Archive through July 10, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: Poll Commentary: Archive through July 10, 2003
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 09:09 pm: Edit

Indeed. I will never ever fly a ship that takes that much work. I play any game for fun, and if the complexity level exeeds a certain point, it stops being fun.

Like Panzer Grenadier. Fun concept with great counters, but there was a step in the SOP for everything from walking a foot to looking over a hedgerow. Way too much work. A turn would take a day, and we are taling about squad level play.


Loren, the game does not really add complexity, just a few more rules that could be used if desired. If X2 adds a new book the size of Basic Set, that is way too much stuff. Just play X1, and save yourself a headache.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 09:40 pm: Edit

Well, I agree with you both. I've just got the feeling that anything is too much and I think that is too consevative.

Truthfully, most of what we have come up with is just variations on other stuff. Even the Special Bridge is a variation using some of the Scout Channel rules but very little new rules. Really, the only thing really new is the ASIF (what ever it turns out to be). The ASIF does add compexity. But its worth it because it makes X2 ship really unique beyond design variation.

I proposed a self recharging battery on X2 and eliminating APR. This is new and different but actually I'm not using it. I think it is unnessasarilly complex. Keeping track of the charging and all when the old system is known and easy. It is interesting (too me anyway) but doesn't add anything really useful over the old system (Warp, Impulse, APR, Batteries).

I think my Drogue Bay idea is a good one under this light. Its logical by useing less space and conserving expensive shuttles. The rules are few and basically obvious. You don't have to buy any drogues and can use the drogue bay as a couple free shuttle hits. For the most part it is self explanatory and adds to X2 uniqueness. In a way, it reduces complexity.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 09:52 pm: Edit

But I do want to see X2 (on a class to class basis) be a little more complex. I understand the caution. One new rule generates many facets as it relates to each old rule. I don't want to see players suddenly mastering X2 a short time out of the wrapper.

Balance. I was just getting concerned with what I was percieving as a overly coutious direction. I was getting the impression that people almost wanted a simpler game out of X2. I want a greater challenge.

For instance, J2 was great. Very cool new stuff but not really all that new (exept for the Andro stuff which was revolutionary). Really it was new fruit on the same tree. (Don't get me wrong, fruit good!)

X1 is basically revolutionary.

X2 should be another step that way.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 09:54 pm: Edit

See, I see X2 as being new fruit on the X1 tree, similar, better, but still from the same tree.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 10:07 pm: Edit

I tend to see it as a bit more innovative. X1 seemed to me to be the final fruit of the General War research binge in the sense of every simple, practical innovation I can throw at a starship.

X2 I see as the fruit that comes later as the more esoteric projects start to become practical.

Maybe during the Genral War someone comes up with the principle for a "phaser supercharger" it's researched but isn't combat-ready until during the Andro war and doesn't get put in production until afterward. Thus P-5's, etc.

I see most of the X2 advances in this light.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 10:33 pm: Edit

John T.

I see it similarly. Alot of the X2 tech would have roots as far back a Y185, just after the introduction of X1.

X1 was the ultimate GW ship. I see X2 as a real new era. Taking all that was learned from the past and creating new designs from scratch. Similarly I don't see there ever being an X2 refit for older ships.

To take an example to the extreme: You couldn't put the Enterprise-D phasers on Enterprise-A. You would just have to make too many changes and sacrafices to do it. I see X1 meshing (XP) with GW because it started out as a refit (or more a rebuild)for GW cruisers. As fleets go I see X1 and X2 mixing for a while but not the tech. on/of the ships.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 10:37 pm: Edit

Just for fun and to continue the analogy:

X1= the fruit from a graft on the old GW tree (like naval oranges)

X2= A new genetically engineered tree with new fruit.

