Archive through July 07, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 Poll: Archive through July 07, 2003
By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 12:06 pm: Edit

Quote:

Yeah, even at 5 point BTTYs and 12 3 poinbt Caps, you're looking at :-
25 BTTY & 36 Caps
Vs
24 BTTY & 42 Caps



I'm a bit confused, here. The poll is about whether or not X2 ships can use capacitor power as shield reinforcement. Right? So, why compare it to X1 at all? They can't do that, so it doesn't matter what you're facing; the X1 opponent is stuck reinforcing shields the old fashioned way, with EA or reserve power from batteries.

Take an XCA with:

The XCA, using caps to reinforce, could potentially dump 16 points of battery power and 24 points of capacitor power into its forward shield. At 2 to 1 reinforcement, that'd be 20 more points of shield energy, for a 70 point forward shield.

That's alot of shield.

If we are to give the X2 a better way of maintaining shields to increase their combat effectiveness, I'd rather take the energy from another source than phaser caps. Moving a limited number of shield boxes from one shield to another would seem more appropriate, depending on how it was done. Say a limit of 5 points can be added to any one shield from any adjacent shield, for a hard maximum of 10 points of reinforcement. At a 2 to 1 cost, you'd have to give up 10 points from your two adjacent shields to get that 10, making it a costly option.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 02:55 pm: Edit

MJC:

I don't know what it is you typed up there, but I have a feeling if you said is in public I would be offended.

As for your post.....I did form it as a questions, ans last time I checked 24+42 was equal to 66.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 03:01 pm: Edit

Where's the "report post to moderator" button?
Because that post MJC put up is phonetic for "Don't be a s***"

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 03:16 pm: Edit

Hmm, if that is true MJC, I expect an apology. I did nothing to you and was simply commenting on your post. If it is not the case, then what did you write, and perhaps in english direct spelling?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Let's do try and avoid a flamewar and getting the thread closed. MJC, that comment was in poor form, and unnecessary. Just because no one likes the phaser caps to reinforcment idea is no reason to get snippy.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 03:42 pm: Edit

Guys, these posts are poll commentary and we do have a different thread for that.

If we're going to flame each other, the least we can do is do it on-topic. :)

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 04:42 pm: Edit

OK, let's leave this thread for nothing but people answering the poll question, and move the discussions about the poll to the Poll Commentary topic.

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

Hey, I'm not starting anything. Asking for an apology when one has been insulted is appropriate I think.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 04:46 pm: Edit

Cfant, I agree. (eom)

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

Cfant, I'm not jumping on you. Sorry if i came across that way.

Just trying to redirtect the convo is all.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 06:34 pm: Edit

Me neither, Chris. I just don't want one to start, is all.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 09:04 pm: Edit

Sorry I snapped back, was just still a little angry at MJC.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 09:15 pm: Edit

no biggie, Cfant.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 02:47 am: Edit

Quote:

isn't 24 BTTY & 42 CAPS equal to 66 effective reserve power? That's where that came from...


1) That's two ships worth of reserve power.
2) It's not really reserve power, only some of it can be shuntted to systems like transportors or tractors.

Quote:

I'm a bit confused, here. The poll is about whether or not X2 ships can use capacitor power as shield reinforcement. Right? So, why compare it to X1 at all? They can't do that, so it doesn't matter what you're facing; the X1 opponent is stuck reinforcing shields the old fashioned way, with EA or reserve power from batteries.


True but the X2 is highly unlikely to dump all of it's caps into reinforcement....the point being that if our fantasy vessel is at 410 BPV then the CX + DDX opposing would have just one point less reserve power and considerably more power to apply at weapons...once the ships are spend at least one impulse at a range where the throughput of the phasers is greater than 1 then the ineffective, it falls back to the position of a despr't act for despr't captains.

Considering how many more shield boxes and shield #7 boxes the enemy has, the XCA should be cut a little slack by having some kind of ability and Caps-to-SSReo is easy to play...heavy on the book keeping I'm sure but easier to play than some kind of andro BTTY recharging system.

Quote:

At 2 to 1 reinforcement,


Where does that come from...other than Suppliment 2?


Quote:

I don't know what it is you typed up there, but I have a feeling if you said is in public I would be offended.


Get John Major to explain it to you.

Quote:

As for your post.....I did form it as a questions, ans last time I checked 24+42 was equal to 66.


You know just as well as I do that that is the capabilities of the CX and DDX.
You should be looking at the 25 BTTY and 36 CAPs, which is only 61...and that's more powerful than the ship would ever likely be so we're really looking at 20 BTTY and 24-36 Caps, which is considerably weaker.

A little slight of hand to make an idea die isn't funny and it sure ain't fair.


Quote:

I did nothing to you and was simply commenting on your post.


Like I said "slight of hand" as above.


Quote:

MJC, that comment was in poor form, and unnecessary. Just because no one likes the phaser caps to reinforcment idea is no reason to get snippy.


I'm getting snippy because people are reorganising the idea to make it seem increadibly unworkable.
If it's unworkable straight-up then fine, but to just trash it `cause it doesn't feel like it's workable, and then re-state what it is by using the wrong numbers is throughly unfair.

I don't like the idea of shield shunting or damage shunting but I've never said more damage and/or shields could be shunted than the projected rules indicated;- in an attempt to make people dislike it.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 03:08 am: Edit

MJC, did you consider this tack first: "Chris, did you catch that the 24+42 is the reserve and cap of two ships, not one?"

