If the truth be told the XCA probably doesn't need to switch on its A.S.I.F. until after it's lost both its #2 & #6 shields.

That'll save 6 points of power in the first few turns and after that point the enemy has probably lost 4 Warp Boxes ( A collum hits ) and assuming your not battling an DNX or BB then you should have also worked your way into the enemy IMP, AWR, APR & BTTY supplies.

So perhaps the extra power needed to run the A.S.I.F. and do everything else isn't needed, but I'ld rather see the X2 have a higher battle speed than the X1s so that extra 6 points of power will probably still be needed.

So 48 Engine Warp, 4 AWR/SaucerWarp & 4 Impulse should be our starting point for engine design.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 07:59 pm: Edit

As an alternative to the SIF, maybe just doubling up the hull boxes on the ship would be easier, and the half-size boxes would make it fit on the SSD. Call it "new materials technology" or something.

It would make it easier to balance the speed/energy requirements, since there is no "off" switch.

A reasonable goal would be to figure out how fast an X0 and X1 ship can go loading everything, then add about 4-6 hexes to it for X2.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 09:36 pm: Edit

Adding boxes just seems...uncreative. But it is a simple, practical solution.

If a X2 ship carried the same weapons loadout as a X1, adding 4-6 works. The way we have things going, parity is just fine.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 11:04 pm: Edit

My ASIF protect hull and cargo as you all know. It doesn't double the hull but can absorb a hull hit per volley as long as it is powered, so with out shields you could hit it with one point at a time and the ASIF would absorb it indefinatly. Of course, this is most unlikely as a single Ph-3 could be used to over power it.

In other words if there is no hull or cargo left, each volley you take while the ASIF is powered, you can still absorb one hull or cargo.

Further the ASIF (mine anyway) gives other tactical advantages I've listed before. (simplified repair, shuttles not destroyed but crippled when shuttle box is destroyed, 50% of cargo recoverable after the cargo is repaired, +1 to breakdown rolls.)

Adding more hull is going to make for cluttered SSDs (I think). The two half box style hurts my aging eyes.

All that is needed to easily use the ASIF is to have a nice piece note paper next to you.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 11:25 pm: Edit

How does that relate to X2 speed limit?

It was supposed to be something that uses power and slows the ship. Granted the first turn most players might not power their ASIF but one the first turn an X2 ship should indeed be an object of fear.

A while ago I pointed out how I think X2 performance should go. Once GW ships start taking internals their combat performance declines steadily. X1 has more endurance in the beginning and can often compleat its mission during this time. If it doesn't in declines rapidly. X2, I believe, should have both these factors. A longer initial endurance and a even decline in combat effectiveness.

X1 declines rapidly because it counts on it reserve so much and often faces greater incomming damage than GW did. I.E. X1 is not much beefier but faces greater incomming damage than GW, thus longer initial endurance and a rapid decline.

X2 should be able to shrug off some of this damage to even out the decline in combat effectiveness. Hence, 4 point batteries, greater standard power, and a ASIF. In the face of even greater damage, a well versed Captain can survive. However, these ships a super valuable and it would be doctrine to disengage once crippled status is unavoidable. The idea being, battles wont be longer but will have less blown up ships (historically, that is).


So far with my designs I think battle speeds will be in the 20's partly because of turn mode (though my impulse turn thing might should be re-thought since that would eliminate a reason to slow down). But also because of wanting to maintain good shield reinforcement. Loading fast weapons and recharging reserves will also contribute to slower combat speeds. BUT NOT AT FIRST, which is what I think X2 should be like.

GW Vs. X2: The challenge will be to depleat the X2 reserves before going into full battle mode. With probably double the hulls GW Vs. X2 should do fine. X1 can use this same tactic but will not be able to volley ball the X2 like GW will (having less numbers of hulls). However, X1 will be able to punch and jab, in and out unlike GW.

X2 tactics will be to close and pound the enemy then open the range and punch him to death. Then close again for the final blow. GW and X2 will have to avoid this initial pounding or sacrifice a lamb.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 04:01 am: Edit

---

Quote:

A reasonable goal would be to figure out how fast an X0 and X1 ship can go loading everything, then add about 4-6 hexes to it for X2.

---

---

Quote:

Adding boxes just seems...uncreative. But it is a simple, practical solution.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 08:26 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Does anybody read stuff I've written.

