Archive through July 08, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 Shields: Archive through July 08, 2003
By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 11:23 pm: Edit

No prob.

By Christoffer Eriksen (Toffer) on Sunday, March 16, 2003 - 04:14 am: Edit

How's this.

Energized Hull Armor (some concepts borrowed from The Juggernaut CL#1)
As armor, it blocks damage from all directions. Does not block transporter activity. The amount of armor would be based on hull size (example: 15 for size 4 and 25 for size 3). Can be 'repaired' at the same rate as shield damage (probably with separate limits, or not).

comments?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, March 16, 2003 - 02:44 pm: Edit

Chris,

See Structural Integtity Field for similar concepts.

You are suggesting a very Enterprise-ish concept (as in the series "Enterprise"). The ADB cannot use background material from any show from TNG or later. To suggest any "energized armor" concept is to step very near concepts presented in Enterprise and the series finale of Voyager. given that Paramount is lawsuit happy, that could easily land the ADB in court.

Which is the long way to say the idea is 99% likely to be a non-starter.

Besides, the Juggernaught didn't have any kind of energized armor. It just had an incredible damcon rating (something like 12 or 24).

By Christoffer Eriksen (Toffer) on Sunday, March 16, 2003 - 05:20 pm: Edit

I recall the Juggernaught being able to repair it's armor, something that can't be done with 'normal' ships armor.
I don't have a copy of CL#1 available, could someone check that please?

My point is that armouring the hull would add extra damage capacity to a ship, without 'beefing' the shields. And, the concept would alter the dynamic somewhat (for 2X ships). Also, it would be relatively simple to implement.

The name could of course be different, and (for ADB) the concept does predate the Paramount version. Armor is part of the game now this would simply be more, and repairable (as shields are).

I don't see how hull armor relates to the SIF discussion? It's a pure damage absorbtion scheme, like shields.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, March 16, 2003 - 05:40 pm: Edit

IIRC, the juggernaught repaired 1 armor for 2 repair points. I think it was able to spend shield repair for armor repair this way.

That's about it.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 06:35 am: Edit

Correct the Juggy's armor is repairable. But it is not powered. But the rotating 100pt shield can be fully powered/repaired EVERY Turn.

Plus being able to generate 6ECM+6ECCM at the same time was VERY nice:)

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 07:18 pm: Edit

Gee, this thread has been dead awhile. Let me try this, as a shield answer.

We all pretty much want to see certain things in new shields. Far as I can tell, these are:

  1. Not just battleship super-shields
  2. No 2:1 reinforcement
  3. Some way to make the ship more durable at a reasonable cost, but not super-durable.

Sound about right?

Well, let's try this on for size. I've mentioned it, but never in this thread where it can be really tossed around. In the newer Trek shows, they almost always seem to refer to moving shields around; that is, transferring power from one shield to another. The current SSREO rules allow for that, BUT at the cost of your power.

Now, since you already pay power to keep up your shields, why shouldn't you be able to move the boxes around a bit? It can't be too easy, of course, but why not?

Say you have an XCA with a #1 shield of 50, and #2 and #6 of 40. You wannt reinforce your forward shield some, but not burn all your batteries doing it. So, what if you allow a ship to move, at a 1:2 ratio, a limited number of shield points to a given shield? Say, for the SC3 ships, you can move up to five boxes from one shield to another adjacent shield. That way the most you could add to a shield would be 10 boxes, but it would take ten boxes off each of two shields to do it. Sort of reflects on a point of diminishing return for your shields, in that you can't move boxes at 1:1, and keeps you from burning up all your reserve power to reinforce.

Now, the numbers would have to be tweaked; 10 points may not be enough, or it may be too much. But, it would be an energy efficient way to get some SSREO, but a risky way in that your decreasing your protection...especially since you couldn't just move them back.

Just an idea to get something going. Thoughts?

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 07:25 pm: Edit

I do like the concept, but it would be a pain to keep track of.


What if there is literally a 7th shield that could be moved about and split up. One of the E2 races has somthing like that I think.

Say a 20 point 7th shield that can be energized for a certain amount of power.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 07:37 pm: Edit

Sounds reasonable.

Couple of questions:

• Would it always be 10, or vary by size class, or vary by shield size?

• Would it cost extra power to move the shields around?

• Are only adjacent shields usable, or some from every shield?

• Are only the first 10 boxes available (similar to minimum shilelds), or are the last 10 available?

• Or, another alternative, print SSDs with 12 shields, a thick #1, a thin #1/#2, a thick #2, a thin #2/#3, etc. Treat the thin shields like center hull; they can be used to cover hits on either shield arc. That way, it can be customized to each ship.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 07:58 pm: Edit

Off the top of my head I'd say:

It would vary by size class.

No power cost; the loss of shield power from moving it would be penalty enough.