:)

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 11:09 pm: Edit

I see X1 as using what technology was available and cramming it on the best existing hull design for maximum performance at the least cost. Sort of like slapping reactive armor on an M-60 series tank, which has it's roots back as far as 1940. X2, to me, is something developed from the ground up from lessons learned...sort of like the M1, which was vastly different than the M-60. X2 should be different, and that's fine. But different doesn't have to equate to unfairly powerful. Making it different while maintaining both balance and racial flavor is a tall order.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 01:26 am: Edit

Well put, Mike.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 01:37 am: Edit

I never seem to make short posts.
But here it goes.

----------

There are two types of ships, multi-role ships and warships.

Multi-role ships include just about everything built before Y165.
Warships include CW, NCA, DW, BCH.

The difference between the two types is that the multi-role ships have a lot more cruising range, and a lot of systems that don't really show up on the SSD (crew comforts, extra years' food supply, bowling alley, etc.)

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

X1 is the ultimate in pure warships. The ships were built for heavy combat, and anything that did not serve that purpose was stripped out. In the first X ships (Y181-Y184), the strategic speed was seen as just "oh that's nice".

X2 is the first multi-role ships built in 40 years. As such, they should have roughly the same number of SSD boxes as a pre-GW ship of the same MC.

However, no admiral is going to allow a brand new ship to be weaker than a 20 year old ship of the same MC or role.

To achieve both (size of a pre-GW, but more firepower than X1), there are going to be new systems and a total redesign from the keel up.

For example, one of my Fed XCA proposals had 6 ph-5 in the saucer but with FH, FA-L, FA-R arcs, and 2 RH ph-5 in the rear section.

----------

X2 should have new systems.

None of them should detract from the general feel of an SFB game. No thrust vectoring or massive reserve power. And that also means no X2 planet-crackers, er, maulers.

Some of them would be simply bigger, badder versions of existing heavy weapons, like the ph-5 or the Nuclear Blaster (see the Feb 13 X2 fusion thread) replacing the fusion beam.

Some of them are going to be new systems, although the wierd stuff should be left for Omega.

Many would be systems should require new tactics to be developed in order to use and defend against.

While complexity is part of what makes SFB, SFB, it should not be added to X2 lightly. Too much added complexity, and we end up with the Kzinti SSCS-led fleet syndrome, i.e., nobody wants to fly it more than once in a lifetime.

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

We've also been given a directive by the Steves that BPV for X2 should match up with X1 and X0 ships. (See X2 Playtest Reports, May 19,2003 archive, my post from February 22). But it means that ships need to be playtested against the standard squadrons from the X1 and X0 periods.

If a proposed Fed XCA turns out to have a 50/50 chance of defeating a D7W and two D5Ws (the standard CCH and NCA of the late GW period), then it is a 500 point ship and should be labeled as such.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 03:36 am: Edit

Quote:

I would like to address a MJC comment that it was OK for a XCA to be as complex as running a CX and a DDX together. Or words to that effect.

Speaking just for me, not it is NOT OK.

Not even remotely OK.

SFB is complex enough. We should never add to that complexity lightly.


If it wasn't for words to that effect I'ld give you a serve too.

The XCA in the FANTASY FORM which never come to pass has lower total numbers than the CX and DDX combined when talking about Caps and BTTYs.
So it's slightly easier.
Then there is the fact that it's one ship making the process easier still.
...And you know that's what I was indicating.


Quote:

I think trying to give a ship that much reserve capability is just begging for a ship that is back to one problem with a CX- It can walk and chew bubblegum and beat you over the head with a bat.


Are you really sure that as the rules currently stand a CX can chew gum, walk and beat you over the head with a baseball bat!?!
It seems to me that the way X1 currently stands...that is without Overloaded Phasers...X ships need to dump so much power into Heavies and EW that they have trouble maintaining battle speed.

Old X1s got their reputation by letting their heavies become B3 and B10 b{Phaser} FREE HITS...current X1s just can't compete that way.


Quote:

I don't want 500 point BPV cruisers. MJC does, it seems, and that's okay; hell, X2 may go that way, you never know.


I'm looking at 410...not 500...and I'm really into the idea of refits for the X2s so some of the earlier non refitted ships would be down around 320...not bad when the ISC CCX is 315...Atleast I think it's not a bad starting point.


