Archive through July 21, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 General Systems: Archive through July 21, 2003
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 10:00 pm: Edit

Quote:

Thinking about 2X labs. For starters, what about a +1 bonus on die rolls for gathering info, and a -1 on "labbing" rolls? Are there other things a 2X lab should do?


Ummm, sure.

How about Labs collecting data through special sensors collect 20 points of Scientific Information each...that'll reflect the great advances and improvements in the number of dection divices and sensors.
It'll also carry on the effects of the Probe improvement, with reguuard to game preception...I mean I'm not sure but own BPV is going up a lot and if scientific information collection remains pretty static then these ships are dead in the water.


I also think that the longer mission durations should be reflected by an increase in the number of Lab Boxes, 4 becomes 8, 8 becomes 12 and so on...a 50% increase in numbders...rounded up probably...because the ships will have a massive BPV making BPV based monsters much more powerful for the X2 ships to deal with.


Quote:

I'd rther not bother with intergenrational complexities, such as IDIng X! and GW drones easier. They could easily end up as KISS violations over issues of rather small importance.


Additionally having a MUST PLAY NICE WITH GW restriction means that free or cheaper IDs levelled specifically at non X2 drones are a little bit of a no no.


Quote:

The one thing we might want to implement is a kind of "Drone Tac Intel" table that gives the ship some vague idea of what mods the drone has.


Boosted drones might give off a radar signature that is a different form, and external modules might also give off a different form...and extended range tanks might give off a different radar form, and X2E-racks probably can't launch Type VIII so knowing that the drone came from that rack and seeing that it is targeted on you makes it a Type VII almost for certain...although it could be a type IX launched to trick you.


Note X1 labs already get a Mod to scientific information but not to ID rolls.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 09:54 pm: Edit

Where do people stand on how many systems should be integrated into the X2 ships?


I think alot of them should be because I don't think that any of them are very much more BPV than the ship it'self.


I for one wouldn't put an A.S.I.F. ( if is fails to protect weapons ) at more than about 8% of the BPV of the ship.

I wouldn't put Full Aegis at more than about 7% more of the ship's BPV than X-aegis already is and that includes the drone ID ability.

I wouldn't put the bridge as special sensor at more than about 25 BPV.


I wouldn't put 24 point Photons at more than about 5% more BPV than the 12 point fastloads even if it did have 16 point fastloads.

I wouldn't put 8Ph-5s as any more BPV than 12Ph-1s and I might have it slightly less.

I wouldn't make 48 warp engine boxes and matching shields to be more than 15% more BPV than the X1 ships already are.

I wouldn't make the speed changes ( including speed 32 and Warp Tacs on Impulse 1 ) more than about 2% of the BPV of the ship.


If we start with an X1 CX base line our 240 BPV gets shuntted up to:-
240 x 1.08 x 1.07 x 1.05 x 1 x 1.15 x 1.02 + 25
366 BPV.

And those are very generous numbers that didn't factor in the reduction due to the fact that 8 phaser hits will hurt one of these ships more than it will an X1 ship, and the drone racks which didn't change in Y205 got more expensive as though they were Photons, even though they didn't.

Since the X2 Klingon will return to 4 Disruptors instead of 6, the Klingon cruiser gets even cheaper (although it won't get the 8Ph-5 discount).


I say not only can we have ships that have most of our X2 ideas, but in order to meet the projected BPVs, we must!

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 10:24 pm: Edit

MJC, I think that 366 for a crusier is INSANE.

I would like to see the Fed XCA come in around 300 BPV or LESS.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 10:31 pm: Edit

If the refits push the ship up to 410 then I'm fine, and considering only the BTTY, the Phasers and the drone types, would get a refit on the Fed XCA, I don't see it skipping past the mark.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 10:33 pm: Edit

The B-10 is 384 maxed out.

It was 170 years of development to get to that point.

Calling a 400 BPV ship a crusier is nuts.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 10:39 pm: Edit

Ok, consider this.

A CX is about 240 BPV. It is equvilent to the DNG in command abilities and about the same combat wise.

