If any work we do ends up being published by ADB in any form, thats just sauce.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 11:39 pm: Edit

well, hope is one of the drivers. Expectation is not.

By Shannon Nichols (Scoot) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 12:23 am: Edit

Good point (Marcus). A good part of the fun is creating. An seeing if your creation works

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 08:28 pm: Edit

If we invent 40 cool ideas for X2 and S.V.C. takes 8 of them and 12 of his own, it'll be pretty cool.

I mean, the specific ideas would have to be really cool for S.V.C. to pick them over something he could invent himself.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 08:53 pm: Edit

...another good reason to give everyone individual tech. More goodies for SVC to think about.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 10:15 pm: Edit

Planetary Bombardment has always been a problem. Perhaps they have developed planetary shields by now?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 09:00 pm: Edit

Bases and planets get no range limit overloads.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 09:07 pm: Edit

I like planetary shields.

Ground-based P4s would do a great job of defense if they themselves were better defended.

Maybe develop a Planetary Shield Ground base.

Say each base shields one hex-side of a planet and that the small base generates a 30-point shield and the Large a 50-point shield.

Since the shield covers a much larger area than a normal shield, we could up the power cost to something like 6 for the small base and 10 for the large (1 point per 5 shield boxes)

For extra fun we could connect them into a "Power grid" with other ground bases on the same hexside (or even the entire planet) and allow planets to fill out EAFs. :)

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 09:07 pm: Edit

Ew, that'd be ugly. What about your Phaser Howitzer, Loren?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 09:31 pm: Edit

Quote:

Bases and planets get no range limit overloads.


Works for me.


Quote:

I like planetary shields.


I think there's more chance of Ph-4 Defsats!!!


I also think Base Special Sensor should be different from Ships, not just in the non blinding aspect ( did the special bridge use base sensor technologies? ) but also in something else.

What if the cost to run the base mounted special sensors could be increased at the player descression and the R15 limit would then be extended, say to R25 for the basic cost of the special sensor jumping up to 2 points.

It makes the faster X1 and X2 ships defending the bases able to more effectively capitalise on their speed.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 10:01 pm: Edit

The Phaser Howitzer, hopefully, would be an alian technology. Unfortunatly SVC isn't looking for anything regarding the Xorks but I had actually intended for it to be used by them. As they push the front forward they install those on every system behind them. Anyway, it's a pretty scarry weapon.

John Trauger, once again we are opperating on the same wave length. When I posted, that is near exactly what I had in mind! :)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 10:39 pm: Edit

I aim to please (with a starlight sniperscope)

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 09:32 pm: Edit

Maybe I missed this somewhere else in the X-files, but aren't X2-shuttles/fighters to be fitted with a 360o shield? Would this (for the sake of technobabble) be a spin-off of the Structural Integrity Field?

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 10:02 pm: Edit

The shuttle damage already reprersents a cross between the toughness of a shuttle with a bit of shielding.

IE: Look at how easy they are to destroy when they're onboard ship. Compared to when they are on the map.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 10:28 pm: Edit

Module-X introduced the X-shuttle but Module J2 introduced the Advanced Shuttle (available on ships after Y180) that is better than the X-shuttle. It is 8 damage plus 8 speed.

My version of the X2 Admin. is the same shuttle fitted with a shield of two points. It is a small pod that can be replaced by one deck crew action. Ships typically carry two pods per shuttle. The pod can be repaired on of off the shuttle for one deck crew action. Damage to the shield does not effect crippled status. i.e the shuttle is crippled when it takes six none shield hits.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 11:19 pm: Edit

I think the X2-shuttle would have the shield built in vice adding a pod. That's not to say you couldn't add a pod to increase the shielding.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 11:39 pm: Edit

I shouldn't really call it a pod because that confuses with Fighter Pods. Its more an integrated module. The point is that it can be exchanged and repaired off line. In SFB there is really no difference to repairing it on the shuttle of off but there is more to design than SFB. There is GPD as well.

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