Quote:

On the other hand, I think a vast majority of us can safely agree that a XCA that is as complex to run as two ships would probably be guilty of "complexity for its own sake" at some point.


Who's really saying that a XCA should be as complex, it should be a little easier.
But at 400 BPV of ship, should it really be easier to run than say 100 BPV made up of 2 FFs!?!
Get a grip...the XCA should about as complex as one ship of that BPV would be...maybe a little more because we are talking about HIGH TECHNOLOGY ships, but easier to run than it's own BPV made of 2 or more ships.

If easy record keeping is a must, take up warhammer.


Quote:

If X2 adds a new book the size of Basic Set, that is way too much stuff. Just play X1, and save yourself a headache.


What if it adds twice as many rules as X1...is that too much?

Heck, most of the X1 rules..now...are The rule that says ships can 4 is replaced with ships can 6...Not eactly huge numbers NEW rules.


Quote:

But different doesn't have to equate to unfairly powerful


Well there is this thing called BPV.


Quote:

X1 is the ultimate in pure warships. The ships were built for heavy combat, and anything that did not serve that purpose was stripped out. In the first X ships (Y181-Y184), the strategic speed was seen as just "oh that's nice".

X2 is the first multi-role ships built in 40 years. As such, they should have roughly the same number of SSD boxes as a pre-GW ship of the same MC.


Maybe not...maybe X1R is a good place for the waterdown ships, the CXs that were built to serve as multi-role ships instead of warships.


Quote:

If a proposed Fed XCA turns out to have a 50/50 chance of defeating a D7W and two D5Ws (the standard CCH and NCA of the late GW period), then it is a 500 point ship and should be labeled as such.


Amen Brother.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 10:48 am: Edit

Quote:

Well there is this thing called BPV.



Sigh. We know that. The point, which you seem to deliberately want to miss, is that most of us don't want excessively high BPV's. We're already looking at BPV's for X2 cruisers that approach that of battleships. That's just too high, IMHO. We do want X2 to be different, but that doesn't require that it be uber-ships with battleship BPV's.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 01:24 pm: Edit

I think that we may have gone too far with the capabilities.

If the X2 CA goes back to the pre Y165 era type of starship, i.e. a multipurpose starship, then maybe an X1 CA would be able to kill it. AN X1 CA is after all the Uber Crusier.

Commenting on MJCs take on X1. Without the Overloaded Phasers, they cannot kill a ship in one pass, this is a good thing. They did keep their double capacitor however, thanks to a few of us, and that makes them very dangerous for 2-3 turns. An X ship is still going to clean the clock of anything it goes up against.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 02:26 pm: Edit

MJC,

I apologize. I did distort your meaning, unintentionally. I should have quoted. Exact quote was:

XCA has slightly less book keeping than the sum of a CX and a DDX...and that seems fair.

That's still too much bookkeeping.

Everyone else has already said everything I would, so there's nothing else to add.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 02:46 pm: Edit

CFant said:

Quote:

If the X2 CA goes back to the pre Y165 era type of starship, i.e. a multipurpose starship, then maybe an X1 CA would be able to kill it. AN X1 CA is after all the Uber Crusier.



I disagree. No admiral is going to allow a cruiser to be built that is weaker than a 20 year old ship.

There are a lot of new gismos that would allow an XCA to have the same # of SSD boxes as a pre-GW CA, while still having (slightly) superior combat power compared to a CX.

Ph-5, SIF, special bridge, 45-50 points of warp, superior EW, etc.

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

Again, it comes down to what BPV do we want the XCAs to come in at. So I'm going to post to the BPV thread where we can sort that out. Please move BPV discussions to the BPV thread.

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

Quote:

Maybe not...maybe X1R is a good place for the waterdown ships, the CXs that were built to serve as multi-role ships instead of warships.



The X1R time period is the ISC War and early Andromedan War (Y186-Y195). (Tos' post, January 30, X2 Timeline thread)

During that time, the need is for firepower, not multi-role ships.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 11:31 pm: Edit

Quote:

An X ship is still going to clean the clock of anything it goes up against.