The C7 does HK, Full Overloads, EW & moves at 14.
The D7D does HK, Full Overloads, EW & moves at 14.
The Fed CX does HK, Full Fastloads, EW & Moves at 12.

---

• none of the above burn batteries for anything listed, and use only warp, impulse and reactor power
• The XCA has 4 points of SIF operating cost added to the HK costs
• Both the CX and XCA are generating 8 EW while the BCJ and CAR+ are generating 6
• All ships are overloading photons at "4+4"
• The XCA has 46 warp + 4 impulse + 4 AWR.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 10:13 am: Edit

Strange ships.

I would have picked the NCA and the BCG rather than the BCJ...we really need well designed typical ships...a CL+ or a DD+ wouldn't really give us a good idea of where to start.
Is that CAR+ a CAR+ or a CARa+?...there probably isn't a difference until you start to eat into BTTYs.

Also notice the Klingon DX has 6 Disruptors so it'ld move the same way as the D7D and C7 with a speed of 15, which ain't that much faster than 13 & 14 respectively.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 10:27 am: Edit

If you want well designed and typical, you can't use the NCA. The NCA is a war cruiser, meant for a short life span. Stick with the CA series.

The BCJ is a good comparison to the XCA because of the cost of arming the photons. The XCA has four that can be fast loaded; so, 24 points in one turn. The BCJ can do the same, with six overloads armed at 4 points per turn. And, should the X2 photon be a 24 point overload, that cost is also the same as the BCJ's full overloads. So, it's a good way to compare total power needs for a similar sized hull.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Lets compare speeds with held photons as usually the Fed only needs one shot.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 01:23 pm: Edit

Mike: Add to the above that one phaser caps are depleated the ship will be going much slower (especialy because the Ph-5 takes 1.5 power which is another reason to keep it at 1.5 power).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 09:10 pm: Edit

Just out of curiosity...

40 + 4 With warp producing 1.5 power and 4 Impulse.

Total Power	70
H.K.	4
Bridge as Special Thingy	1
A.S.I.F.	6
Photons	24
Phasers	36
Recharge BTTY	25
Transporters	0
Tractors	0
Movement	-26

Even refilling the Phaser caps to shoot every shot in an oblique would still not be enough power to move. If you were just recharging 4 point caps aswell you'ld be making a battle speed of 3!

---

Quote:

Mike: Add to the above that one phaser caps are depleated the ship will be going much slower (especialy because the Ph-5 takes 1.5 power which is another reason to keep it at 1.5 power).

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 10:58 pm: Edit

Well, ya. My point was that the figures above were at the best (or near best) possible circumstances.

I don't think the battle speeds are going to be a big problem if we add a few extra things to spend power on (which we did). If you do not power those thing you have more power available but you would be canceling some of the X2 advantage to do it. The X2 BPV also assumes this capability (or the availability of the power) so the force you are facing will have its built in advantages (primarily force in numbers if a lesser generation).

The XCC I posted a while back would have a heck of a time defeating a CCX and a FFX tag team. You would have to be crafty indeed (which is the whole point of X2 I'd like to see).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 11:29 pm: Edit

Yeah...but we're trying to project reasonable battle speeds.

BTTYs mess up the accounting so we say, let's do it without the BTTYs.
Caps allow you to attack 25 turns after you allocated the power so a ship powering caps and making the battle pass must be NOT taking it time, which for X2 would be a bad thing.

So we do just HK, EW and Heavies.
It might not be early in the battle when the caps are full, but think about it, on the off turn of the heavy weapons ( something now even the Kzinti's will have but even they on account of the Drone reloading turns, so only the Klingons will be GOING WITHOUT AN OFF TURN):- you won't be paying for, as much EW ( maybe ) and you won't be paying for an A.S.I.F. and you're less likely to be paying for a bridge as special thingy, you might even go without active fire control.
That's 6 to recharge the Caps and maybe another 8 to recharge the Caps and maybe another 1 or 2 to recharge the caps and then the fact that the battle speed is less likely to be so high during the off turn.

An oblique with a non refitted phaser array will be setting you back about 9 points of power and the refitted phaser array will be costing you about 12, the phasers will probably be recharged in time to make the battle pass without much trouble on account of those off turn power savings.


That's why I like Caps-to-SSReo...you could have (exceedingly limited) protection or you could keep up your attack without taking a breather but you can't have both.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 02:59 am: Edit

This is why I don't like it.

