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 John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 05:36 pm: Edit

My attitude is that concern for BPVs tends to put the cart before the horse.

I think we make the best ships then peg a BPV value for them.

Not to take the wind out of anyone's sails, but I don't have much use for a BPV benchmark for an average XCA. the only use BPV has at this degree of brainstorming is to peg the boundary of what is reasonable vs. unreasonable. If the BPV goes above X...er...N it's too much.

I think we can all agree that a XCA with a BPV above 400 is too good. After that, it's a minor issue.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 08:43 pm: Edit

Quote:

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.


That's an interesting question.

EP of F&E is a better indicator of the ecconomic value of ships.

But basically put, there's a bunch of ships yars which are size class 4. They just can't build a cruiser and they put their price down to remain competative.
The handful of ships yards capable of building a cruiser know they've cornered the market and engaging in some price profitiering...the Ships yard able to build a DN positivly price gouge.

For these ecconomic reasons the price is cheaper on the Destroyers and Frigates than it is on the cruisers by quite a lot.

But shopping around on ship yards and shipping materials to them in out of the way little places and sending out your surveyors practically everyday because it's been 20 years since that shipyard got given a military contract windes up taking more out of that Empire's ecconomy and so the final consuption rate of the Ecconomy's Ability to Place Effort into Starship Construction, windes up being about the same but the actual value in creadits is cheaper. The Ecconomic BPV reflects the E.A.P.E.S.C value more than it does actual moneys...wartime inflation and all that makes those kinds of measure as they say in the stock market, volatile.


Quote:

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.


Here's my take.
with a 50% increase in Phaser numbers ( or output ) and an increase in what the BTTYs can hold and a drone speed increase and on some ships a heavy weapons increase ( 4 Disruptors to 6 is 50% ); the X2 ships that come in at 320 can be pushed up to 385, so we can please both camps, those that want X2 ships to only be able to go toe to toe with the ISC CCX and those that want it to be far better, it's all a matter of which year you set the fight.


Quote:

I fail to see anyway to balance this.


As far as I can tell, the same old and new fangled can easily find compromise, Conjectual ships...if the Feds come up with a hammerhead shark shaped XCA and all the RULES work on it the same way as the regular ships, you can list is as conjectual, or even as a one off prototype and please everybody.
It's the rules and the BPV that are really under debate here.


Quote:

My attitude is that concern for BPVs tends to put the cart before the horse.

I think we make the best ships then peg a BPV value for them.


Yeap.


Quote:

Not to take the wind out of anyone's sails, but I don't have much use for a BPV benchmark for an average XCA. the only use BPV has at this degree of brainstorming is to peg the boundary of what is reasonable vs. unreasonable. If the BPV goes above X...er...N it's too much.


I don't even think that's right.
If it really is more expensive than a BB but is as easy and fun to play as an X1 cruisers, then why bother says it'll never conme to pass on account of the BPV, if that BPV is warrented.

Even with an XBB comming in at say 1750 BPV, would it really matter if some play group picked up a copy of a CL and pulled out a battleforce 1750 from the pages and played against and the battle was fair and even and everybody had fun?

Look at that monster in CL 1 ( or was it CL 2 ), there's a lot of people who say, how does that thing get away with Ph-4s without positional stabalisers and there's a lot of poeple who just, say, friggin' `eck, I'm really going to need 3 cruisers to take this thing down.

Same with X2, if people don't like the fact that an XCA will be up against 3 GW cruisers, that's okay, they can just take an XFF against a single GW cruiser.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 08:53 pm: Edit

You're forgetting marketability. SVC and the powers that be at ADB want an X2 they can sell. If it's full of monster ships that it will take three GW cruisers to whip, alot of people won't want it.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 09:08 pm: Edit

What's a monster ship!?!

I mean if the XCA takes three GW cruiser to have a fair fight...

And the XDD ( the backbone of the NEW FLEET ) takes a CX to have a fair fight...

And the XFF has a fair fights with one GW cruuisers...

As refits terrain and CO Items set the balance correctly with reguards to the situation...

Then what's so unmarketable!?!...except to those players who wouldn't buy an advanced technology module...period.


There's something in there for every one, if people want a quick duel, they do an XFF Vs GW CA-NCA battle, if people want a faily good Duel they take an XDD against a CX, if people want a battle their play group can sink their entire collective teeth into then they take an XCA Vs 3 GW cruiser task group.
Indent I think there's something in there for everybody, really...it's just a matter of making sure people know that this is how they can set their level of WORK.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 09:13 pm: Edit

What's a monster ship? A cruiser with BB like abilities, that's what. The Juggernaut scenario pits two CC's and a CA against the monster; that's alot of BPV. I can't see an X2 cruiser being that dangerous without it being too much.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 09:13 pm: Edit

I tend to agree, which is why I set a 400 BPV "you gotta be kiddin'" limit. I think it will be hard and pointless to keep X2 out of the 300's. Iexpect the Xork-era X2 ships will break 300 with room to spare.

