Archive through July 10, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 Poll: Archive through July 10, 2003
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 12:25 am: Edit

I don't want eggshells with sledgehammers, but being able to use that sledgehammer to parry sounds to me like a good way of offsetting some of the negative aspects of that situation.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 03:24 am: Edit

IIRC, 2x shields are;
-bigger
-have better reinforcement ratios (1-1 general, 2-1 specefic)
-can be assisted by 2x batteries

I think we're covered here. Besides which, the weapons in the game have to be better than the defences otherwise there is no game to be had.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 03:28 am: Edit

I will point out to MJC once again that SVC ruled long ago that any cruiers that can completely shrug of an full aplha strike is not gonna fly. (I'm paraphrasing).

The kind of huge reserve power bank that phasers into shields would provide is just not gonna happen, for the sake of the game if nothing else.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 08:33 am: Edit

Geoff,

Yeah, thats what they had in Supplement 2. Don't want to go there, though, especially the 2:1 specific.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 10:20 am: Edit

Leaving commentary for the appropriate thread.

1. No
2. No
3. No

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 10:16 pm: Edit

Quote:

I will point out to MJC once again that SVC ruled long ago that any cruiers that can completely shrug of an full aplha strike is not gonna fly. (I'm paraphrasing).

The kind of huge reserve power bank that phasers into shields would provide is just not gonna happen, for the sake of the game if nothing else.



It already happens!

Consider a DX Vs 2 CARs. ( thats 250 BPV Vs 258 ).

The DX holds 6 overloads to control the range and escorts it'self with a Type VIII ECM drone.

Now on the second turn there will be 3 drones on the board headed for one or both of the Federation cruiser and the real part of the attack run begins.

The DX generate 7 ECM plus the effect of the ECM drone for 10.
7 EW, 4 HK, 12 Heavies so it can move at a speed of 28.

The CARs are pumping 4 HK, 6 EW, 12 Heavies ( arming 5+3 ) and so are moving at a speed of 12.


The DX can control the range and makes an R8 perfect oblique.


So:-

If one or more of the CARs can blow away the drone ( taking aproximately 4 Ph-1s, and those ships only get 4 to bear unless they centrelining ) AND generates fully ECCM, then there will be a -1 shift so the Photons will be looking at 21.33 points of damage and whilst that is more then the 15 points of BTTY, it's still going to loose a lot form the BTTYs.
But the chances that Klingon will be hanging around at speed 28 for more than 1 impulse is quite low so it's proably impossible.

If the CAR is generating full ECM then although it'll reduce the Klingon Disruptor fire to 60% of what is would otherwise have been, it'll still be unable to shoot at R8, because of the -3 shift.
Consequently even if the Phasers are fired from one of the CAs, the 2 points of damage being generated won't get past the 15 BTTY.

IF the CAR generates full ECCM, then it merely has to fire it's Photons through a -2 shift.
This will inflict 10.66 points of Photon damage and 4 points of Phaser Damage.
Surprise, surprise, the DX can exactly shrugg off the damage that an entire heavy cruiser throws at it.


Furthermore those three Type VIII droine will probably draw 6R1 Ph-1 shots to eliminate them further reducing the amount of damage being done to the DX and rendering the drone destruction very unlikely.


The reasons for the stopping of all the damage are similar to the reasons for the XCA and 2 D5Xs, The D5Xs are war cruisers not full cruisers and the CARs are not the fully refitted CARa+s and the XCA is an entire technology level ahead of the D5Xs just as the CARs are an entire tech level behind the DX!


We alreay have "cruisers" that can shake off the damage of an entire "cruiser" and it's a good thing the BPV is about double so that the two weaker ships can have a legitimately fairish fight.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 12:28 am: Edit

MJC, a couple flaws in your analysis:

First, if I'm flying speed 12 against an X ship, I'm asking to get blown up.

In fact, running around at 17 and waiting for your opponent to run into your FA arc is a tactic that's easily countered in a faster ship. I'll arm 14 point photons, or even 12s, rather than go that slow.

-----------

Plus, basic Fed tactics dictate that you delay the first battle pass until the torpedos are fully armed. That means 8 energy to hold 4x16, not 12 to try to arm them on the first battle pass' turn.