Only adjacent sheilds could do it. That is, #3 could get boxes from 2 & 4, but nowhere else.

Last 10; minim shields couldn't move.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 08:43 pm: Edit

Thhis is not unlike the ASIF I proposed.

Each line of the DAC had a small run of shield boxes that had to be destroyed before any hits could scored on that DAC line.

The idea was to give the ship a feel of being "tough"

Here's and example, My ISC XCC
http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/ISC_XCCc.gif

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 08:45 pm: Edit

Mike: I think Star Trek did have some instances where they extended their shields around something or such. So he is a way I could see doing it easy. My earlier "Shield Mitigation" idea was this very thing, IIRC.

Oh ya, my earlier proposal required power. This is different.

OK, for yours, say, at the point of damage before allocating internal hits a player can move damage to an adjacent shield at two to one. I.E. One point moved from one causes two to the other. The maximum amount that can be moved in one TURN is 30 divided by the size class. (A chart would be made). SC3 could move ten for each shield(which would cause a total of twenty damage). No shield can move more than it can absorb. If your #2 has only 6 left the it could only cancel out three from the #1. Both adjacent shields can take moved damage up to the total maximum the facing shield can move (SC3=10. Could be 6 to #2 and 4 to #6 or all to #2 or 6 or some other combination.) Each shield can move, per turn, the ships rating (SC3=10).

If internal hits are taken on a volley where damage was moved then directional damage (e.g. phasers) will be applied as if the damage came from each direction involved.

Damage moved from one shield cannot be moved to yet another. Only damage that would otherwise go internal is qualified to be moved. (That means the damage must be enough to down the shield).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 08:48 pm: Edit

This sort of thing, though, could mean that a X2 ship could easily take a pretty big alpha and take little or no damage.

Another reason I like four point batteries. They will be used for shield reenforcement whether three point of four. I would rather have no special shield rules and just have four point batteries (a XCC having five). A reserve capacity that large IS a 7th shield and the rules are already known.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 10:26 pm: Edit

Quote:

Now, since you already pay power to keep up your shields, why shouldn't you be able to move the boxes around a bit? It can't be too easy, of course, but why not?


That sounds a lot like, have minimum shields on the #3, #4 & #5 and having fully shields on the #6, #1 & #2 and only paying half the extra cost...in the case of a cruiser 1.5 points of power instead of the full 2...but is that really worth the effort...unless you lost some shields...having 3 shileds down and keeping the others raised at full for half price might be handy ( saving an entire point of power on a cruiser ).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 10:38 pm: Edit

I personally dislike 4-point batteries because X-ships have high enough levels of reserve power as it is and reserve power does more then reinforce shields.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 08:12 am: Edit

Quote:

That sounds a lot like, have minimum shields on the #3, #4 & #5 and having fully shields on the #6, #1 & #2 and only paying half the extra cost...in the case of a cruiser 1.5 points of power instead of the full 2.



Ummm, no, I never addressed having parital full or minimum shields. What I said was that you can move boxes from one shield to another at a specified ratio and up to a certain preset limit at no extra cost, because you aren't adding to the total value of your shields.

Example: Fed XCA with:

Player decides to transfer boxes from #2 and #5 to #1, in anticipation of getting whacked by a plasma R.

Player takes 10 boxes each from #2 #5, reducing their levels to 30. At a 1:2 ratio, this gives him an additional 10 points on his #1, for sixty points. Now, though undamaged, his total shield value is 225. He gave up 10 points overall to get that extra forward protection without burning a bunch of batteries.

Now, 10 points is hardly a gamebreaker on a ship with that kind of shielding, anyway. But it's a nice option, because it doesn't cost you power; it just costs you protection from somewhere else. You certainly can't do it indefinately, because each time you do you loose more than you gain. Good for emergencies, like if you're running like hell from someone or getting ready to take a face full of plasma, but not something to use every turn.

This may be more trouble than its worth in terms of book-keeping; I haven't tried it yet. But it feels like a direction we should consider, rather than trying to manipulate the same old reinforcement rules. At 1:1 reinforcement, you don't get any better than X1. At 2:1, you get Supplement 2, which sucked. Bigger batteries aren't exactly sporting, either, because they can do so much more than shielding. Finding a way to make the ships existing shields more effective is a different approach, but I'm willing to explore it.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 09:55 am: Edit

What about drawing the SSD so the shield boxes that can be moved are explicitly shown?

Between the big rows of boxes for the #2 and #3 shields, there would be a small group of 5-10 boxes labeled "Shield #2/@3". These small boxes could be used to cover either arc.

The advantage is that there's no need for additional recordkeeping besides what's already on the SSD.

In the example Mike gave above, the ship has 50/40/35/35/35/40, but the SSD would show 40/30/25/25/25/30 and 10 boxes between each shield.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 10:40 am: Edit

If we go with movable shields then I favor Jeff's suggestion for notation: A small shield shown on the SSD at the hex line between the two main shields that can support either. These would be the only shields that are activated when minimum shields are paid for.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 01:15 pm: Edit

...so we'd draw a SSD with "swing" shield boxes that protect either shield?

Intertesting idea but there's the practical concern of SSD real estate.

Can you have a swing shield intentionally protect sheld 1 when 2 gets blown down, then slip it in to blunt successive mizia volleys?

Commentary:

The problem with all these ideas, and they're good ideas, is they all stop damage before they get to the ship, not enable the ship to take damage better. Thick shields and maybe shield-shunting, will do that. Or maybe use "swing" shields istead of shield-shunting. More surface protection just creates a thicker eggshell for that sledgehammer.

What we really want is something that lets ships take damage better and thats where the ASIF concept sprang from.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 01:32 pm: Edit

Quote:

The problem with all these ideas, and they're good ideas, is they all stop damage before they get to the ship, not enable the ship to take damage better.



Yeah, I know. The only consolation is that these ideas aren't of the "more power = more protection" variety. They just make existing systems more flexible.

Another thought would perhaps be a miniature version of the Juggernaut rotating shield. Say a shield with a number of boxes determined by size class, that can be moved around the ship. It would take damage last, after existing shields, and regenerate to a certain degree. Simple to manage, and not too protective.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 02:26 pm: Edit

I never said I was against the ASIF. I'm just posting alternatives.

I just posted the "split shields" idea in response to Mark reopening this thread.
The other alternative to the ASIF was doubled up hull boxes.
However, either or both of these could be used with an ASIF, if playtesting shows the BPV is off.

Trust me, if I see a rotten idea, I'll let you know, politely
And if I come up with a rotten idea, feel free to tell me.

Remember my two box ph-5s? Some people went , I made an SSD to show the idea, everyone went and I haven't mentioned it since.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 02:49 pm: Edit

Um, I think you guys stumbled on a pretty good idea there with the swing shield. Having 12 shields instead of 6 is something to explore, I think. May I offer a draft for rules?

For the following lets consider just the forward shields (#6, #1 and #2):
Shield: #6 #1-6 #1 #1-2#2
Boxes: 30 10 40 10 30



The small shields (marked with two directions numbers) can be hit with damage from either direction. These are referred to as Swing Shields. Once a shield is downed these boxes can no longer be struck from that direction. Repairing just one box allows these shield boxes to cover that direction.

Example: I take 45 damage in shield #1. I can hit the entire #1 to zero and put five on either swing shield. The #1 is now down and I cannot later cover that direction with the rest of the swing shields until at least one shield box is repaired on shield #1 proper.
Alternatively I could apply 20 of the 45 to the swing shields and only take 25 on shield #1 proper. The shield is not then down. I could also take any combination like applying 8 (4+4) to the swing shields and leave 3 boxes remaining on the #1 proper. The number one could then further be protected later that turn by the rest of the swing shields so long as the shield proper remains standing.

Enveloping weapons envelope normally and their damage is applied using six shields for damage calculation but are marked off at the owning player’s discretion. In the case of Hellbores for determining weakest shield the swing shields are ignored. (I think that perhaps the half damage applied to the weakest shield should not be able to be covered by swing shields but the rest of the enveloping could be.)
PPD main facing damage must be applied to the shield proper but the slash damage can be applied to either the swing shield of the adjacent shield at the owning player’s discretion.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 03:33 pm: Edit

That seems reasonable. If the main shield is knocked down, the swing shields can't be used in a future step. Other than that, it's the player's option whether to mark damage on the main shield or the left or right side swing shields.

Damage from enveloping plasma is not difficult to calculate, just divide by 6 and mark each of the 6 sides separately.

Damage from hellbores is more complicated, since the damage scored depends on the shields.
In X0 and X1, specific shield reinforcement (including batteries) is included in calculating "weakest shield").

I propose that split shields be included in hellbore calculations, as the target ship decides. In that case, however, 10 boxes on each swing shield might be too much.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 03:42 pm: Edit

I strongly disagree with that Hellbore Idea.

The "swing" shield should not come into play until after damage has already gone through the primary shield.

So, if Shield #2 takes 30 points, 10 more could then hit the swing shield using it up.

It should be a last ditch reserve, not somthing that pops up to replace a downed shield.

So, Enveloping Plasma would not be effected, any damage going through the primary shield will hit this backup if it is still there.

Same with Hellbore. Most damage goes through the weakest regualr shield facing. If there is a "swing" shield still able to cover that facing, it can take the damage.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 03:45 pm: Edit

Agreed. The swing points should be the last points damaged, not the first.

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