(aka - why do I have to scroll through 3 pages of "X2 Topics" to get to the topics I'm really interested in)

I think X2 ships should have better hull boxes. Instead of Forward, Rear, and Center hull - there should be Crew Quarters, Holodeck, Crew Lounge, Mess Hall, and Infirmary. This will allow all sorts of new & interesting changes to be implemented based on the numbers of these on each hull!

By Donovan A Willett (Ravenhull) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 08:28 am: Edit

I don't know, I kinda like the good old fashioned generic hull for that.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 10:37 am: Edit

It would require reworking the DAC and that's something STEVE will need a really good reason to do.

I mean with only 2 heavies on a YCA in the Y period, the MIZIA is a hell tactic but it's still there...good thing few ships have the power to actually capitalise on it.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 10:45 am: Edit

Here's two ideas for Defenses that might be allowable for X2 that could developed protection from alpha strikes without developing Drone and Plasma Proof vessels.

1) Allow energy from the Phaser capasitors to be used as VERTUAL Battery power for the purposses of Specifical and General shield reinforcement.

2) Develop a Structural Enhancement Feild system.
Thus when powered ( each ship will have the power cost of the system writen in the details just underneath the sheild cost ) the HULL and EXCESS damage boxes of the vessel will require 2 points of damage in a volley to destroy ( unless there is only one point of damage in a volley, in which case the hull or Excess damage box is destroyed ) and Armour boxes will require 3 points of damage to destroy ( unless the last one or two points of damage being inflicted is inflicted on the armour box ).
Not that transporters will be able to opperate through the hull ( and armour and Excess damage ) whilst the structural integrity feild is intact.


With these two functions all X2 vessel will attain a mauler like toughness in that it can start to take a tremndous pounding but after a while, it'll either be useless or it'll need to pull out and recharge and that; that recharging will take a while.
Thus extending the number of turns of the battle and loosing the One shot Auto cripple aspect of old X1 fights.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 12:38 pm: Edit

What if the structural integrity field of an X2 ship regenerated damaged hull at a rate of one hull per point of damcon per turn? This auto repair ability would fail once the ship reaches crippled status.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 01:49 pm: Edit

You know, evey thing so far has been a seventh shield under a new name BUT if there was a structural integrety field that only protected Hull and Cargo THAT would have a very different effect and could not be replaced by more shield boxs. If would effect the way ships take damage. Weapon and system hits would get hit normally but hull and cargo would last longer. This would give the effect of increasing the number of hull/cargo boxes with out increasing the turn mode and move cost.

Should be tied to the power applied. Perhaps One to one for up to 5 extra. Maybe two (extra boxes) to one (power) for six extra boxes.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 03:55 pm: Edit

I have a detailed SI Shield proposal under "The Generic X2 Hull."

My proposal protects more than hull or cargo because it is geared to the DAC.

The short version is that each DAC column has a small shield that defends it from the first few opoints of damage.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 03:55 am: Edit

Personnally I think messing with the DAC is BAD KARMA...partly because system would encourage people to build MIZIA attacks based around which ever collums don't get the protection.
Now, it's not bad to have X-ships aim to mizia, but the 12, 18 and 36 should all keep their current prioritisation, rather than making one ( 18 ) KING.

Now increasing the durability of the HULL boxes...that's different matter.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 08:34 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Now increasing the durability of the HULL boxes...that's different matter.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 01:00 pm: Edit

Please allow me one cross post from the X2 BPV topic. It has to do alot with both issues.

...I agree that after the Andro War that an XCL would be the most common built ship. But the desire for Cruisers would always be in the minds of the military. Building XDNs might be the desire as well but would probably be tempered by the ruling partys of the Empires.

I also FULLY agree that significantly larger ships is not the way to go. As far as mass goes, I think an X2 Cruiser should be 10% to 15% larger than X1, but with a focus on quality over mass.

That's why I presented the New Paradigm I did. Which was: Standard Warp equal to move cost which can be doubled (but now I think that way too much. I think it should be Power=Warp*1.5). While running Hot there would be no Orion type of burn out but the engins would take damage at a doubled rate. There are protections against this built in. I like the Structural Integrity Field idea. But I think it should only protect Hull and Cargo (and Barracks). It would be powered. Two points give you 50% more hits to the Hulls boxes. Reenforced at Four points you get 100% more hull hits. (I have a way of handeling actual game play)

Anyway, all this adds up to a very powerful ship that behaves like a larger ship but requires less mass and less marterials but much high technology. During missions of peace the opperate much like a GW cruiser with a few extra weapons. But in battle the can stiffen up and get mean.

Smaller than a montrosity, and less expencive to build than their battle potential. BPV would be like 250/300.

And yes, in this Paradigm, once you get past the shields and the Hull these ships start to die fast. Of course once you get that far into them they should be disegaging and you have won the battle. So, historically, the overall result would be less blown up ships.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 04:23 pm: Edit

MJC,

Hull box durability creates an "eggshell" effect where, once the ship's hull is breached, it's no more defended than a MY ship and will get finished off fast.

Shielding the DAC, while potantial bad karma, gives a ship added durability all the way to the end.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 09:51 pm: Edit

J.T.:

I would say that the EGG SHELL EFFECT is something that one would be looking for in X-tech.

X2-ships should have a MAULER LIKE or ANDRO LIKE massive protection value that CAN be exhausted:- The out workings of lessons learned from the ANDRO WAR.