So that CAR's EA is 30 warp, 4 impulse, 4 batteries. Allocation is 4 HK, 6 EW, 16 hexes, 8 for holding, and 4 in the batteries.

I would rather power 19 hexes and 3 ECCM, rather than 16 hexes and 6 EW.
If the DX is full defense with a drone, that's 11 ECM.
Whether I power 3 ECCM or 6 ECCM, it's no difference, they're both a -2 shift.
If the DX is full offence (3/8), then my 3 ECCM means we both have clean shots.

Plus, with 19 hexes for movement, I can plot 17/24/17, which is a little better than 17 the whole turn.
Also, the plus refit would add 2 power to this situation.

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

Second, in order to make usable comparisons, the year has to be consistent, not just the BPV. No X ship was built before Y181, every Fed CA got their + refit as well as the AWR and rear phaser refits by then.


Third, why isn't the DX dancing at range 15 and killing the Feds at that range?

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

Finally, you misread CFant's statement.
When he's talking about a cruiser that shouldn't be able to shrug off a full alpha, he means full damage.

That does not mean:


Those are part of the TACTICS of flying to AVOID damage, not part of the ship DESIGN to ABSORB damage.

Fed CA, range 4, no shift. 6 ph-1 average 23. 4x16 photons hit for 64 (in this example). Total - 87.

If an XCA of any race can take an 87 point volley and not have internal damage, then that design is not going to fly. Period. No tactical analysis needed.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 12:57 am: Edit

Quote:

Plus, basic Fed tactics dictate that you delay the first battle pass until the torpedos are fully armed. That means 8 energy to hold 4x16, not 12 to try to arm them on the first battle pass' turn.


So you're building a three turn arming cycle...Cool...how long again does it take to build SPs?


Quote:

That does not mean:

•a full alpha,
•minus EW effects,
•minus diverting phasers to drone defense,
•minus damage reduction due to long range.


Nor should it mean; a ship that is a full cruiser of the next tech level against a war cruiser.


I mean really, what's a full alpha.
A Fed CL can generate 6 ECCM and attack a target at R4.
If the target takes no internal damage depite a shift of zero then the game is broke, right...so the game is automatically broke by the existance of the B10, which dispite no EW shift can take the full alpha and live with no internal damage...and we don't even have a tech diffence to justfy this.
The justification comes from the BPV, at tripple the BPV ( and then some ) you'ld just expect the CL to be unable to get past the shields of the B10.


If an XCA can take a full Alpha from a D5X and not take internal damage then that's fine, so long as the BPV represents a differnce so that a number of D5Xs whose BPV equals the XCA, have a 50-50 chance of defeating the XCA then that's fine...individual alpha stikes leading to pentration on fresh shields or not.
The battle is won when enemy is defeated, not when people think about who's winning and who's loosing after the first exchange of fire.


If the first exchange of fire was everything then nobody would ever fight at WS-III against a Gorn and no Gorn would ever fight at WS-I.
We have to look at the long term, and if a ship can offset a full alpha ( from a weaker ship ) at the cost of being in big need of refilling the Caps and Bats then that's just fine...it's the being able to defeat turn upon turn upon turn of attacks that becomes the problem, and Caps to SSReo doesn't allow that...unlike the old 2:1 SSReo ratio.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 01:22 am: Edit

I'm done talking about this.

Caps to SSReo has been debated to death.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 09:59 am: Edit

Same here. (eom)

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 10:05 pm: Edit

I'm not.


Either we get some kind of shield improvement or we get battles that always suit those who can shrug off the mizia effects.

Do we really want to give the X2 Kzintis and the Ph-1 X2 Klingons a huge advantage?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 07:56 am: Edit

Quote:

Either we get some kind of shield improvement or we get battles that always suit those who can shrug off the mizia effects.



Huh? From where I sit, caps to reo would be the very best way to shrug off mizia effects because you'd have such a huge amount of reserve power to call on.

Quote:

Do we really want to give the X2 Kzintis and the Ph-1 X2 Klingons a huge advantage?



Now you've totally lost me, since we have no clue what either of these two look like.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 09:25 am: Edit

Quote:

Huh? From where I sit, caps to reo would be the very best way to shrug off mizia effects because you'd have such a huge amount of reserve power to call on.