I'm fine with 205-era X2 ships being more or less equivalent to X1 ships of the same SC, with X2 really showing its teeth later in life.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 09:15 pm: Edit

300 is fine. There are X1 ships with BPV's that high as it is. 400 is NOT fine, at least not to me. I know I'm only one vote, but that's how I see it.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 09:23 pm: Edit

If 400 if fun and easy to play then I don't really see it as being a problem.

A 400 BPV GW vessel is a lot of work to play.
A 400 BPV X2 vessel shouldn't be anywhere near as much work to play.


But that's beside the point.

If the XDD is the backbone of each fleet and they come in, in the 220-270 range depending on refits, what does it matter what the cruisers are like?...the players that don't want more than 300 BPV of GW work will agree by mutual consent that they want a 270 BPV game or a 220 BPV game and the X2 player will pick a ship that suits, specifically an XDD.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 09:52 pm: Edit

400 in NOT fine.

300 is fine.

MJC, why is the XDD the backbone of the Fleet? I have not agreed with that. I don't think it even makes sense.

The backbone of the fleet is going to be GW and X1 ships, not any X2 ship.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 10:06 pm: Edit

My vision of things is that the work horses would be the XCM/XCL and XFFs. XDD taking on the lighter roles not requiring the XCM/XCL. Additionally for the XDD there is the role of Battle Support. When a XCC goes in to retake a system that is being held by force a squadron including one or two XDD would be expected.

The discussion we had a long time ago about BPV was a good thing to have for a general target to start aiming at. But we've gone mostly beyond that. BPV must not define anthing. If it does, I suspect the results would be useless. The results of the old discussion gave way to a general limit so we know what area to fall in. The big generalizations would be: SMALLER THAN X1, ABOUT THE SAME AS X1, HIGHER THAN X1, MUCH HIGHER THAN X1.

Most of us chose "Higher than X1" and to mean a logical progression in BPV but as low as possible while still including the X2 feature set.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 10:08 pm: Edit

Cfant,

SVC has been quoted as sayign that X2 will be the new production tech, which means at some point yes it will be the backbone.

Whether that chore falls to the XDD or not, is another matter. I tend to favor the XCA.

Why is 400 not fine?

Remember, this is the threshold for "too powerful". If the BPV approaches or exceeds 400, it would be presumed something is wrong (at least this is how I posed the figure). It is NOT intended an an "average XCA" benchmark. At least not by me.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 10:25 pm: Edit

John T: Ya. Ditto.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 10:27 pm: Edit

X2 will become the new backbone when it has been around for 20 years, but not in 205.


Because at 400 the ship is larger and more powerful than a fully fitted out B10KA. It is not a crusier anymore. It is huge.

The ISC CCX at around 315 should be the ballpark for the X2 crusiers. 315-350, as much as I don't like it, should be an average cost for these things.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 10:43 pm: Edit

CFant: It's the effectiveness of the X2 tech. that makes it cost so much, not its actual size. You seem to indicate that at 400 BPV that means it will be the size of a B10 and so not a cruiser. If that were the case I would agree but its not (at least as far as most of the proposals I've seen). They’re still cruisers but very capable cruisers.

A real world example would the Arleigh Burk DD vs. the USS Missouri. The Missouri would put up a good fight but the DD might well win the battle.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 10:44 pm: Edit

If I were setting benchmarks, I find I like Y205 XCAs as being equal-but-different to X1. Maybe a little higher at 275-300.

The XBCH's of Y225 would probably tip the scales at 350-375.

I really think we have to differentiate the time period we're talking about.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 10:48 pm: Edit

Loren,

I'm sorry, but take for example the fully refitted New Jersey. That one would be the comparison. That ship could still knock just about anything out of the water.

400, no matter what you do to it, will be a Battleship firepower. That is unacceptable to me.

The max firepower on the 205 XCA (which is the only thing we should be talking about) should be around that of the ISC CCX. That means somewhere between 275 and 315.

I would be happy with that.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 10:57 pm: Edit

Quote:

MJC, why is the XDD the backbone of the Fleet? I have not agreed with that. I don't think it even makes sense.


There's a reason why I said backbone of the NEW FLEET.

At a certain point Farming out GW hulls and attrition of the others and production gearing entirely to X1 & X2 ( after X1 ships become availible for purchase in F&E with EP instead of XP ) will mean that the Backbone of the fleet will be the XDD...for a considerable period before then the BACKBONE of the X2 Squardons will be the XDD.

We don't need FULL ON ASSAULT Cruisers for the General war, we need cheap multi-role ships that can put up a good fight against pratically everything without being overgunned.