1) I don't like opening the door in any way to making phaser capacitors more similar to batteries. X-ships have a lot of reserve power as it is. Now if you want to merge phasers caps and batteries, that's a different thing.

2) I don't like it because it does not lend ships any sort of durability. All it gives is more shield reinforcement to blow through before getting to the ship. (Weren't you the one who aid you weren't happy with a ASIF that acted too much like a shield? You answer does exactly that) Once its reserves of reinfrocement have been exhausted, the ship is easy meat. I saw this effect with Old X2 and didn't like it then either.

On either basis alone this is a bad idea. Together they make it a terrible idea.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 03:14 am: Edit

1) I'm not sure I comprehend what's actually wronmg with that.

2) I'm pro BOTH an A.S.I.F. and slight shield improvement.
I'm oppposed to the idea of having a A.S.I.F. that is in effect a highly effiencent shield.
When you have both a mild increase in the shield capasity ( say 10 extra boxes on all shields on a cruiser plus Caps-to-SSReo ) mixed with a mild effect ( double damage stopping by each hull box ) of durability increase then you get the X2 result that IS needed, that is a move away from X1 eggshells with sledge hammers and towards ships that are pretty trough for a while...without becomming dependant upon one type of protection nor allowing one type of protection to BLOW THE BPV BUDGET.


Just because I'm opposed to an A.S.I.F. that feels & acts like; a highly effiecent ( if limited ) shield, does not mean that I'm opposed to some kind of shield improvement such as damage shunting or Caps-to-SSReo.
Indeed I'm actually for one of those in addition to the A.S.I.F.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 10:15 am: Edit

The TAC thread gave me an idea...or two.

What if ships could TAC whilst moving at a speed of 1.
The restriction being that the movement ( not TAC whilst can be 1 impulse and probably 8 Warp )power must be impulse.


Another idea that I thought of is the Micro-HET where by the ship spends 3 movement points to perform a HET and it acts in always like a HET except that the facing change may only be 60 degrees...it's kinda like TACing at warp but a little more expensive and a lot more risky.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 02:06 pm: Edit

Allowing capacitors PLUS a ASIF is way, way too much defense.

You're adding reserve power, Phaser caps and an ASIF.

If you're tacing at speed-1, why not at Speed 2? 20? any impulse the ship doesn't move a hex?

You're moving or you're not. when you're not, you can TAC.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 03:51 pm: Edit

POWERSLIDE

An X2 ship may pay 1 reserve warp to turn his ship while moving that impulse so as to turn after moving 1 hex straight forward, rather than before moving.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 11:42 pm: Edit

POWERSLIDE2

An X2 ship may pay 1 reserve warp to side-slip immediately after a preceeding side-slip on the impulse of movement.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 02:09 am: Edit

---

Quote:

If you're tacing at speed-1, why not at Speed 2? 20? any impulse the ship doesn't move a hex?

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 04:50 am: Edit

Actually just to prove a point that even in the FANTASY SHIP Caps-to-SSReo won't make parking into the ultimate action, I'll just go through a few calculations.

40 Warp + 4 AWR @ 1.5 power per box + 4 Impulse is 70 power.

Holding 24 point Photon is 3 per turn per tube , 8 ECM, 8 Warp TACs, 1 IMP TAC, 5 HK ( including Bridge as special thingy ) and A.S.I.F. for 6.
That leaves 30 for SSReo.


2 D5X are opposing. They realise that the XCH is parking and ready their attack runs.

On the turn before the attack run they both launch Type VIII ECM drones and Type VIII drones to attack XCA...late in the turn.

As they approach in the turn of the attack, one moves faster and makes for R5 at the same impulse as the other makes R8, both launching Four Type VIII drones before they reach that point.

The XCA tacs to defend with non facing weapons against the first wave of drones. Of the 6 launched Type VIII drones Type X drones killed 2 so the XCA must destroy 4 Type VIII drones with rapid pulse Ph-6 shots ( two per Ph-5 ) from the 3LS ( or RS ) Ph-5s and shoots them down with 1 Type VIII drone remaining which is tractored at R1 for 1 point of BTTY.
Then the XCA tacs to put is reinforced shield up against the closer D5X

Both D5Xs fire ( 1 @ R5 & 1 @ R8 ), for an expected 40 points of disruptor damage and 24.5 points of closer ship's Phaser fire ( a perfect oblique ) and 13 points of phaser fire from the ship at R8, for a grand total of 77.5 points of damage.
The XCA has 30 points of Reo, 33.5 points of power left in the Caps and chooses to hold 9 so that allows 24.5 to stop some damage and 24 points of BTTY, so it still has 7 points of power in BTTY.

