Archive through July 23, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: Major X2 tech changes...: Archive through July 23, 2003
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 09:39 pm: Edit

Were exactly does this lead both the Antimatter bomb anbd the SS?

If those weapons went up to say 3 points of damage per point of warp power and the energy T-bomb was set at four points of damage per point of warp then I might beleive it, but even at 2 and 3 I think it's too powerful ( and what effect does this have on the Photon? ).

The it's not moving justification will only account for a small amount of the difference between the weapons in a " real engineering " sense and so we either make a weapon that makes the game run funny or alters radiacally the game as it is and I don't think SVC will go for just turning up the SS & Antimatter bombs to 4 points of damage per point of warp just to make a really cool T-bomb come to pass for X2.


Now if it were, a T-bomb that requirted warp power and could funnel 2 points of war into it for upto 3 turns and did damage to the target of 2 points of damage per point of power placed in it.
And then had some other advantages like:-
It can be set to go off in the impulse after-the impulse after it was laid ( rather than 8 impulses latter ) and could go off if a ship of the right size class was detected inside it's detection zone ( even if that ship was going at speed zero ) or some other similar ability like, it had a timer that could be set for any number of impulses after it was transported ( which is cool as that will let it hit speed 0 ships aswell ).
If it was more advantaged than a T-bomb but no greater damage to power ratio than an SS then it would be okay.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 10:01 pm: Edit

MJC,

You have a good point. We may not wish to blur the line between mines and suicide shuttles.

I will disagree with one thing. Gameplay trumps "real engineering." It has to or the game won't sell.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 10:13 pm: Edit

How about arming T-Bombs like arming Probes. Use the same procedure and warheads. I like requiring Warp Power. Ya, I could see that.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 11:15 pm: Edit

Quote:

I will disagree with one thing. Gameplay trumps "real engineering." It has to or the game won't sell.


Agreed, but the gameplay already exists.
10 point T-bombs for no or 0.2 points of power is alrady in existance and already works fine as far as game play exists.
We can't uninvent T-bombs nor can we make a justification that one kind of anti-matter bomb be more effiecent than another without a call for a change to all the anti-matter bomb effiecencies.

If the Energised T-bomb did 3 points of damage per point of warp and Anti-matter bombs and SS went the same way then I'ld be fine with that but I don't think you'll get it past SVC, you can ask him if you like.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 11:51 pm: Edit

MJC

No, the infastruture for gameplay exists. The actual gameplay is dependent on how the systems function and interact.

We can design ships and systems that give good or poor gameplay using the same system.

For an easy non-SFB example, look at the Magic card game. Some cards make for terrible, unbalanced gameplay but most don't.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 07:11 pm: Edit

I'm beginning to change my view of X2 and how it progresses, myself. For my proposal, I may go with improvements that are more related to how the ship is built, rather than new rules or systems.

I started thinking about this in relation to what we saw in GW ship progression. Think about the Fed CA vs. the Fed NCL. Same weapons, but due to how the NCL is built, it gets better firing arcs. CA has forward and aft hull; the NCL, a uni-hull.

The same pattern can be seen with the Klingons. The D7 has less useable arcs than the D5, for example. So, I got to thinking that one of the lessons learned in the GW might be how a ship is constructed is more important than what it has on it.

This appeals to me personally on a variety of levels.

  1. It maximizes your potential for ship design because it isn't dependent on new systems or toys.
  2. It's economical; and for war-torn economies, this is important. Why build a bigger ship when simply re-desigining a more efficient one will do just as well?
  3. It prevents uber-tech ships with monster BPV's. Take the same number of boxes in a Fed CA, re-arrange them into a different hull with different arcs for the weapons, and you can get a MUCH better ship; all for the same "cost" in terms of resources.

Efficiency may be where I take my X2 stuff now. I'll still use advancements, of course; the P5 and P6, slight improvements to heavy weapons, an SIF of some kind, and Kenneths' version of the S-Bridge (no seeking weapon control) would all be included. A target BPV for the X2 CA would be around 300, tops...maybe a bit less for some races. I also have no plans to touch anything other than Y205, and the first X2 ships. Refits, Xork-busters, and the like can be done after those products are released and there's more to go on.