The XDD with a CX firepower is just what you need in a picket vessel in the X2 period.
Indent If the enemy sends a CVA group it's too slow and you can out run it, get a message off to a base and the Admiralty can orgainse a responce.
Indent If the enemy sends an X1 Squardon then you can out run it and get a message off so that the Admiralty can organise a responce.
Indent If the enemy tries to slip an XFF or a DDX or FFX into your territory to mess around with your internal commercial shipping then you can repulse it.
Indent If the enemy tries to send an XDD through your lines, the enemy won't try it because the he's taking a 50-50 chance.
Indent If the enemy tries to send an XCA ( or X2 Squardon ) well you're screwed, unless you can get that XCA to follow you to the nearest starbase ( that doesn't require changing cause such that the XCA can close range with you ) or CVA group...but the Admiralty in having put XDDs on the Picket instead of XCAs have saved enough money to build a small X2 Squadron of Rapid Responce Reserves so once you fail to report in, or your transmission is recieved they can go and stop the enemy with a full X2 Squadron.


Quote:

Remember, this is the threshold for "too powerful". If the BPV approaches or exceeds 400, it would be presumed something is wrong (at least this is how I posed the figure). It is NOT intended an an "average XCA" benchmark. At least not by me.


Perhaps refits are too ingrained into my mentality.

If we have 300 BPV XCAs and 400 BPV XCA+s, then people can just choose the ship that they feel suits the level of bookkeeping/complexity/playtime/work that they are looking for.


Quote:

Because at 400 the ship is larger and more powerful than a fully fitted out B10KA. It is not a crusier anymore. It is huge.


It's not huge, IT'S POWERFUL...and that's okay considering we are two tech levels ahead of the GWs.


Quote:

The ISC CCX at around 315 should be the ballpark for the X2 crusiers. 315-350, as much as I don't like it, should be an average cost for these things.


Everyone should be in or around the 300-330 BPV at Y205 ( or the YIS of their first X2 cruiser ) so that everyone has a pretty good shot of taking down an ISC CCX with their shinning new cruiser.

Where BPV takes you from there could be 380-410, or even 350-385...the final X2 cruiser should be a pretty good match for a CX & DDX combined.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 11:09 pm: Edit

Quote:

The XBCH's of Y225 would probably tip the scales at 350-375.

I really think we have to differentiate the time period we're talking about.


Funny, I would have said the Y202 BCHXs would tip the scales at those same numbers...well 330-350.


Saw a picture about two years ago from the Jane's Website, it was a serise of what one of the Torpedoes from one of the colins class Subs did in about 1 second to an old DDG.
The destroy practically lept right out of the water and brock it's back with that single hit.

A Tomahawk missile with an atomic warhead screws even the WWII battleships.
That's not to say that anyone in their right mind would use such a weapon but the point is that armour no longer has any value.
Worse still just about any DDG can sit at about 50 Nautical Miles away from the battleships and glug it with abouyt 40 Tomahawks with standard warheads before those big guns get in range...sure the Missiles mounted on the Battle ships can do likewise and more to the FFGs, but how many tonnes of steel went into the FFGs!?!


Quote:

The max firepower on the 205 XCA (which is the only thing we should be talking about) should be around that of the ISC CCX. That means somewhere between 275 and 315.

I would be happy with that.


It's unlikely that the Admiralty would fail to feild cruiser that can not consistant take on the ISC CCX well, the XCAs should start at 300-330 and be refitted to be better as the trade wars find themselves un able to remain under the restrictions of THE treaty.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 11:11 pm: Edit

Cfant,

Then we agree. The limits I'd propose are even a little more conservative.

I would stress that 400 is the threshold for "too powerful" not the average. I would set the average for Y225 at 350-375

I would add that 350 would be the Y205 threshold for "too powerful."

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 11:15 pm: Edit

John T.

Indeed.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 11:16 pm: Edit

CFant: Well, one of the things about X2 is not 400BPV of fire power but a higher durability/suvivability through various support systems.

Note: I'm only using 400BPV because that is the BPV that started the example. I want BPVs similar to yours (though my XCCs I guessed at 325'ish I really don't know what they would be).

Like I said: Low as possible while retaining the X2 feature set.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 11:17 pm: Edit

MJC,

What treaty? There is no treaty.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 11:18 pm: Edit

Quote:

I would stress that 400 is the threshold for "too powerful" not the average. I would set the average for Y225 at 350-375


I would say let's build a 300-330 XCA in Y205 and then see where the refits fall as they may.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 11:18 pm: Edit

I would like to see this:

XCA: 285-315
XCC: 300-335

Nothing higher than 350 at all.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 11:21 pm: Edit

Quote:

What treaty? There is no treaty.


The Treaty Tos came up with in the Timeline thread low these many moons gone by.

It's one of the few things that is even close to any semblance of consensus.

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