Agreed on BPV.

I suppose my comment was wrong, earlier... I see racial BPV as a case-by-case thing. In my head, ISC BPVs go (relatively) down, with the ISC fielding a military slightly technologically superior to the superpowers, and slightly numerically inferior. I (in my head) see some of the smaller powers, espc the Lyrans and Hydrans, investing in technology over numbers (being simply unable to compete with their larger neighbors in terms of overall fleet size).

Still, Im also happy narrowing the margins, if everyone thinks thats the way to go. I just like variety, even in BPVs.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 08:26 pm: Edit

The ISC should maintain their lead, but the gap should narrow enough that you can group the ISC's ship into the same range without being rediculous.

If anyone said that CXs are between 225-315, well, that's what I mean by rediculous.

But if the XCAs fall in the 300-350 range, the ISC should be 350, and the majority should be 300-325.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 08:45 pm: Edit

By creating a poll with the question you used you are making the assumption that there is only one CC(X2). I see a lightly armed trade war CC(X2) and an upgraded post Xork battle CC(X2) with radically different BPVs. There is no way for me to respond to a poll with a single answer.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 08:55 pm: Edit

TOS,

Your assuming that there is going to be RADICALLY Different ships from the Pre/Post XORK.

We haven't even decided on that. IMO they should be minor to major upgrades for the fleets ship's based on where they start from. Pre/Post Xork.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 09:55 pm: Edit

"We haven't even decided on that."
That's my point. If there could be a 100 BPV swing between a pre/post Xork CC(X2) then either that should be decided before initiating a poll or the poll should ask two questions: What should the BPV of a CC(X2-Y205) be; What should the BPV of a CC(X2-Post Xork) be. If I asked players what the BPV of the Fed Heavy Cruiser should be I could get legitimate answers from 84 (YCC) to 170 (CB w/drones) to 240 (CX) based on that players perspective. There are at least two critical periods (Y205, Xork) and possibly several intermediate upgrades and could easily create a 100-point swing. Which generation of CA(X2) did the respondents of your poll provide? Was it an average? You have no way of knowing.

By starting polls without building a consensus on what questions should be asked and how they should be phrased to get a meaningful answer you are allowing your own bias (not intended as a slight) to color the responses. You editorialized your poll question to color the result: "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.)".

Your statement that a BCH(X1) is 300-325 is drawn from very little evidence and seems to be drawn solely from the ISC CCX. If you are the poll author its not your place to make editorial assumptions on what the average BPVs of all races BCH(X1) might be. Someone with a different agenda could have included the statement “Keeping in mind that CCX class ships start at 220 BPV” to tilt opinion the other way. Furthermore what the BPV of a BCH(X1) might be has no bearing on what BPV a CC(X2) might be as these are different classes built with different mission objectives. The BCH(X1) is a warship, the CC(X2) is a ship designed and built after the war. IMO with all races facing a devastated economy and peace (and proposed treaty limitations to avoid a repeat conflict) I believe economic operating efficiencies would be far more important than pure combat power. But that is my opinion and therefore would not belong in a poll question.

If I asked players what the BPV of the Fed CA should be I could get legitimate answers from 84 (YCA) to 170 (CB w/drones) to 240 (CX) based on that players perspective. There are at least two critical periods (Y205, Xork) and possibly several intermediate upgrades and could easily create a 100-point swing. Which generation of CA(X2) did the respondents of your poll provide? Was it an average? You have no way of knowing.

I find your polls biased and vague; please forgive me for continuing to ignore their results.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 09:56 pm: Edit

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
This question limits the answer too much.
I would say that there would be radically differing values of what an XCC is capable of based on the year.
Follow if you will:-
An Upgrade from 8Ph-5s to 12Ph-5s.
An Upgrade from 4 Diruptors with 4 points Caps to 6 Point caps and a upgrade from 4 to 6 Disruptors.
An Upgrade from the basic Type VII & VIII drone to the Type X & XI.
An Upgrade from 3 point BTTYs to 5 Point BTTYs.

All of these will generate a big shift ( when all are combined ) to the BPV of the XCC it'self.
The ship shouldn't be a new class with different SSDs and BPVs it should be the one ship with a refits and the additional BPVs for each refit listed.