Now, if anyone is interested in seeing any of this or thinks this might be the way they want to go, too, lemme know. I'm happy to collaborate. I gotta warn you, though, that I may ditch certain racial traits. Feds may not have saucers; Klingons may not have weird firing arcs. They'll all still use the usual racial weapons, but the improvement I use might not be as exciting as those others will.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 07:31 pm: Edit

Mike, that's cool but I fear that if you change the basic outline designs of the ships good ideas might get looked over because of the shock of change. I suppose people might warm up to it but if say, Feds don't have Saucers or Klingons don't have booms some wont look past that.

Of course, I promise that I will. But we've always done that, I think.

I must say, after that, I'm very curious to see what you come up with.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 07:44 pm: Edit

Well, considering that the late war ships of the Feds have great Arcs, (FH,LS,RS) etc.

Still, I really don't want to see a Fed crusier that does not have a secondary hull, or something that is egg shaped.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 07:44 pm: Edit

It maximizes your potential for ship design because it isn't dependent on new systems or toys.
Sounds like X1R to me.


It's economical; and for war-torn economies, this is important. Why build a bigger ship when simply re-desigining a more efficient one will do just as well?
Sounds like X1R to me.


It prevents uber-tech ships with monster BPV's. Take the same number of boxes in a Fed CA, re-arrange them into a different hull with different arcs for the weapons, and you can get a MUCH better ship; all for the same "cost" in terms of resources.
Sounds like a X1R to me.
Indent If one had a pair of Fed CX engines coupled with a CX saucer that was acting like a DDX hull ( and had some slight changes to be more like the DDX hull, like placing Shuttle boxes in the saucer and an AWR refit in four of the labs ) and your MC jumped to 3/4.
Indent You'ld get this weapon that had four X1 photons, 2 X1 G-racks, 3RS PH-1s, 3 LS Ph-1s and four FX Ph-1s. You'ld get a Fed CMX, and it'ld truely kick but over over a DDX but be cheaper than a CX and have a higher battle speed than it.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 08:25 pm: Edit

"Sounds like X1R to me."

Perhaps it is. Many seem to be trending toward smaller Y205 improvements with the expectation of more radical improvement later in the timeline. MJC your ideas are generally sound but appear to skip an interim level of tech that many seem to desire.

What that interim level is called is not important. What is important is that Y205 ships start mild, get upgraded to spicy as the trade wars go on and upgraded again to extra hot when the Xorks show up. We need only concern ourselves with mild and spicy.

Many of MJC’s suggestions tend toward the extra hot. Others are beginning to trend toward a slower technological progression. I advocate giving both groups what they want by finding an appropriate place in the timeline for each.

MJC, are you willing to consider delaying your improvements until later in the timeline and working with us toward a more mild Y205 release?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 09:01 pm: Edit

X1R is simply something we on this board came up with to define later versions of 1X ships. If such a thing comes to pass, you will find that no X1R ship will use X2 weapons; mine will. No X1R ship will use new and different hull designs; mine will. No X1R ship is going to have an S-Bridge, an SIF, or any of the other 2X systems we've discussed...mine will.

Doesn't sound like X1R to me...it just sounds like a different approach to X2. SVC has opened the door to having new and different stuff. To me, we've focused on new and different systems, rather than new and different hull designs. I'm going to experiment with this, and see what I come up with.

I am shying away from the more powerful ideas we've tossed around. No shield shunting. No 24 point photons. No speed 48 plasmas. That kind of stuff, IMHO, is going to be too much.


Quote:

Well, considering that the late war ships of the Feds have great Arcs, (FH,LS,RS) etc.

Still, I really don't want to see a Fed crusier that does not have a secondary hull, or something that is egg shaped.



I agree on no egg shape; but, then again, I don't know what I'll do quite yet. However, as for Feds with no secondary hull, there are those in plenty. The DD, FF, DW, NCL, CL...the list goes on. Having a seperate saucer is by no means a requirement for a Fed design. I may use them, and I may not; it all just depends.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 09:16 pm: Edit

Mike, sure, there are lots of ships with no secondary hull, but there is no Heavy Crusier (with the exception of the NCA) that does not have one, and I would like to keep that part of it. Not that I want to mimic ST:TNG in any way, but I do like the form that the Enterprise always follwed, a Primary+Secondary with 2 warp engines.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 09:22 pm: Edit

There will likely be some like that in my designs...just not all of them. I guess I just don't want old stereotypes dictating how I work on X2. If different can mean what I plan to work on, then I need to be able to turn away from the typical and go with the atypcial. We'll see how it all turns out.

