Archive through July 25, 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 25, 2003
By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 12:24 am: Edit

I think there should be a number of refits, not just one magic year. Just like the MY and GW period.

Everything we change and upgrade through X2 should have its own introduction date.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 09:18 am: Edit

Of course. But remember that these refits will probably violate the treaty and will have to be undertaken quietly. The first 10ish years of the trade wars should be refit free as each empire invests in building new X2 classes to the maximum allowed by treaty.

I don't want to see the Feds get six new ship classes in Y205. Spread out the YIS dates a little.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 12:22 pm: Edit

Bring X2 out similarly to the way X1 came out. The dates will be so close for each race because of Galactic events.
Prototypes of say two classes in Y204. The second Prototypes in Y205 and begin full production. Introduce new classes over the next couple years and by Y208 every class is in production. By Y215 X2 coposes 20% - 30% of the Fleets.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 09:38 pm: Edit

Quote:

an SIF of some kind, and Kenneths' version of the S-Bridge (no seeking weapon control) would all be included.



By the way, I didn't want anyone to misunderstand this; it was Loren that came up with the S-Bridge concept. I just preferred the list of abilities Kenneth felt it should have. I personally don't want the generic X2 ship to have scout sensor-like seeking weapon controls.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 09:53 pm: Edit

Quote:

Of course. But remember that these refits will probably violate the treaty and will have to be undertaken quietly. The first 10ish years of the trade wars should be refit free as each empire invests in building new X2 classes to the maximum allowed by treaty.

I don't want to see the Feds get six new ship classes in Y205. Spread out the YIS dates a little.


I think certain things won't be covered by the treat...like drone warhead modules so if the drone warhead modules jump from 6 points of damage per half space to 8, our Type VIIs will go from 18/6/32 to 24/6/32 but that probably won't break the treaty so every race can just go right ahead and do it.

I think no one will be able to get away with the refits for long...I actually think it'll be the Klingons and their Boom/E-rack, refit who'll be the only ones who think they can get away with refitting by subterfugue...and that refit causes everybody to jump off the bandwaggon and so everybody goes to the full designs they orginally had ( with slight improvements that weren't in the original blueprints as time has moved along ).


I really depend how the varrious governments see it.
I can see the Fed government putting in the treaty that their XDD may have upto three 24 point Photons, and then building a vessel with only two such photons in order to save money...against Priates it's not so bad, the 48 potential damage points is the same as a full fastloaded volley from a DDX and priate probably won't hand around after the first volley.
When the trade ware heats up they could refit the ship with the third Phot-torp without violating THE Treaty.


I also think the gorns being on the less devistaed side ( than the Romulans ) would probably have the treaty allowing them to mount 2 X2 Ms & 2 X2 Ls but chose to build their cruisers with 2 X2 Ms only inorder to save money during their rebuilding process.


Quote:

and X3 (The Xork Invasion) outlined enough to be submitted.


I'm not so sure SVC want to see anything called X3...maybe X2+ but not X3.

Personnally I think it's X2 Trade Wars, X2R Xork Counter Offensive.


Quote:

I don't want to see the Feds get six new ship classes in Y205. Spread out the YIS dates a little.


I only think there should an XCA, XDD and XFF in the first few years and then after the races descide that the X2 squadrons are going to be needed the GSV ( probably for the Feds only ) and the SC ( probably on a XFF hull ) will start to enter into production...that could be ten years in.
XCCs won't be needed until lots of large fleets are being thrown around or the Admiralty want to turn their X squadrons into something larger so they won't actually be needed until around Y218.

I'm not sure in an XDN should be built or if the XDNL and XCC should be combined and become one and the same.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 10:06 pm: Edit

Quote:

I just preferred the list of abilities Kenneth felt it should have. I personally don't want the generic X2 ship to have scout sensor-like seeking weapon controls.


With double seeking weapon control and S-Bridge seeking weapon control, an XFF is a handy little ship to have somewhere in your fleet if your a seeking weapons user...and I like that.


In a lot of ways I can see X2 ships having a very perverse design philosophy...the the treaty gives you unrestricted Defense; so you maximise everything covered under defense!
The A.S.I.F., S-bridge ( particularly Seeker knock downs ( @ R6 )) BTTY Advancements, Rapid Pulsed Defense Advancments, Tractor and Transporter improvements ( including the ability of the Roms to lay NSM by transporter )...are probably all blind spots in the treaty which was undoubtly concerned ( read fixated ) about the abilities of NEW cruisers to bust ships with their primary armament.

In the same way the treaty of Varsi ( Sp? ) limited German Heavy Artillery and thus put Rocketry into the vocabulary of the German military machine...so too these weird and arcaine "defensive" system were allowed to flourish ( in R&D terms ) because of the restriction of the THE Treaty.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 10:15 pm: Edit

NSMs by transporter = VERY BAD THING

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 10:18 pm: Edit

Quote:

With double seeking weapon control and S-Bridge seeking weapon control, an XFF is a handy little ship to have somewhere in your fleet if your a seeking weapons user...and I like that.



True, but I'd prefer that sort of ability to remain with specialty ships. A 2X drone frigate with spec sens and such would be nice for that role. I don't think it's wise to have every single X ship with this ability.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 10:18 pm: Edit

I was thinking today about the ability to possibly beam through your own shields to some degree.

Right now, if you want to beam out or in, there has to be a downed shield.

But what if you could beam through your own shields to a small degree, but have them only weakend rather than dropped completely.

For example, each transporter action could beam a BP only through the shields of your ship, and that shield would be reduced by 25%. So, you could beam three Boarding Parties thourgh your shields and still have a 25% shield on that facing.

Thoughts?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 10:20 pm: Edit

Well, I know this isn't a necessarily binding answer, but even the franchise is pretty adamant about not beaming through shields. Not sure this would be a fair thing.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 10:22 pm: Edit

Oh, come now. If we are talking the TV shows, they beam through their shields all the time, with various technobabble reasons.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 10:42 pm: Edit

Other people beam through shields, not the enterprise crew.

I'm really inclined against the idea.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 10:44 pm: Edit

Mike: The current S-Bridge list I am using places heavy restrictions on the Drone stuff. The Break Lock-on and Control Seeking Weapons are limited to ONE target.

This would give the X2 ship a limited ability to control slightly more seeking weapons than past generations. 7 instead of 6 and the cost is that you use up your one channel for it for the whole turn.
Breaking Lock-ons is not effective against plasmas so and being able to tell one drone to go away isn't much except when you consider SP and SS. However, these two units are unaffected if the channel has already been used for another function so there is times when you can use these units. But against an X2-Ship you have to be extra careful when you do use them.

In a fleet of X2 ships its not much of a problem either. First, fleets of X2 ships will be rare. Squadrons of X2 ship would be more common so the most you would have there is three S-Bridge channels. This squadron would be facing the same of more ships. Against X1 one or two more. Against GW a small fleet. The number of GW drones comming from a small fleet (or fighter squadron(s)) against three targets isn't going to be hampered much by three S-Bridge channels. With a Fleet of X2 ships this same dynamic occures but on a greater level. A Fleet of X2 ships would cost, let me guess at 1200 BPV. That would be about 6 X2-ships of various sizes. If facing GW the drone concentration would be so much that the X2 will spend every bit of drone defence it has just to survive to use it heavy weapons. Against X1 it would be facing about 8 ships. An all X2 fleet would be rare and unwise. That much BPV in so few units would get hammered at these levels. X2 accels when in low numbers.

This wasn't only addressed to you, Mike but to the general proposal I'm submitting.

BTW: Thanks for the clearification, Mike.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 12:26 am: Edit

Quote:

For example, each transporter action could beam a BP only through the shields of your ship, and that shield would be reduced by 25%. So, you could beam three Boarding Parties thourgh your shields and still have a 25% shield on that facing.


So a Klingon D6 analog looses it's entire shield permanantly, why not drop it wait 1 impulse and beam.

I could see beaming through shields ( because you can launch proble or a drone through a shield and both of those are solid boject ( and indeed launch a shuttle ) at some kind of other value, say 1 point of power to beam each BP through your shields ( 0.8 points are spend creating an apeture in the shield and closinging it again ) but I really think that REALLY IS one of the no go areas of the game.


Quote:

Mike: The current S-Bridge list I am using places heavy restrictions on the Drone stuff. The Break Lock-on and Control Seeking Weapons are limited to ONE target.


My thinking is 1 attraction at R15 = 15 relative value and 3 lock-on breaking attempts at 4/6 at R6 is 12 relative points and that makes it pretty much equal, 12 and 15 being pretty close.
X2 probably should have followed the flow like X1 and gone to tripple seeking weapons control ( 1 times sensor rating for GW ships ( like Fed CARa+ and double for X2 ships Like Fed CX so it stands to reason that an X2 ship would have tripple seeking weapon control ) but instead by allowing the S-bridge to do the usual seeking weapon control of a special sensor, you get your tripple seeking weapon control, but at a price, that the S-bridge can't be used for all those other cool things it can be used for.


Quote:

This squadron would be facing the same of more ships. Against X1 one or two more. Against GW a small fleet.


