Archive through August 07, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 EW rules: Archive through August 07, 2003
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 02:36 am: Edit

I was thinking about what to give the XFE if the escort frigate's of X2 were nothing speical on account of the Full Aegis for everybody.


Here's what I came up with.


Escort Electronic Warfare
The X2 Escort Frighates and X2 Carriers ( if any ) have a highly advanced ability to protect things they are escorting.

One Squardon of fighters may be selected before the battle starts to be escortable by the XFE ( must be from the carrier it is an escort of ) and that squardon may receive EW lent to it as though the XFE was it's carrier because of the correct signaling information be given to the XFE before battle.

Furthermore the XFE may loan EW to the drones launched by those fighters.

Further still the drones launched by the XFE it'self may be given EW as though the drones were fighters and the XFE were the carrier that launched them.

If lending to drones, there may be no more than 12 and they must be in the same hex.

X2 carriers extended their inate EW loaning ability to cover both the drones launched by the fighters and the drones launched by the carrier it'self.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 03:38 am: Edit

One thing about the Special Bridge:

It has to have the ability to detect Andromedan RTN links as effectively as a scout channel.

I know this wouldn't come up in a game situation, but it's an important note in the history.

With the Special Bridge having this ability, and with all Galactic warships having one, The Andromedans would never be able to mount a comeback.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 02:35 pm: Edit

Jeff, that is as I had planned. Did I never mention it? I should have. The Andros are definatly a big part of "The lessons learned over the last 30+ years of war..."

Good you made a point of it. It's very important. I've always figured there would be lots of Andromedan straggelers all over the galaxy. Some might be purely robotic. So, might be crippled escapees from the Non-Op Unity attacks on the Andromedan infrastructure .

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 03:03 pm: Edit

...and that is historical IIRC. There were a few scattered Andro sightings even after Unity.

By Shannon Nichols (Scoot) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 08:18 pm: Edit

Does a negative die add from EW improve the chances of a heavy weapon hitting? For example, I have one more point of ECCM than my target. I know that it would give a -1 on my phaser damage rolls, and no column shifts. But how would it effect photons, disrupters and PPDs?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 09:05 pm: Edit

The same.

By Shannon Nichols (Scoot) on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 04:03 am: Edit

Thanks for the anwser.

By Shannon Nichols (Scoot) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 05:57 pm: Edit

With all the EW aviable to X2 ships how about a rule change to reduce the effectiveness of ECCM when used with heavy weapons. Calculate EW with out Legd. Officers being included. If the total is postive after substracting ECM, treat it as if it was zero. Then apply Legd. Officer bonuses. So heavy weapons can not fire better than the table without them. Otherwise a X2 Fed CA is going to cream any and all GW ships.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 08:30 pm: Edit

Shannon, that's why, in my proposal and most others, the XCC (or XCA or XCM, what have you) has only four photons. If the XCC is around 325 BPV from the Klingons it could be facing two D5's and one F5W (or there abouts). Thats 10 disruptors against four photons. The Klingon fleet will have roughly double or more internals and 80 front shields, a mess of phasers and flexability.

If the Klingon is a good player and the Fed hits very well with photons it should still be a even battle.

IMO

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 08:32 pm: Edit

I'm not so sure...even with 8 ECCM, the fully refitted Fed XCA isn't going to "carve up" the against every opponent...the Klingon D7D, D6D & D7bk that is the standard opponent for the fully refitted XCA will be able to generate 12 ECM for two of those vessels forcing the X2 cruiser to fire through a +2 shift.

Even a C7 and D7D against an unrefitted Fed XCA is going to have advantages that the Feds can't offest...like 8 Disruptors and 9 ( counting the ADD 12) drone launchers....the ability to control 24 drones in flight ( without touching ATG ) and four SPs at WS-III and 10Ph-1s in an oblique.
It's also pretty easy for both these ships to fly an ECM drone ( each ), putting 8ECCM at a +1 shift!

It's really just a question of having the BPV high enough for the GW ships to have enough SSD boxes to withstand the battle pass.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 09:27 pm: Edit

MJC, a D7D, D6D, and D7K all in one squadron?