That's exactly the point...well almost.


Ships with huge internal fortituted ( an A.S.I.F. and slightly increased number of hull Lab and shuttle boxes ) but with regular 40 box shields ( or for that matter 48 box shields to match the engine ) just won't have the same tactical balance as regular ships without some kind of improved shield...even 15 point fastloaded Photons is a massive improvement with no counter or little counter measure ( 8 extra shield boxes indeed ).
We need to have some thing to make those races that are short on weapons from being toothless wonders when they get a little way into the battle.
Think about a prerefit X2 Gorn with 2X2M-launchers and 8Ph-5s taking internal damage...it'll be a nightmare....we need some kind of shield advantage to offset this.


Quote:

Now you've totally lost me, since we have no clue what either of these two look like.


Kzintis will likely have a whole bunch of Ph-6s ( if not a phaser matrix or three ) and so can take a whole lot more A10, B11, A4, B3 phaser hits before it becomes a problem.
The 12Ph-1s, 2 X2B-racks and 4 Disruptors of the prerefit X2 Klingon cruiser can also handle a heck of a lot more shield peneratration than the prerefit Gorn cruiser listed above.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 09:38 am: Edit

MJC, there is nothing like that now for the Hydran or the Gorn, or the current X1 ships.

Why in the world should X2 be any different in that respect?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 09:49 am: Edit

Quote:

Kzintis will likely have a whole bunch of Ph-6s ( if not a phaser matrix or three ) and so can take a whole lot more A10, B11, A4, B3 phaser hits before it becomes a problem.
The 12Ph-1s, 2 X2B-racks and 4 Disruptors of the prerefit X2 Klingon cruiser can also handle a heck of a lot more shield peneratration than the prerefit Gorn cruiser listed above.



Unless you know something I don't, there is no basis whatsoever in making this claim. No SSD for either of these two has been agreed on even by us, much less SVC. Arguing for caps-to-ssreo based on this information is pointless.

Further, such imbalances already exist. Take an unrefited Fed CA; it has six phasers. An unrefitted D7 (worth the same BPV) has 9...50% more. This was never a problem, and I see no reason it will be for X2 if one race has less weapons than another on similar hulls. Those that do have less tend to have other superior traits to help maintain a balance. The above mentioned Fed CA, for example, has tons of hull and overall better shields than the D7.

No more caps-to-ssreo for me; I've said my piece. It's a dead issue, so far as I'm concerned.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 10:37 pm: Edit

Quote:

MJC, there is nothing like that now for the Hydran or the Gorn, or the current X1 ships.

Why in the world should X2 be any different in that respect?


Different from what???

If you mean a Gorn with only 2Ms and 8 Phasers, that's the starting point that most people agree on, that the X2 ships should be during the trade wars period, about equal to the X1s but with fewer weapons...by having markedly better weapons.

In a base assault 2X1Ms AND 2X1Ss is better but in a duel where ships can move very fast, I'ld rather 2Ms wih an an extra 5 hexes of glory zone and speed 48 sabot than the X1 spread...or what ever the X2 plasma will be.


Quote:

Further, such imbalances already exist. Take an unrefited Fed CA; it has six phasers. An unrefitted D7 (worth the same BPV) has 9...50% more. This was never a problem, and I see no reason it will be for X2 if one race has less weapons than another on similar hulls. Those that do have less tend to have other superior traits to help maintain a balance. The above mentioned Fed CA, for example, has tons of hull and overall better shields than the D7.


You're making my point for me.

There's a reason why the Fed has all those Forward hull and Lab boxes...It's to protect the 7H PHASER hits.
More improtantly there's a reason why the Fed CA has 4 BTTY instead of 3 and a Shield #2/6 of 28 instead of 22.
It makes the ship more resitant to the mizia effect of a standard blast.
That is the oblique that inflicts 18 points of damage internally on the D7 will only inflict 11 on the CA.

What can one say about those extra 6 shields and one BTTY!?!
That it's SOME KIND OF shield improvement!