Not really.
With Type IVF ECM drones, I'ld put my money on a Klingon C7 rather than a Fed DDX ( the 10 extra BPV is a clue, but not enough to reach the 10% cut off ).
That +1 shift is going to have bigger effect on Photons than the +1 shift that the Fed X1 ship can get from a Type VIII ECM drone...and four B-racks is great defense againt 2X1G-racks.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 03:35 am: Edit

A C7 clocks in at 204 with all fast drones. A little less depending on the drones you carry. So, try something a little closer to 170.

Also, the DDX can generate up to 8 ECCM. So, the EW will not make much of a difference.

Try a CX vs a C7 with a G1. CX would win that fight.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 10:30 am: Edit

Cfant, With a Sensor Drogue the C7 can generate 8EW points on it's own. Add in the ECM Drone and...

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 11:50 am: Edit

But how much would it cost?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 11:48 pm: Edit

192 gives you all type IVF.
IVM drones wouldn't be that bad because the DDX goes so slow if it trys to full arm, and if it doesn't try to fully arm it's loosing out a heck of a lot...and IVMs are pretty good on a fixed map.
The Type IVM-a drones will play havoc with the drone defense of the DDX and the IVF-as are worse.
Even the IVF-XA can be bad news for the drone defenses of theDDX and these modules cost no BPV.

Indeed the ADD-12 is so good against the 2X1G-racks that the drone speeds of the B-racks becomes very unimportant.

Scatter packs of IVMs or even Vs coupled with a sucide tractor ( and the C7 has the power to pull that off ), will be murder on the DDX.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 08:03 am: Edit

Quote:

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.



No, I'm not making your point for you...I'm making mine. You continue to claim that caps to ssreo is necessary to protect X2 ships with less weapons from being stripped of their abilities because they have no A column protection on the DAC. You pointed this out very clearly in your description of the Gorn XCA, and how it would be rendered worthless because of its few weapons. Yet above, you refer the the Fed as having a 7th shield because of hull. Don't you think this trend in design would continue in X2? That Fed ships will still have more hull?

My point is that this "need" is an illusion, and illustrated it as so with the CA - D7 comparison. The CA with its 50% less phasers fares quite well against a D7. I see no reason that similarly designed X2 ships won't be balanced in the same way, without relying on caps-to-ssreo. In fact, giving both ships the same caps-to-ssreo ability does nothing to protect them against A column losses, since these occur after the shield is dropped and internals applied. Given the way reinforcement works (i.e., alloted in EA) you can't prevent hits against your ship once its gone. Caps-to-ssreo does nothing more than give the ships a substantial new power source for reinforcemnt, and that's all. It is not necessary to "protect" anyone's ship from A column hits. I understand that you like the notion of your idea. That's fair...we all have our pet ideas we'd like to see implemented. But everyone on this board that has weighed in on this topic has said they don't like it, and aren't interested, no matter how persuasively you argue...and frankly, these later arguments aren't very persuasive and are getting into bizarre territory. Just let it go, and lets all try to work on something else, shall we?

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 12:46 pm: Edit

The bottom line: Once an enemy punches through the allocated reinforcement, the shield, and the batteries, the ship should take internal damage.

I can see some races putting a pair of ph-6 in place of a ph-5 to pad against Mizia. But not all ships will do this (racial flavor and all).

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 03:44 pm: Edit

I'm staying out of this one. I'll go with the consensus. Personally I don't like any form of ASIF.

For game reasons and possibly having TPTB shoot it down because it might potentially draw Paramounts ire.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 08:26 pm: Edit

I just got an email from SVC

Quote:

I don't like caps to reo and don't like transferring damage from one shield to another.




Why do I get the feeling we're going to winde up with something truely weird like, 5 point BTTYs but the 4th point can only be spent on some kind of reo and the 5th point can only be spent on GSReo.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 08:34 pm: Edit

Reply moved to the caps-to-ssreo thread.

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