2. Should traditionally high BPV races (BP 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.
There is no real whay to veiw this question, the Question that is trying to be asked is should we use the BPV spear of the X1s including the OSC which have a much higher YIS and different design doctrine ( Galactic Domination Passification ) from the other races and so the CX spread of BPVs without the ISC would be 220 to 260 which could mean that X2 Command Cruisers could be an entire revolutionary step ahead of the X1s and be a mere 290 to 310 BPV.
Personnally we need the XCC to be around that of the DNX which it'self should be more than the BCHX putting the price tag around 330-360 but the XCC need not be the only cruiser, the XCA could be much cheaper.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 07:09 am: Edit

Tos,

---

Quote:

Your statement that a BCH(X1) is 300-325 is drawn from very little evidence and seems to be drawn solely from the ISC CCX. If you are the poll author its not your place to make editorial assumptions on what the average BPVs of all races BCH(X1) might be. Someone with a different agenda could have included the statement “Keeping in mind that CCX class ships start at 220 BPV” to tilt opinion the other way. Furthermore what the BPV of a BCH(X1) might be has no bearing on what BPV a CC(X2) might be as these are different classes built with different mission objectives. The BCH(X1) is a warship, the CC(X2) is a ship designed and built after the war. IMO with all races facing a devastated economy and peace (and proposed treaty limitations to avoid a repeat conflict) I believe economic operating efficiencies would be far more important than pure combat power. But that is my opinion and therefore would not belong in a poll question.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 08:02 am: Edit

I think we'll be better served by focusing on the intial run of 2X ships, i.e., those that appear in Y205. We know what those ships will be compared too, and how they'll "play" with what's already on the table.

Further, getting the first ships ground out is necessary before anything else can be decided about later model 2X ships. But most of all, only Steve knows what the Xork ships will look like, so only he knows whether or not our proposed 2X ships are good enough to handle them as is. I say let's focus on the first sets of ships (XCA, XFF, XDD, etc.) and worry about XBC's and what have you later.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Eagle) on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 12:53 pm: Edit

As a Romulan player I think the idea of limiting the spread of bpv potentially could be a really bad idea. If the bpv is equal their ships would be weaker compared to other races ships. (This is because of the cloak, which must be compensated for.) This will force Romulan players to always use the cloak, or else fight at an disadvantage.
Can't say I like that.
Artificial limits of the kinds being discused here could cause more problems, than they solve.
IMO it is to start at the wrong end.
What should be discused is the various races requirements for the new designs.
Then tests can decide how expensive the ships get.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 04:20 pm: Edit

Ken,

The 315 figure for the ISC CCX is official. Personally, I don't belive it. I just don't think it's that good. Not as a fleet vessel, not as a duelist. I note that when the ADB retooled X-ship BPVs upward, they did not change the ISC's 315. I inda consider that a tacit admission that they had overvalued it.

Carl,

I'm a Rom fan too but Roms just have to deal with having ships that aren't quite as buff. Their BPV will hit the high end of points, but they're usually shy phasers on a class vs. Class comparison.

I guess that's why people like the kestrels.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 04:18 pm: Edit

Commentary of the phaser cap poll:

You COULD fire fusions with it or recharge batteries, with phaser caps but why? An essential part of EA is that once you allocate power, that's it. It is allocated. Sorry if you come up short. Aloowing an X-ship to slop its extra capacitor energy nto reserve power or fire fusions with it weakesn this by creating a second kind of reserve power. This muddies up the game.

And as Mike Raper pointed out, it's not like X2 is going to be crying for reserve power. You want fusions and you didn't allocate for them? That's what batteries are for. Want to be able to recharge those batteries easily? Don't be flagrant with your phasers.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 05:43 pm: Edit

I very much second John T.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 11:28 pm: Edit

Though I suggested Caps-to-Fusions I too think it muddies the waters beyond what I'm comfortable with. The reason I suggested it is because the Fusion is such a lousy weapon compared to the Hellbore that there would have to be some hook to make it worth placing on an X2 ship. Its a fix for the lousy Fusion beam, not an attempt to expand the flexibility of reserve power, which I'm generally against.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 02:23 am: Edit

On the February 13 archive for Fusion Beams, there were other proposals to improve the fusion. Although most of them were based on a Bigger bang.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 02:47 am: Edit

That's the thing of the fussion, it's a slightly more deadly weapon than the Ph-2 but it costs twice as much as it comes down to being just a little weaker...not so crash hot for HEAVY WEAPON.
By having Caps-to-Fussion you get a bigger bang by arming Full Overloads if the enemy happen to wander into your exceeding limited effective range ( R3 ) but also get to move against your opponent at high speed and hit him with what you've got in phaser is he happens to be playing the sabre dance...it's flexability to offset the fact that it's an abysmal weapon...on the other hand a -1 shift makes the fussion beam very deadly indeed.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 01:14 pm: Edit

Sure the fusion is weak for a heavy weapon. But to compare it as slightly better than a ph-2 is crazy.

