| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 10:34 pm: Edit |
Yeah...now there's a thought, the rebirth of the APR, on account of the APRs producing 2 power ( non warp ) per box.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 11:05 pm: Edit |
Re X2 Batteries: Many want them to stay at 3 and maybe add one more unit per ship class. I am going with 4 points as my Shield improvement. This leaves shields, rules wise, the same with a moderate improvement in box total. There will be significant rules additions to X2 and I think that it is good to have a couple things be already known how to use. Leave shields unchanged, rules wise, and simply note that X2 batteries hold four points. (also four point is not Andro but five is. Four also being a technical improvement over 3.) This way players can quickly move on to learning the other rules.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 06:43 pm: Edit |
Oh, boy. Man, have we missed the boat! I was flipping through my copy of P6 today, when I saw that in the back, there is a whole section dedicated to a preview of X2. SVC wrote this, and it details quite a bit of what he wants or doesn't want for X2...at least, at that time. Some key things he said:
Quote:"If I have come to any single conclusion regarding the ships of module X2, it is that just taking every ship and adding a few phasers and some power (as was done in module X1) is not going to get the job done. We need to think in terms of entirely new generation of warships."
Quote:"It's a fair bet the ships will have more reserve power, but we may accomplish that with a number of special function capacitors instead of just goosing up the batteries."
Quote:"Perhaps the only detail that seems certain is that phasers will be grouped into a small number of larger groups with broader firing arcs. For example, a Federation X2-CA might have six FX phasers in the saucer rather than 2 FH, 2 LS, and 2 RS."
Quote:"Weapons need to be more dangerous, but perhaps more than just firing twice as often or the oft-threatened speed 48 plasma torpedo."
Quote:"We will probably do something unusual with shields, though just what is not decided."
Quote:"...the concept of making X2 technology different instead of just better than X1 technology is my central theme."
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 08:22 pm: Edit |
We are not too far off IMO.
| By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 08:36 pm: Edit |
Could you post the entire article, for the benefit of those who don't own P6?
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 08:40 pm: Edit |
Yea, I gues...but it's a long one. If someone can scan it and send it to me via email, I'll post a link to it. Otherwise, I'll type it; but it'll be a while. The above are high lights only, and he actually addresses quite a few other things, including (no joke) X2 weapons that penetrate GW shields.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 10:36 pm: Edit |
Mike R.: Might should ask SVC first!
| By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Eagle) on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 09:15 am: Edit |
I thought most allready had read that one!?
I liked the idea "different", and it was always in line with my own idea of X2 too.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 10:38 am: Edit |
I'll ask, but I can't see why we couldn't type it in here. It's pretty far-out stuff. He mentioned X2 "penetrating" weapons, or special purpose "overload" capacitors to store weapons energy in to be used for overloads later. And, most bizarre of all, the multi-system box that can be whatever kind of thing you want on any turn; one turn, it's a transporter; on another, it's a tractor, or a lab...you get the idea. Emphasis is definately on different, though.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 06:21 pm: Edit |
I have posted this article in the "CL23 Changes to X1" thread.
A few comments: It was written in 1995. Some of the things mentioned in the article have come to pass (remote control weapons like fighters) and some will (the "super enemy", the Xorkaliens). We have touched on some of this stuff, and missed on alot of the rest. I think we should all read it and re-evaluate where we are. That doesn't mean anyone has to give up their particular proposals...a wide variety is good to work from. But me personally, I'm going to do what I mentioned earlier, and start looking into really different stuff.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 06:26 pm: Edit |
I agree. A baseline "super X1" proposal could be ver useful as it provides element of crossover with GW-SFB which might be needed for play-balance.
But it does mean it's time to get a little crazy.
I guess I was wrong in suggesting we limit our focus to something recognizably like GW and X1 7 months ago.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 08:00 pm: Edit |
If I want something crazy I'll buy Omega. I don't. IMO X2 should be easy for a old player to pickup and play without having to study entirely new systems. I'm too old and stupid to learn new systems. KISS for me. Now let me go read that article.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 07:35 am: Edit |
So now I've read the list. It sounds more like a reject list. Perhaps things have changed in the 8 years since it was published but that stuff violates the play nice with X0 directive.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 08:09 am: Edit |
I agree with that assessment on some of the things listed; specifically the shield-penetrating X2 phaser. However, this article does give some very good insight into what the overall "big picture" for X2 should be, and what it shouldn't. It should be very different, with new gadgets. It should not be jumped up X1, or anything like Supplement 2.
Some of what we have talked about fits, some of it doesn't. There are a variety of proposals in the works, most of which are probably a bit on the tame side. For a good sample, I'm going to go with some really different stuff. Then we can compare, test, and re-evaluate what we see and start taking what we want and canning the rest. The only thing I'd say that we should all keep in mind is to be open-minded about this stuff, since it's pretty clear that he's interested in new and different things.
| By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 09:10 am: Edit |
Until Steve realizes that all this new stuff might not play as nicely with GW as he thought at first.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 10:15 am: Edit |
I got asked a question about "the requirement for X ships to have outstanding crews" and the possibility of "lifting this requirement" after some period of time.