The XCA also counterfires with four R5 24 point Photons for 48 Points of damage, but with the slow speed the D5X could find a little SSReo ( only about 3 points but it'ld probably move 4 hexes instead ) and has 9 points in BTTY and a -1 EW shift and a 26 box shield facing.
It'll take 32 points of damage and only need to allocated 23 ( or may on 20 ) to shield boxes.

The the second turn's waves of drones arrive.
8 Type VIII drones against 18Ph-6 shots.
This leaves the XCA with 1 point of power left in the CAPs and the one tractored drone to deal with.


Suddenly the slower moving R8 ship, uses an X1 Mid turn speed change to jump up to speed ( it made less EW and less SSReo so it can afford to do this.
It closes right down to R1 or less and drops two 18 Point SSs, ( one of the advantages of a planed attack run )...these two 18/6/6 weapons then get shot at with the last remaining Ph-5 in rapid pulse mode ( using Ph-6 table with some chance of inflicting 6 points of damage ) and will probably stop one for an estimated damage of 24 points.


In such a situation no ship has taken internal damage BUT two of the three have taken real shield damage (at levels that will take quite some time to repair ), ( and no body used an SP or WW ).
AND no ship can repeat the action on the next turn but all the ships can make attacks with their weapons on the next turn, consequently, the Caps to SSReo and large ammount of reserve power do not create battles that devolve into inpregnable starcastles sniping at each to no effect.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 05:54 am: Edit

More over a Fed XCA with early X2 Systems fighting a DXD would find it'self in a bad situation if it parked.

Shooting down 4 drones in total over the two important turns and firing at R5 on 11 Type VIII drones with 8Ph-5, would pretty much leave it with one unfired Ph-5.

9 TACs, 8 EW, 5 HK, 6 A.S.I.F. and 12 to hold the photons, with 4 AWR and 30 warp engine boxes and 4 Impulse, would mean it could generate 13 SSReo.

Taking R5 30 Disruptor damage and 34.5 phaser damage.

The XCA could stop 15 with BTTY and 17 with everything that's left with the Caps so, the XCA would still be taking 32.5 points of damage.
It'ld dish out an expected 32 points of damage back to the DXD which could take it on an side shield and put in 15 BTTY and has 34 shield boxes.


All in all in both the refitted and un refitted version the XCA can't afford to just PARK, even which the HUGE levels of reserve power and generated power that could theoretically be attributed to them.
Caps-to-SSReo is not going to cause the game to degenerate into a STARCASTLING X2s ALWAYS WIN situation despite being quite effective defensively.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Tos, pretty soon we will have 'vectored warp-thrust' in play as well.

Taccing at speed is not a good idea. Unless you have hoverwarp. Otherwise, write a little rule like the Powerslide above.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 03:38 pm: Edit

MJC,

2 D5X are opposing. They realise that the XCH is parking and ready their attack runs.

MISTAKE #1: Why the hades are the D5X's closing? If they are not already in OL range, the first thing they do is break off their attack because they're not prepared to take on a parked opponent. It's not like he's going anywhere. He can kick to speed 15, but that's about it.

Mistake #2: Why did the D5X's not use scatterpacks? You want to soften up the ship's drone defense with SP's and previous turn ship-launched drones before going in with this turn's drones and SP's. In fact...

MISTAKE #2.5: Why didn't/wouldn't the XCA weasel the drones instead of spending phasers on them? The D5X's would never want to toss more drones than an amount that's right on the line between worth/not worth weaseling. If they already have a heavy stack of drones in flight, the Ca might weasel them and get some hellacious EW protection besides. But the D5X's can also dive in and close while his FC is out.

MISTAKE #3: If the D5X's going to attack anyway and especially if whoever gets hit will get away without internals, they'll split and hit either side of the CA. It can only keep the heavily reinforced shield pointed at one of them. The other ship might be able to breach a #3-5 shield. Now the D5X's can follow up with their drones and maybe a SS.

This illustrates the problems with making too many pat assumptions about how the enemy is going to fight. If the enemy fights differently, all the conclusions your assumtions lead to can easily disintegrate.

This is also why rules and ships are playtested.