The XCA is supposed to be a multi-role ship, desigend to explore and defend itself and be low on maintenence.

So, should the XCA be able to defeat the CX? The CX being the best WARSHIP built in the GW?

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 10:45 pm: Edit

What would be wrong with an XCA that has a BPV of about 250-275 that has the following:

4xPhotons (20 point max, 14 point fastloads)
8xP5 (2xFH,2xLS,2xRS,2x360)
2xP6 (2x360)
2xGX-racks.

46xWarp
4xImpulse
2xAWR
5x4-Point Battery

Shields: 40,36,36,36,36,36.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 10:48 pm: Edit

Am I really the only person that has a problem with building a crusier the size of a battleship?

Especially since the XCA will be built around 205, only 25 years after the first CX rolled off the assembly line.

Why is it that in those 25 years, when the economy of all the races is trash, and they have been fighting the ISC and the Andromedans, that they can make a huge technology leap and create such an uber-starship?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 11:05 pm: Edit

Quote:

The XCA is supposed to be a multi-role ship, desigend to explore and defend itself and be low on maintenence.

So, should the XCA be able to defeat the CX? The CX being the best WARSHIP built in the GW?


Well yes, it should be able to beat a CX handiliy.

No Admiral of the X2 period is going to spend a single credit on a cruiser that can't go toe to toe with the ISC CCX.

Indeed one should be looking at all the X2 design being able to do all the GENERAL WORK it will have put before it AND go toe to toe with an X1 vessel of one category better than it.

Since an X2 Destroyer will cost less than an X1 Cruiser to build (once R&D costs are paid for ) and will have a higher strategic speed, you'ld be nuts not to, if you could, build an XDD that can go toe to toe with a CX...the only possible drawback being money, which the XDD is already saving you by being merely a destroyer.

The Fed DDX can go through a C7 for a reason, the Admiralty know that as a picket vessel, it can stand up to whatever single ship ( short of a Klingon DX or DXD cruiser ) the enemy can throw up at it and/or outrun whatever fleet/task-group tries to break your lines.


If you can intercept an enemy ship and bring as much firepower to bear as the enemy has but on a smaller ( read cheaper in creadits not BPV ) ship then you're comming out on top, you'll win a few and loose a few but be spending less money on the defense of your territory....with that higher strategic speed, you'll need to make fewer deposits of reserves to support your front line vessels and that will allow you to defend with fewer ships saving you even more money.


Having a DDX firepower on an XDD would just be asking for ships that can only retreat...but be friggin' good at it.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 11:08 pm: Edit

And before you say that the X2 ships are not being designed in the X2 in TOTAL WAR, the frontier nature of the outer worlds will make the need for good picket ships even greater...do you really want smuggler s and pirate comming and going as they please!?!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 11:14 pm: Edit

Quote:

Why is it that in those 25 years, when the economy of all the races is trash, and they have been fighting the ISC and the Andromedans, that they can make a huge technology leap and create such an uber-starship?


The Brits during World War II had nothing they could really put their ecconomy into...they hadn't the man power not the inducstrial capasity to mount a D-Day style invasion, so they sunk a lot of money into something the could do.
CODE BREAKING.


Military R&D during times of war gets it's funding cut after the citizens have had their milk ration dropped.

Consequently there will be a lot of technological advances in the development of ship systems and weapon during the 25 odd years from the launch of the first CX to the advent of the X2 vessels.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 11:24 pm: Edit

Cfant,

MJC has a point here.

With X1 ships tipping the scales at the mid-250s after the CL 23 rules change, there isn't much room for improvement if you want to keep them under 300.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 11:34 pm: Edit

Refits? Who said anything about refits for X2? Or are you talking about post-Xork ships, MJC?

BPV: X1 comes in at 240-250 for most ships, vs. 150-175 for late GW. For X2 to make a similar leap, you're looking at about 325-350. 410 is right out.