What are you knuckleheads smoking?
Petrick says for you to look at rule XG21.0 which says that X-ships DO NOT HAVE OUTSTANDING CREWS.
XD6.34 does NOT imply that X-ships are required to have outstanding crews. Given XG21 it cannot possibly imply that.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 10:20 am: Edit |
Good to know.
What are your thoughts on what you wrote in P6? Does that article still represent what you have in mind for X2?
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 10:29 am: Edit |
Quote:What are you knuckleheads smoking?
Petrick says for you to look at rule XG21.0 which says that X-ships DO NOT HAVE OUTSTANDING CREWS.
XD6.34 does NOT imply that X-ships are required to have outstanding crews. Given XG21 it cannot possibly imply that.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 10:54 am: Edit |
P6 is still what I have in mind for X2. Remember that I have not read any of your X2 discussions and I have no doubt you're all off on seven tangents in directions I am not going to follow.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 11:02 am: Edit |
We know! Believe me, we've been round and round over some of this stuff. But having re-discovered the P6 article and some of the things in it, there is going to be some changes in the direction that some of our proposals take. Not all, of course...but some.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 05:02 pm: Edit |
There are three schools of thought for X2:
1) Ship production progresses in the timeline: EY->MY->GW->X1->X2. As this progression occurs the old generation ships are upgraded or scrapped. Just before X2 begins production X1 would make up nearly all of the fleet.
2) X2 is a limited production enhancement of X1 and makes up a maximum of 20% of the fleet.
3) X1 makes up a maximum of 20% of any given fleet for some good reason. X2 is designed as the replacement class to retire the old GW hulls.
4) Change the history of the Andro War to suit our needs.
Option 3 is what most of the work here has revolved around. For option 3 to work we needed a good reason that X1 was never built for all construction. We had settled on the proposal that X1 required an Outstanding crew resulting in a limit to the number that could be built. There was never an existing rule that stated an X1 ship required an outstanding crew. I still believe the Outstanding crew limitation is an effective way to account for some of X1s abilities and limited production. About the only other logical limit I can think of for why X1 ships did not reach 100% of production would be a scarcity of the parts necessary to build and maintain the type of warp they use.
Looking at Op: Unity OOB it was clear that X1 did not make up 100% of production in Y202 so option 1 has never made much sense to me.
Option 2 is well described in Supplement 2.
If we want to continue working on option 3 then we need to present a reason why X1 continued as limited production ships and get Steve to approve it.
Have I missed an option?
| By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 06:38 pm: Edit |
That's pretty much it.
I think the consensus has been toward Option 3. GW production is still 80-90% of ship builds until the end of the Andromedan War.
Which led to the following line of reasoning, almost all of which is a consensus:
Q: "If X-squadrons proved so useful, why didn't all ship production convert to X1 technology?"
A: "Although X1 ships do not explicitly benefit from outstanding crews, they are needed to make the ship fly. When an X1 ship is built in a campaign, replace a GW ship's outstanding crew with a regular crew. Since there aren't that many outstanding crews, there won't be that many X1 ships."
Q: "Is there ever a time when X1 ships become common enough that a 'regular' GW crew can man the X-ship?"
A: "Around Y195, when the first X1 ships are 10-15 years old."
Q: "If X1-tech is usable by regular crews, would it be faster and cheaper to refit some of the GW ship's systems with X1-tech, rather than to make a full conversion? After all, before Y195, the Andromedan War is going badly for the Galactics, and any improvement is a good improvement."
Short A: "Module XP - Partial X refits"
Long A: "Module XP - covers the Late Andromedan War period. These ships would be partial conversions of GW ships to X1-tech, similar to how 'The National Guard Ships' are partial conversions of YCA-tech to GW-tech."
Q: "What other modules would be needed to fill out the timeline from X1 to the Xork Invasion?"
A:
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 07:09 pm: Edit |
Your first two answers contradict IMO.
| By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 08:13 pm: Edit |
Tos, I'm with Opt3 and my reasoning has always been that X1 tech was what the GPs could produce under their incredibly strained wartime economies. X2 is what they wanted X1 to be but couldn't produce. X2 is therefore the result of research stretched out over several budgets. Once the Galactic Wars were over the GPs could afford to slow down and build X2.
X1 = hasty/unfinished product
X2 = polished/finished product
RE: Outstanding Crews - HIGHLY PROFICIENT (i.e. Outstanding) Starfleet members were pulled to operate the X1 ships because their talents were needed for the advanced technology. However the complexity of the new ships rendered their effectiveness to that of "standard" crew.
Mike, I think we're pretty much in line with P6. I've been using it as my guideline since I bought it. I believe that SVC wants "new and exciting" that nevertheless conforms to racial flavor.
BTW, what's this "Treaty of Washington" thing?
| By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 08:32 pm: Edit |
Nosing in to copy a post over from another thread.
SVC's comment, and my idea thus inspired.
Quote:One idea I had was to invent some kind of totally new weapon that everyone could have, and install it on every 2X ship
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |