Archive through July 05, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
The "X" Files:
OLD X2 FOLDER:
X2 Poll:
Archive through July 05, 2003
1. B
2. B
1. What BPV should an Fed/Klink XCC have. Keeping in mind a possible 1X BCHX being around 300-325. (The ISC CCX is 315 but the ISC CC is just about a BCH in firepower anyway.)
A. 250-300
B. 300-350
C. 350-400
D. 400+
E. Undecided
| B followed by C | We really should be moving along with refits over a 20 year period that has such a dynamic swing as the shift from Trade Wars to Xork invasion. |
2. Should traditionally high BPV races (BPV in general) maintain the:
A. Same relative spread on BPV
B. Shrink the relative spread on BPV
C. Undecided
D. Case by Case per race.
| D | it'll be more fun to alter the racial balance on a strategic level to reflect what had happened in their histories. |
Poll Repoened Closed.
I forgot to tally the votes last week. But the baby has kept me extremely busy. So here they are 10 days late
1. What BPV should an Fed/Klink XCC have. Keeping in mind a possible 1X BCHX being around 300-325. (The ISC CCX is 315 but the ISC CC is just about a BCH in firepower anyway.)
A. 250-300
B. 300-350 (9)
C. 350-400
D. 400+
E. Undecided
2. Should traditionally high BPV races (BP in general) maintain the:
A. Same relative spread on BPV (2)
B. Shrink the relative spread on BPV (6)
C. Undecided
D. Case by Case per race. (1)
Drone Poll Results.
For those who are interested these are the results form the drone poll.
| 1) What speed should X2 drones move at ( assuming Y15 to 225 )? | |
| A) speed 32 ( use type VII & VIII drones ) ,, 3 |
| C) Speed 40 ,, 1 |
| |
| 2) How should drones get more deadly? |
| B) More and new; special warheads (E.g General Availiblity of Ph-2 Swordfish or full damage external explosive modules) , 1 |
| C) Increased number of warhead spaces per drone (the X1 method) | ,, 2 |
| E) A and B for the Kzintis in the period Y205 to 215 and B and D for the Klingons in that period closing to AB&D for the period Y215 to 225 with other races having their own flavour and heading toward the "final solution" in the Y215 to 225 period. ,, 1 |
| |
| 3) Should drones get tougher? |
| A) No. , 2 |
| B) XX/8/XX & XX/10/XX respectively. , 1 |
| F) B Plus tougher through combinations ( such as internal and external armour or Poundal mode and external armour ). , 1 |
| |
| 4) Should drones have something new in sizes ( 1 space 1.5 space and 2 space)? |
| A) No. It's better to keep the system simple. , 2 |
| B) Yes. more choice means more flavour. , 2 |
| |
| 5) Should new warheads be in invented ( E.g some kind of ECCM drone ). |
| A) No. X2 should just be advancement of existing tech. , 1 |
| B) Yes. More Options means more flavour. , 3 |
That sucks! Drones should be something more than fun for drone accountants! -Let's see how many weird combos I can put on my ship...
Isn't people interested in LETHALITY?
OK, the question has been asked.
Who likes the idea of draining phaser capaciors for other purposes? We will now examine this question.
1) Do you approve of allowing phaser capacitor energy to be used for shield reincofement? (Y/N)
2) Do you approve of allowing phaser capacitor energy to be used in a mauler? (Y/N)
3) Is there a suggested use you would have for phaser capacitor energy? (outside powering phasers and those mentioned in 1) and 2) above) If so, explain.
This poll will be open until Saturday, July 12th.
1) No.
2) Yes, if there even are X2 maulers.
3) Fusion Beams drawing on the phaser cap wouldn't likely be unbalancing.
1) No
2) No
3) No
I've been lurking in the X2 discussions for a while, and I'll drop my $.02 here.
1.) No. I can see the situation already: One ship fires at the other, which uses it's phaser cap to prevent shield damage... but it can't return fire now. You'll go TURNS without scoring real damage.
2.) I don't think the mauler cannon will be around in X2. I can see it being replaced by something more versatile. But, even so, not really.
3.) Maybe allow a "trickle charge". For example, for every two points of reserve power that is allocated for a turn but not used, you get one point into the phaser cap. It's a small power advantage, but could be important.
-Francois
senor_pez@hotmail.com
1. NO
2. NO
3. NO
1: No
2: No (with 3-5 point batteries, what the hell else do you need?)
3: Nope. With less phasers per ship and a 1.5 energy cost, you'll be doing all you can just to use the energy for what it's intended for.
no, no and no.
1: NO
2: NO
3: YES: The only thing I can see allowing for the use of Phaser capacitor energy other than firing phasers is to allow then to drain back into batteries. If done during EA the energy could be used that turn. If done during the turn the energy couldn't be used until the following turn. So basically it would be limited to EA. So, no draining to batteries and using them for shields or tractors the next impulse.
But! You would allow them to drain during the turn so as to save the energy from loss due to impending damage. Must be done before the fire weapons step (the same as the last chance to drain batteries to charge weapons). One could argue that you can drain batteries in response to damage for shield reinforcement but I would like to see people loose a phaser and get to keep the energy with out planning for it. And the energy not being available until the next turn prevents them from draining a P-Cap and refilling the cap if the phaser is not destroyed.
Gads, even more record keeping.
1) No
2) No
3) Nothing I'd care to do.
Matthew,
I think you can already move batteries into phaser caps. It just doesn't work the other way around.
1. No
2. No
3. No
Sounds unanimous so far.
As the non-unanimous voter on the Mauler and other question I would be 100% happy with no increase of capabilities, I’m just still open to exploring other ideas.
1) Yes...And the arguement that the result will be ships that can't fight each other is only true at such increadibly long ranges that stailmates occour at those ranges anyway.
An R40 Volloy of 9Ph-5s and Four 6 point proxi photons is looking at doing 18 points of damage, which a Klingon fully refitted XCA would offset with 18 points out of her five 5 point BTTYs or almost all of the damge with her five 3 point BTTYs...Dam Con repairing the rest next turn anyway, thanks to the nex X1.
If we look at much closer ranges, say R12, that damage in flicted jumps up to 34 points of which even five 5 pointers can stop that damage, so you'll eat into 11 points of Caps, unles youy got the 3 point BTTYs in which case you'll eat into 21 points of the 36 points in your caps.
If we look at an even closer range, say R8, the 24 point Photons and Ph-5s will inflict 79.5 which still results in shield damage even after five 5 point BTTYs and all twelve 3 point Caps have gotten involved...18.5 points of real shield damage.
Now how do you avoid being over run when your refilling that many BTTYs and Caps.
The point where using the Caps to protect your self and simply park at some distant range is a hell of a long way out, because SSReo is a 1:1 relation ship you need to work from where not just where the relation ship of phaser output is at 1:1 but rather where it is lower because ships have heavy weapons and very few heavies have caps.
How many fights are fought at at R41+???
The Caps to SSreo exist to protect ships a little and not by huge ammounts and the biggest reason it's only a little is that the pay off of stopping 1 point of damage for one point of energy isn't nearly as cool teh five points of damage you can generate with the power at R5.
At standard battle ranges Caps-to-SSReo will not create stailmates but rather just prolong the agony.
2) Mauler...could definately be fun but it's not a must.
3) Yeah, actually Fussion Beams would be fun but not a must.
As too the book keeping issue.
If people want low bookkeeping levels they should fight XFFs Vs either GW BCs or DDXs or XFFs.
The Book Keeping of the XCA as we are looking at it ever with Caps-to-SSReo isn't nearly as hardcore as the bookkeeping of the CX & DDX you'll be going up against...2 EAFs, 24 points of BTTY and 42 points of caps!!!
Yeah, even at 5 point BTTYs and 12 3 poinbt Caps, you're looking at :-
25 BTTY & 36 Caps
Vs
24 BTTY & 42 Caps
In my book the XCA has slightly less book keeping than the sum of a CX and a DDX...and that seems fair.
So, 66 points of effective reserve power on anything buy an Andro does not scream BROKEN to you?
Not in the least, it'ld be a micro X squadron.
At 410 BPV 61 points ( don't mess with the numbers ) of possible SSReo seems perfectly reasonable.
In truth we're far more likely to see five 4 point BTTYs and 24-36 points of Caps ( and it's highly unlikely a ships will fire the caps it needs this turn so were can ignore 6x1.5 to 9x1.5 ) so it's actually 20 BTTY + 15-22.5 Caps.
35-42.5 isn't anywhere near 66 and that's what the CX+DDX is running around with.
C.E.F.:
Please try not to be an "ESS AY-CH WON TEE", by diliberately mis-expressing what was written by me.
MJC: isn't 24 BTTY & 42 CAPS equal to 66 effective reserve power? That's where that came from...