Multi-role: No X2 cruiser should have equal or less firepower than an X1 ship of the same MC. But, there are ways of getting more bang for the buck. Or, more bang for the box, as the case may be. The ph-5, the ASIF (as if), the 48 box engines, improved EW, etc.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 11:36 pm: Edit

CFant: I'm proposing that the XCM (which is a MC1 cruiser, bigger than a Light Cruiser, should be on about equal par with a CX. But the XCC is the ship of the era and should be the top gun. HOWEVER, I don't want to see it be bigger (BPV that is) than the B10K or B11. This ship should raine supreme (until possibly a Xork War refit but that's beyond the scope of this conversation).

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 11:44 pm: Edit

I fully admit that wartime brings great technological advances.

However, why would you not develop on X1 more instead of scrapping it and suddenly coming up with all these things in a VERY short period.

If you follow the BPV advances......

CARa+ - 143
CC - 149 +4%
CB - 162 +9%
BCG - 180 +10%
CX - 240 +25%

XCA - 300 +20%, 315 +25%

I really think that you can't justify more than 315 for this new ship. At 366 that is a 35% increase and larger than anything else done in the GW.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 11:47 pm: Edit

Loren, I am obviously in the minority, but I just don't want to see a crusier as big as the B10K. The biggest a crusier should get in my opinion is about the size and capability of a DNH.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 11:52 pm: Edit

Now, I could see an X2 Dreadnought being the cost of a B10K/B11.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 12:00 am: Edit

CFant: Two things...

1) It has been said that X2 can be all new things and refered to as the New Big Thing in Starship Design. It has been also said that the BCH could not get X-Tech because of various problems but that eventually these problems were solved and that's what X2 is. By that I mean, all this X-Files stuff may be for not and X2 will simply be the BCH X'ed out.

2) Frankely, we here are all a minority since all of us put together represent a very small percentage of SFB players. Each of our views probably represents more than our own so you, loging you point of view is important. This open forum is better if it faces critism so long as it is substantiated. I mean, a "Your idea sucks" with no reason given isn't helpful but your comments are not that. Indeed, I modified some of my own view because of your comments. Just remember that these are initial discussions and haven't stood up to playtesting (much). Playtesting could prove or disprove many ideas.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 06:45 am: Edit

Quote:

Refits? Who said anything about refits for X2? Or are you talking about post-Xork ships, MJC?


I am oddly enough from a small school within our number who see X2 ships as being limited by some kind of treaty or other, with races building their best new design ships with either 12Ph-1s as the Phaser suite or 8Ph-5s.
Indent The designers knew that they could build ships with 12Ph-5s but built the way they built because they were restricted by the Treaty, thus there were refits built directly into each ship's design, ready to be acted upon if ( or more accurately when ) the treaty broke down.
Indent Eventually the trade wars became too hot and everybody broke the treaty ( starting with a trickle and then becoming a torrent ) and every race started mounted 12Ph-5s as their phaser suite.

That school of thinking is what gives us the refits.


Quote:

For X2 to make a similar leap, you're looking at about 325-350. 410 is right out.


That's not true if you're looking at 125 to 240...but even I wouldn't say the jump was that much.
A CARa+ is 145 BPV and a Fed CX is 240 which is jump of 61%. Another jump of that magnitude is 386...which ain't to far from 410 and is actually probably correct to fight a Fed CX & DDX because of the force dynamics advantage; the single X2 vessel has over ythe pair of X1s...our original basis of design was, a XCA should fight fairly fairly with a CX and DDX.


Quote:

I really think that you can't justify more than 315 for this new ship. At 366 that is a 35% increase and larger than anything else done in the GW.


315 should be the starting point for the X2 cruisers as it's kinda silly to feild X2 cruisers that can't go toe to toe with an ISC X1 Command Cruiser.


Quote:

I just don't want to see a crusier as big as the B10K.


I'ld be happy to see an X2 cruiser with the BPV of a B11 so long as it was fast and easy to play, and so long as that was the top end of what the design was capable of.


Quote:

Now, I could see an X2 Dreadnought being the cost of a B10K/B11.