Try making sure that your point is understood before launching straight into the insults.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 03:43 am: Edit

Yeah..alright, I could have asked...but at the time it seemed pretty straight forward to me that he was twisting the numbers make the idea die before it's time.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 04:59 am: Edit

There are a lot of ideas, proposals, and numbers flying around here. That leaves lots of room for things to be misread. Make sure that people are on the same page before flying off the handle. It makes your ideas that much more likely to be heard and considered.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 11:04 am: Edit

Quote:


Where does that come from...other than Suppliment 2?



It comes from the standard rules for generic reinforcement. 2 power = 1 shield box. Maybe I should have said 1:2; sorry if it was unclear.

In the example I gave, the X2 CA would get 20 points of power to a given shield through generic reinforcement. With specific reinforcement at 1:1, it even gets worse; upwards of a ninety point shield, more than a battleship or even a fully refited non-X starbase has without reinforcement.

I ask; should a cruiser, any cruiser, regardless of generation, be able to have a shield that powerful? Never mind that they don't have to do it, or that it's costly. Should they even be able to by using only reserve power?

One of the things that did break supplement 2 was the 2:1 shield reinforcement rules. This is pretty much the uncontested opinion of everyone I know that played it. Now, to show how unbalancing the caps to reinforcment idea can be, let me illustrate something.

I have supplement 2, and the Fed X2CA was 325 BPV. It had:


At 2:1 reinforcement, that meant the XCA could put up, at most, 50 points to specifice reinforcment, for a 98 point forward shield.

Now, with the caps to reinforcement plan at 1:1, you get this:


That means you can get an 92 point shield, and that most of that extra power came from phasers instead of batteries. In other words, its every bit as unbalancing as 2:1 reinforcement was. Not a good direction to be going, IMHO.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 01:17 pm: Edit

Getting the ability to pull phaser power to anything else is like giving the ship a huge new battery bank. It is unbalancing, and will never fly. The ship MJC is pushiing for would be able to stop the a full alpha from a X1 ship without even blinking. THat would put it on SVCs "dead-horse" list.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 01:19 pm: Edit

Oh, and MJC, a difference of 61 to 66 is laughable. I still expect an apology from you.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 02:57 pm: Edit

Guys,

Take the personal stuff off-board, please. Even if it came from on-board comments.

Makes a resonable discussion hard to have.

MJC, as far as the people here are concerned you caps-to-reinforcement idea seems DOA.

You are welcome to take your case to SVC

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 11:13 pm: Edit

Quote:

Maybe I should have said 1:2; sorry if it was unclear.


Uhhh, General reinforcement...got-cha.


Quote:

That means you can get an 92 point shield, and that most of that extra power came from phasers instead of batteries. In other words, its every bit as unbalancing as 2:1 reinforcement was.


I see your point but it's comming at a higher price...specifically at the price, under your example, being able to fire no phasers at incomming seekers nor at the enemy vessel.
With Ph-5s the 1.5 points of power is better spent on firing so long as the enemy is at R15 or closer ( and that ignores the effects of heavies ).

I wouldn't say it's as unbalancing...but it might be 75%.


Quote:

Getting the ability to pull phaser power to anything else is like giving the ship a huge new battery bank. It is unbalancing, and will never fly. The ship MJC is pushiing for would be able to stop the a full alpha from a X1 ship without even blinking.


I've beening putting forward worst case scenarios, that is, the FANTASY XCA, to show that even in the worst case scenario it isn't too unbalancing, and sure it'll take a full alpha of an X1 cruiser, it's not ment to be the BPV of an X1 cruiser, it's meant to be heck of a lot more.

If I talk about a 130 BPV XFF and her 3Ph-5s and three 4 point BTTYs, even with Caps-to-SSReo, it can only offset a maximum of 21 points of impromptu SSReo ( and that's making it's own fire impossible ) but if I ask, is that going to make a D7 or a Fed CA unable to hurt it...all I'm going to get is; "we don't want stuff that works on X2 frigates, we want stuff that works on X2 cruisers".

Caps-to-SSReo has huge drawbacks...unlike the BTTYs and 2:1 Reo, you actually have to recharge both the BTTY and the CAPs to get that ability back again...ships could defend themselves from massive damage but they'll be moving so slow on the turn after that the enemy shall have the chance to hammer them.
There is no place better to put your power than into your phaser caps, asking people to take it away from the Phaser caps is a critical choice, that people will only engage in, in very critical situations.


Quote:

I still expect an apology from you.


With the posts you make to me, you're not gunna get one.


Quote:

Oh, and MJC, a difference of 61 to 66 is laughable.


See what I mean!?!

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 11:26 pm: Edit

For the final time, can we just drop this and talk SFB?

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 12:08 am: Edit

When a ship takes damage:

First, allocated reinforcement is burned through.
Then, the shield is knocked down.
Then, the damaged ship has the option of draining batteries.

If there's still damage left at this point, one of two things can happen:

1) the ship takes internal damage, or
2) the ship has the option to drains its phaser capacitors, under MJC's proposal.

At this point, if the attacking player punches throught the shield, reinforcement, and batteries, then from a game standpoint, he deserves to roll internals on the ship he attacked.

For MJC's caps-to-shields proposal, I've heard the numbers and the analysis, and I think I speak for everyone else on this board:

WE DON'T WANT TO SEE IT AGAIN

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 12:23 am: Edit

•••• ••• •••• ••••••.


So there.


Seriously.
Think what you like...but unless someone convinces me that damage shunting or shield shunting is going to be any more able to give X2 the flavour it should have then I'll either not have any kind of shield improvement or I'll up the number of boxes.
It's funny how nobody has made comment in another thread about whether a move to more rugged ships with no shield improvement would be COOL...maybe because people on this BBS don't want to marginalise any one ( or ten ) technique(s).

We're going to have to have some kind of shield improvement or else we'll wind up with loopsided ships that can't fight under some captains and always win under others.

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