Now here's my understanding.
If the Ph-1 becomes the Ph-2 analog and those races that used the Ph-2 had more phasers on their ships than their Ph-1 using counterparts...then:-

Who were these Ph-2 using races!?!
The Klingons and the Hydrans!
Now since X1 the Hydran Fussion beamers can be considered pretty much an EVERY TURN race.

Who are the Ph-1 analog users going to be?
The Feds, the Gorn, the Lyrans the Roms.
Now with the 24 point ( or 20 point ) photon the Feds will return to being a two turn arming race. The Gorns may use three turn arming to maintain a high battle speed but will probably be considered a two turn arming race and as it follows so with the Romulans and the Lyran ESG makes it a two turn arming race. ( Note the Kzintis will be a mix match of systems and therefore will have a little of both worlds ( so probably a high BPV...something their long due for IMHO ))

What can we say about the differnce between a two turn arming race and a one turn arming race!?!
The two turn arming races can afford to recharge their phaser caps...on account of the OFF TURN and the One turn arming races can't because to use their weapons to full effect they need to fire their phasers pretty much every turn.


So this then becomes the effect of Caps-to-SSReo.
It protects those ships from internal damage that have the most to loose from internal damage whilst those ships that happen to have the least to loose from internals happen to have fighting styles that render that Caps-to-SSReo less productive.


Although Caps-to-SSReo has that natural balance built in, we could get it from any system ( including a higher BPV for the more rugged ships ).
At anyrate the point is that we need some kind shield reinforcement improvement to counter the fact that with more deadly but fewer weapons our ships will that can take an internal hit well will have a big advantage of the ships that can't.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 10:58 pm: Edit

MJC, don't take this the wrong way, but I have to ask,

How often do you play SFB?

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 11:03 pm: Edit

MJC, your statements are completely out of whack. You cannot justify a ship having more or less phasers simply because they might be more suseptible to Mizia. The size of a ships shields have nothing to do with Mizia.

Caps to Reinforcement has been rejected by just about every one as far as I can tell. Why can't you just drop it?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 11:16 pm: Edit

Quote:

MJC, your statements are completely out of whack. You cannot justify a ship having more or less phasers simply because they might be more suseptible to Mizia. The size of a ships shields have nothing to do with Mizia.


Really?
The size of the shields have nothing to do with the mizia attack, yes.
But the size of shield does have an effect on the mizia effect.

If you have an extra 18 points of sheild that 36 point alpha becomes merely 18 points.
If you have an extra 24 shield boxes then the alpha of 36 becomes 12.
Instead of loosing 4 ph, 1 Torp & 1 drone, you loose 2Ph, 1 torp & 1 drone and then finally 2 Ph, 2.3 torps and 2/3 drones.

Shield magnitude can and will have an effect on the numbers of phasers ( and heavies ) for an equal BPVed ship.


I would like to direct you to CL16 pg 13:- TWO LITTLE PHASER-3s.
Phaser quantity can and will have a very great bearing on longepardy of the ship!

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 11:48 pm: Edit

Ok, let me see if I get this......

You are saying that in order to prevent an increased chance of Mizia, we need to be able to dump phaser power into shields?

Of course you will take less damage with a bigger shield. That does not mean we should give these ships uber shields.

The battery power is going to be plentiful. There is no reason to give an X2 ship an even bigger source of reserve power to draw from.

If you really want to continue on about the caps to reinforcement, I suggest you take it over to the propper area so we can stop cluttering up this topic.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 12:18 am: Edit

Quote:

You are saying that in order to prevent an increased chance of Mizia, we need to be able to dump phaser power into shields?


In order to avoid that fact that some ships will loose of lot of their very rare weapons, some ships ( those which move to a few Ph-5s instead of lot of Ph-1s ) should get some kind of shield assistance that isn't as effective on the other varriety of ship.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 12:43 am: Edit

Again, I will point you to Mike's post about a D7 with 9 phasers vs a Fed CA with 6 phasers.

Or, you could look at any Hydran ship.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 12:44 am: Edit

And, if you would like to continue this, can we please move it over to the discussion thread?

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 09:44 pm: Edit

We now take you to our previously scheduled poll:

What should the BPV of a XCA in Y205 be?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 11:23 pm: Edit

I don't know if this question can be answered without a much better definition of what an XCA is historically.

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