I could see a DNX at the price of a B11 ( well maybe B10 ).
An XDN would probably figth fairly with a DOM...so I actually hope that one never comes to pass...although an XCVA might be fun as a stellar shodows SSD.


Quote:

I mean, a "Your idea sucks" with no reason given isn't helpful


I think there's something in that for all of us really.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 08:08 am: Edit

Quote:

However, why would you not develop on X1 more instead of scrapping it and suddenly coming up with all these things in a VERY short period.



The BCHX, DNX, CCHX, NCAX, and to some extent CCX designs are going to really fill up a lot of the X1R SSD book. Although they'll probably be NCAX, CCHX and DNX as BCHX probably stresses the hull too much and nobody really needs two command cruiser designs.

Oddities like the single engine Fed DDX, the Fed CLX and the Rom FALX mauler can only go so far.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 08:29 am: Edit

MJC keeps talking about how a XDD should cost less than than a CX, in credits but not BPV. I was under the impression that BPV represented the economic cost of a vessel as well as the combat power. Unless you plan on coming up with split BPV's for all of these ships, your XDD that can beat a CX most of the time is going to be more costly, in both senses, than the CX.

Personally, I think you are on the wrong track trying to make bigger/badder/better ships, and I'm with the guy who posted a month or so ago that if your 300-400 BPV X2 ideas get published, I can't see ever using them.

Of course, I seldom get to drop even 180 bpv on the table, so that could have something to do with it. :)

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 08:58 am: Edit

Here's my take on this. You can argue that following the curve makes it possible to build 350 point cruisers for X2. However, there is nothing saying we have to do this. Keeping the BPV's equal to or maybe slightly greater than X1 doesn't bother me.

Now, the problem is this. You have a certain group of people that want to retain the same exact racial flavor from previous generations...i.e., no major changes. Feds still have saucers, Klingons still have booms, everyone uses basically the same design they've used for years. Got it? Call them "A".

You also have a segment of the BBS that wants X2 to be different...but not more powerful. Just different, with new toys and the like. Call them "B."

A third group wants X2 to be no more powerful than X1, or at least only slightly more so. Call these guys "C".

I fail to see anyway to balance this. Example: A photon torpedo that does nothing different than X1, but uses a 2D6 chart to compensate for EW.

Segment "A" screams immediately that a 2D6 photon table is a non-starter, because it isn't the same as it always has been. Segment "B" says, "well, maybe." And segment "C" doesn't like it, either.

So, we go with a bigger photon warhead...forget accuracy, says A. A photon is a crunch weapon. So, we get 20 or 24 point overloads. Now segment B says "that's no fun, 'cause it's just a bigger photon." Segment C agrees, saying it's just too big.

So C says "leave them the same as in X1". A and B quail at this and respond that "it's just warmed-over X1 if you do that...what's the point?"

This has basically been the pattern through all these discussions since day one. I remember posting a hypothetical Fed ship with phaser arcs at FA+L/FA+R and FH, instead of the normla FH/RS/LS. The outcry was immediate and stentorian from the "A" crowd that felt it wasn't "Fed like". Just because of phaser arc changes!!!

The point of this rant? We'll never all agree. Never. At this point, people are just going to have to either work on their own submissions, or team up with someone that thinks the way they do. It's the only way we'll ever get anywhere.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 10:56 am: Edit

I'll have to agree with Mike here.

The various factions will have to work on their ideas. And then do some real playtesting.

AFTER we have a couple rounds of playtesting then we can make a real stab at bringing various ideas into balance.

Plus we have little idea what SVC/SPP would want. So a broad range of thoughtful material that we have done some honest playtesting on. Would be the best chance of seeing something come of all this.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 12:04 pm: Edit

Maybe, SVC and SPP will read this whole X-Files mess but it would be far simpler for them to review concise proposals from each faction.

Mike, you and I have been in agreement on that post since...well, quite a while but you did put it quite well just now.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 04:00 pm: Edit

"Am I really the only person that has a problem with building a crusier the size of a battleship?"

Not the only one. Not even in the minority from what I can tell. Keep the faith.

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