At three 2/3 attempts at R6 and with a price tag for the special bridge of something like 25 BPV each, it doesn't take long before the GW opponents can but a frigging SC of their own...indeed about 4...just how many drones can Fed SC break the lock-on of!?!
You'ld be amazed at how cheap and powerful a SWAC is and if the BPV is high enough to get the an X2 Squadron going, you'ld have enough BPV to start looking at organising the GW fleet around a CVA.
I'ld say anyone looking at having problems with the X2 S-bridge is an X2 vessel it'self...and what with R8 Ph-1 swordfish and SPs and Kzinti C-racks, the dynamic of the situation is still more drones will get put up than can be struck down by the S-bridge.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 12:32 am: Edit

Quote:

NSMs by transporter = VERY BAD THING


Are you saying that assuming the captor mines can be dealt with that way or you just don't like the idea of loosing 35 points of shielding from you #1 ( like the requirment to use a counter and the 8 impulse delay don't alreay make it impossible to 10 points of damage with T-bombs )?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 02:27 am: Edit

The problem I have with allowing NSMs to be transported is not so much the act of transporting. Heck, when you do that every one knows you transported something there and can avoid it. T-Bombs are hard to use against ships. Mostly they are useful against drones and sometimes shuttles/fighters. A transported NSM would be just as hard and far more expensive. "Hey, I just beamed eight BPV out there so you can move to the other side of the map!"

No, the problem I have with beaming NSMs is that NSMs would become available on all ships (if not then what's the point of making the rule?). I would almost never beam one if I could. I'd always drop it out the hatch the natural way but NSMs are limited because they are so powerful this way. Old Romulans and Minesweepers only and I do think it should stay that way.

The one time I'd beam one would be against a Base where I beam it into the adjacent hex and send a bunch of type VI drones at it (the NSM being set to drones and the number of Type VI being to much to stop.)

No, I don't think the bennifits out weigh the bad.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 02:43 am: Edit

As for beaming through transporter. Ok. Was a wild hair thought.

NSMs by transporter.....

MJC, this would be a huge bad thing.

It is quite possible to hit ships or drones with a T-bomb, I have done it many times. Being able to crush a PF Flotilla with one weapon planeted in the right place is just not something I want to see happen. Leave the NSM with the Romulans, where it should be. (And no, I don't think they should get to beam one either)

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 03:28 am: Edit

No beaming of NSM's.

No beaming through shields either. To much Androish flavor.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 03:56 am: Edit

Quote:

It is quite possible to hit ships or drones with a T-bomb, I have done it many times. Being able to crush a PF Flotilla with one weapon planeted in the right place is just not something I want to see happen.


I still don't get it...with 8 impulses before it activates and an AA turn mode on the PF, I can't see it pulling down the PFs shield ( I thought PFs had a blast radius and thus stayed away from the same hex ) unless the PF wants to ram the detection zone ( which could happen if to avoid the Mine you had to pass through asteroids ) and as for killing T-bombs and Fighters...so I can kill Type VIII-A drones, Type VIII-XA drones and type VII slug drones...It's not exactly a big deal.

And I wouldn't allow any ship to beam NSM that did already come with NSMs...all Roms can by 1 NSM so all Roms would get this ability as would everybody elses minesweeper but for the most part it'ld be a really unused facalty except in the deception that that dummy T-bomb may be a T-bomb or an NSM or a dummy.


As for killing bases, again...it is after all, facing a ship that must 1) lower a facing shield and 2) be at range 6 or less...it shouldn't be too hard to give as good as you get.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 08:07 am: Edit

Strangely, I have no objection to beaming NSM's, provided only races that already use them are the only ones that still keep them; i.e., the Roms. I can't see giving this unique ability to the Roms as such a bad thing, provided it stays with them only and that they still have limited access to them. I mean, really; so the Rom X2 ship has one NSM they can use that might trash your PF flotilla. If you know this going in, well, plan around it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 12:14 pm: Edit

Many times I have read SVC and SPP state that if races A can do it why would the other races copy it? Every one has transporters and every one has NSMs. If the Romulans develope a quality safty protocol for transporting live NSMs then every one would soon after. And every one having NSMs is bad.

Take the PF example: The assumption is that there will be only one NSM to transport but if there is multiple ships then there is more than one and a PF flotilla can be trapped.

Eight impulses to activation? Then whats the point of transporting it? By transporting it you give up secrecy of placement and then give the enemy a 1/4 turn to avoid it? What's the point?

Seems to me it would just take up rules space for something that gives no tactical advantage.

Or maybe I just don't see the tactic here. Any one care to explain how Transporting a NSM with and eight impulse delay would be a advantage tacticly?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 01:08 pm: Edit

I think we might all be getting our terminology mixed. I thought the NSM was the big mine that only Romulans carry?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 01:26 pm: Edit

Only Romulan ship can carry them except for Mine Layers/Sweepers. And of course you can have them in pre-laid mine fields.

The Large Mine and the NSM are the same thing. No ship can carry them except the Romulans (where noted in section R).

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 02:11 pm: Edit

Basically only the Old series ships have them.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 02:31 pm: Edit

But other Romulan Ships have the option to buy one.

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