Remember, the hydran CAs come with either 6 fusions, 2 hellbores and 4 fusions, or 4 hellbores and 2 fusions.

Compare that with 4 photons, or 4 disruptors, and it looks like the Hydrans are putting 2 fusions where other races put one heavy weapon.

----------------

One of the core pieces of SFB is EA. By giving phaser caps more flexibility than they currently have, or by adding huge batteries, the importance of EA is reduced.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 03:50 pm: Edit

Tos, if you go back far enough in the "Hellbores and PPDs" topic, you'll find a fusion proposal from me which gives the weapon two additional firing modes, one as a hit/miss weapon, one as a VERY unsderstated area-effects weapon.

I can resurrect that proposal for renewed discussion.

Bottom line for this thread: even the guy who proposed fusions being fired out of phaser caps isn't too hot on the idea. Sounds like a good point to move the conversation to a different thread.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 04:05 pm: Edit

...so anyway, it doesn't sound like too many people are happy to give a XCA in the range of 66 points of potential shield reinforcement.

Except for a little phonetic repartee, I haven't seen MJC put a lot forward to support his proposal.

I would like to address a MJC comment that it was OK for a XCA to be as complex as running a CX and a DDX together. Or words to that effect.

Speaking just for me, not it is NOT OK.

Not even remotely OK.

SFB is complex enough. We should never add to that complexity lightly.

That's the whole reason KISS violations are a big deal when figuring X2 rules. To keep the game from being swamped in needless detail, a XCA should only be marginally if at all more complex to fly than a CX, which is in turn marginally if at all more complex than a GW-tech CH, BC, or BCH.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 04:45 pm: Edit

So far, the only person expressing support for using phaser caps for shield reinforcement is the person who originally suggested the idea.

I suggest that if nobody else comes on in the next week supporting it, that it be a closed issue.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 05:11 pm: Edit

As closed as can be for a self-appointed ad-hoc committe.

MJC is still welcome to submit his idea to SVC and see if it makes it into X2.

SVC, not us, is the final arbiter of X2.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 05:37 pm: Edit

I think trying to give a ship that much reserve capability is just begging for a ship that is back to one problem with a CX- It can walk and chew bubblegum and beat you over the head with a bat.

Not a direction we should go in if we are trying to make X2 something that will be able to play against X1 and GW ships.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 05:52 pm: Edit

...which is an absolute requirement per SVC.

X2 has to "play nice" with X1 and GW tech.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 06:42 pm: Edit

Agreed. Reserve power is the heart of X1. Making it too much more effective, in combination with uber-weapons, is asking for trouble.

Part of the problem is and has been that there are different visions for X2. MJC has a vision of X2 that is much, much more powerful than what (I believe) most of the rest of us would find acceptable. Doesn't mean he has bad ideas, just that they won't work with our particular plans. That, at least for me, is why his arguments (while certainly detailed and thoughtful) don't sway me. It isn't that I don't understand them; I just disagree with the premise. I don't want X2 cruisers to be the Excelsior, or the Enterprise-B. I don't want 500 point BPV cruisers. MJC does, it seems, and that's okay; hell, X2 may go that way, you never know. If you'd asked me before the Andros came out if I'd have ever thought something like them would appear, I'd have said no way. SVC will do what he wants. But as long as I'm taking part in these talks, I'll continue to lobby for a milder, less extreme X2.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 08:35 pm: Edit

Lets not be too frightened of adding complexity to the game. Every module adds that. X2 should be an evolution of the game as well as the historical ship design.

Now, I'm not saying add compexity for its own sake. A new thing must add to the enjoyment of the game and broaden the tactical field, as well. One could say Drogues (J2) add complexity to the game. Just another something to keep track of. Another chart to find and more rules to remember. But I think they were a logical and valuable addition and worth the effort.

The fact that this game grows is part of the greatness of the game. Who would have been satisfied all these years with just the Basic Set? As games go, this one is complex from the start.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 09:04 pm: Edit

On the other hand, I think a vast majority of us can safely agree that a XCA that is as complex to run as two ships would probably be guilty of "complexity for its own sake" at some point.