The X2-ships shouldn't just be TOUGH all the way to the end. They should have the ability to throw out a huge punch whilst resisting a huge punch and then NEED a long rest...the X2 ships shouldn't be omnipotent.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 10:39 pm: Edit

MJC, that's what Commsnder's X2 ships do and they're very boring. I was in a X2 cruiser free for all and this is how it went:

X2 CA "A" (race is unimportant) alpha-strikes X2 CA "B" and B's 5x5 batteries discharge into its 2:1 specific reinforcement and it takes light damage. Meanwhile, X2 Cruiser "C" alpha-strikes "B" and it goes from lightly damaged to random, ionized gas. X2 CA "A" also often got alpha-struck as well.

Unless there's some middle ground where a ship can take punishment and keep moving, battles tend to fall apart as "fun" things to do. I never played X2 ships again and didn't want to.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 09:00 am: Edit

Have a BCH freeforall with that event occouring...you'll not play again for years.

Hell that'll even happen in a CA free for all...I know.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 10:40 am: Edit

I don't see 2X ships just fighting other 2X ships...at least, not at first. They'll take the roll of flag ship, or small squadrons, and will likely fight it out in battles involving lesser tech ships. Besides...any three way event, regardless of the ships involved, always ends with one player getting bashed by the others.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 04:52 pm: Edit

MJC,

The difference is the presence of poweruful but brittle defenses on the X2 ship's part.

we're setting up the next X2 to have the same problem.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 06:45 pm: Edit

Not with my system. But you will have hard choices to make. I you are crafty and wise you will come out on top. I'm still working on it. I found that presenting is as parts isn't working as one thing balances another. I would like to arange the whole picture and present it later. It will be ready in January.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 05:40 pm: Edit

Hull boxes. Keem 'em as is. I like the Structural Integrity Field concept. Frankly I would limit it to Hull/Cargo/Barracks/Bridge. Also, the SIF would only check off hits if a cascade of damage (based on Size Class) struck it during a given impulse.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 08:07 pm: Edit

Loren's adherance to the smaller meaner tougher x2 paradigm is exactly the cure for squashed flat SSDs with too many boxes.

John's eggshell example is one we should be afraid of..

I see a Klingon GW D7C ship captain smile at this 'never-before-seen' puny Federation x2DD and then this little Fed ship starts 'flying'.

Skill and courage for those who want to completely hide behind the KISS principle.

Not all good things are simple.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 09:29 pm: Edit

I'ld like to keep the A.S.I.F. as being at both low and high power setting so that we can have some system that would and wouldn't be listed.

Low	Hull. ExcessDamage.
Full	All above plus. Cargo. Barracks. Bridge. Shuttle boxes.

The BPV will cover the ships.
With bridge as special thingy, and full Aegis ( wow, this thing can really ID seeking weapons ) and an A.S.I.F and some kind of sheild protection device ( like Caps to SSReo or shield shunting ) the likely XFF+ will probably have the same BPV as the D7C and carve up just as badly as it'll be carved up.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 12:55 am: Edit

Just a minor comment on the A.S.I.F....


If we say that the A.S.I.F. doubles the number of damage points to destroy for that box ( i.e. counts as two damage points when counting how mcuh damage you've currently written on the SDDs and compairing that with how much damage was inflicted internall ( beleive me it players easier than it sounds, indeed easier than any of the other systems )) and the following Box types are doubled when the A.S.I.F. is in effect.
Hull, Cargo, barracks, Excess Damage, Lab, Control and shuttle bay boxes an an XCA has 2 cargo boxes and 4 more Hull boexes added then the ship shall have a Shield #7 of 153.

The Sum of the shield #7 of a CX + DDX is 189.


We might need to over come the Shield #7 defficencies with some other aspect...my guess, would be a slightly higher battle speed...but any comments would be welcome.


I'm sure there's a bunch of people who think the slightly increased shield strengths ( particulalry when compairing the XCA's 50 #1 boxes against the DDX's 30 ).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 01:30 am: Edit

A while ago, after much thought, I decided to go with four point batteries instead of a new shield protection device. It showed progress in battery tech. and I increased the shields a bit. Between the two you have pretty tough shields. If you want to use the power for other stuff the go ahead, at the cost of shield boxes.

Shield #7 for me is an ASIF and 4 point batteries.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 02:37 pm: Edit

A good ASIF shouldn't require backup from beefed-up shielding or reserve power.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 02:23 am: Edit

Rubbish.


A Good A.S.I.F won't protect your A & B Collum weapons so you then have to choose, the low power high Shield #7 of the A.S.I.F. Vs the High power but fully protecting Shields.

EA and thus X2 should be about choices.


You'll need both the A.S.I.F. and the Shield improvements to offset what your enemy has.
The CX + DDX has a heck of a lot of Shield #7 and the D7D + D7bk + D6D you could be up against has even more Shield #7 ( 90 points in warp engine boxes alone ).

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 12:18 pm: Edit

So in addition to an ASIF, new weapons, more power, more shields, better batteries and reserver power capacity, and other special goodies, now we "need" a new way to further pad the X2 ship? Keep this up, and 2X will soon be 500-600 BPV for a mere CA.

The ships I've seen have enough padding as is; better shields provide it, the ASIF was added specifically to provide it, and the bigger engines will provide it, as well.