I'm not by any means downing anyone else's vision for X2, by the way; I'm just going a different route and seeing how it feels. You have to admit, up until now we've never considered just making different ship designs; we've been focusing on different weapons, systems, defenses, etc. I want to explore, and this is my way of doing it.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 09:33 pm: Edit

Quote:

MJC, are you willing to consider delaying your improvements until later in the timeline and working with us toward a more mild Y205 release?


Hmmmm, I had assumed that there was plenty of time in the period Y186 ( the last year of the X1 YISs ) and Y204, but I supose we could say the refits didn't come around until say, Y217-219.

The Entire Y190s is left devoid ships designs and that's the Andro camapign in a nutshell.

I'm sure X ships designs not requiring an outstanding crew and having slight technological improvements can be put in there.
Perhas those that like the Ph-5 so much could ask SVC how he feels about a hand full of X1R ships from say Y196 onwards actually having limited numbers of these new fangled phasers ( like the D7Z ( or was that the D7Y )) possibly mounted in place of heavy weapons in the experimental modles. Maybe some Y199 ships with trios of Ph-1s replaced by parts of Ph-5s on account of the need for maintaince crews to work on the phasers...maybe the modular parts and thus repair system of the Ph-5 didn't actually come about until the advent of the actual X2 ships. I'ld certainly be willing to see the rapid pulse of an X1 Ph-5 be diffferent to an X2 Ph-5.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 09:38 pm: Edit

Quote:

Having a seperate saucer is by no means a requirement for a Fed design. I may use them, and I may not; it all just depends.


If a CX had exactly the same SSD boxes and firing arcs but was on a ship that was the shape of a hammer head shark, would it opperate any differently.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 09:39 pm: Edit

Ya know, modular design has a lot of merit.

Not that I want to see lots of ships like Romulan Hawks, or HDWs running around.

Morea like ships that can all use the same spare parts, from XFFs all the way up to XCCs. If there was a commen saucer for the Feds, a standard boom for the Klinks, etc. Something that would go towards showing how these ships were all lower maintenence, and how a crew working on a XFF could be reassigned to an XCM with minimum down time for learning curve.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 09:40 pm: Edit

MJC, no if would opearate the same, but it would not be a Federation Cruiser.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 09:59 pm: Edit

What Mike is going to do is at least health for this discussion. It is valuable to look at X2 from all directions. Think up exciting or goofy stuff and in the end the opposit might happen. The Goofy turns out cool and the exciting turns out stupid or too powerful. There is currently no time limit on this the X-Files discussion. I for one feel its good to entertain new ideas. We've already hashed out the current path. Lets toss out some others.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 10:00 pm: Edit

Cfant,

A mpdular system would have to be careful in implemtation. Too many modular bits and everybody looks like a Rom or a Seltoran.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 10:12 pm: Edit

Modular reapir systems could just be something written into the R section, I know I don't need an E3/4X and C7X both using the same boom section.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 10:18 pm: Edit

Quote:

If a CX had exactly the same SSD boxes and firing arcs but was on a ship that was the shape of a hammer head shark, would it opperate any differently.



Yes, it could...which is the point. If you had, say, four phaser 1's with an FH arc, and two each with FAL and FAR, you'd get better coverage and a much better oblique attack. All the hull would be C-hull; again, a better design feature. This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Such a ship would have all the same systems, but by arranging them in a more advantageous manner, you get a better ship.

And before anyone asks, I promise there will be no hammerhead shark shaped Feds.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 10:34 pm: Edit

Quote:

And before anyone asks, I promise there will be no hammerhead shark shaped Feds.


Now Klingons on the other hand...

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 10:36 pm: Edit

MJC: No, Wyn ships...

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 11:36 pm: Edit

"I had assumed that there was plenty of time in the period Y186[-Y204 period.]"

Unfortunately Y186-Y202 has an established history.

There is a dearth of new ship designs, something X1R and XP can address, but changes cannot be so radical as to shift the balance of power too far against the Andros. The later we go in the time period the more flexability we have.

Y217 refits give us a good amount of time for a nice low intensity trade war. After Y217 it won't be quite as critical to retain parity with GW era ships.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 11:52 pm: Edit

I think you've got something, Tos.

We've just about got the history for X1R (early Andy War), XP (Late Andy War), X2 (The Trade Wars), X2R (More Trade Wars), and X3 (The Xork Invasion) outlined enough to be submitted.

About the only thing we don't have is ship designs and playtest reports.

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