D7D -> 148 + 5 (UIM refit) + 24 (fast drones) = 177.

D6D -> 113 + 4 (B refit) + 36 (fast drones) = 153.

D7 -> 121 + 7 (B refit) + 3 (K refit) + 4 (Y175) + 5 (UIM) + 12 (fast drones) = 152.

Squadron strength = 177 + 153 + 152 = 482.

482 for the Klingons, vs. 325-ish for the XCA. In addition, the D7D is not that common a ship. It makes for a rediculous comparison.

To everyone: When comparing XCAs against potential opponents, please keep the BPV in mind, as well as what the historical opponents would be.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 09:35 pm: Edit

Quote:

MJC, a D7D, D6D, and D7K all in one squadron?

D7D -> 148 + 5 (UIM refit) + 24 (fast drones) = 177.

D6D -> 113 + 4 (B refit) + 36 (fast drones) = 153.

D7 -> 121 + 7 (B refit) + 3 (K refit) + 4 (Y175) + 5 (UIM) + 12 (fast drones) = 152.

Squadron strength = 177 + 153 + 152 = 482.

482 for the Klingons, vs. 325-ish for the XCA. In addition, the D7D is not that common a ship. It makes for a rediculous comparison.


Like I said the fully refitted XCA, you know with 12Ph-5s.

It'll probably weigh in at more like 400 BPV than the 325 your suggesting.

Then you factor in the Force Dynamics factor that you would normally throw in ( just like sending a squadrons of frigates up against a cruiser ) and the 482 BPV does just fine against the 400-410 BPV of the XCA+.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 09:41 pm: Edit

Another point about BPV:

In an even-point fight, but a situation where an XCA is in a 2-on-1, say 2 D5Ws vs. a Fed XCA, (one destroyed or two crippled) Klingons and one crippled XCA is a draw.

Nobody said the XCA would only take shield damage when fighting against a pair of D5Ws.

MJC, "fully refitted"? You're in the Xork-invasion period. Something which the rest of us agreed not to touch until SVC explained what a Xork was.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 09:42 pm: Edit

400 for an XCA, even a refitted one, is just too high; at least, for me it is. Most of the XCC's I've been seeing are more like 350 or so.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 09:45 pm: Edit

Agree Mike.

400 might be OK during the Xork invasion, or maybe not. We've been around this before.

One good test for the Fed XCA is fighting a pair of D5Ws. They come in at 150+12 each, and would be a common Klingon cruiser in Y205.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 09:47 pm: Edit

Quote:

To everyone: When comparing XCAs against potential opponents, please keep the BPV in mind, as well as what the historical opponents would be.


Historical Opponents.


You have a Federation NCL on picket duty.
I want to free up the trade route you are blocking and so send my Klingon XCA.
I blow your ship to bits in short order and open the trade route.

Some time latter you senf a CVA group to guard this section of space on the grounds that you have discovered that the Klingons want this territory pretty badly.


Let's not look at historical opponents.
Let's look at gouping of oppoents that people would want to play out the battle of.


In Y219, the D7D might STILL be an uncommon ship but hey, if the Klingon Admiarlty (you) have had an X2 ship of some kind messing around with your partols on the periffery and you want to set up some kind of situation with GW ships against the vessel ( probably fighting the X2 ship long enough for a Klingon X2 ship to turn up and be the hammer for your GW anvil ) why not send one of those uncommon ships that you would othwerwise be moth-balling anyway!

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 09:54 pm: Edit

MJC,

He's talking about playtesting in order to evaluate and refine BPV's. For those kinds of games, BPV and a common historical enemy are important because they are most likely to give you good, solid "normal" results. A Fed XCA with a BPV of around 350 that plays a pair of fully refitted D7K's 6 times and wins 50% of the time has a good BPV. Throwing in odd ships, while fun, isn't always as good an indicator of the relative accuracy of BPV's. The example you gave, while doubtless fun to play, is almost tailor-made to fight a lone XCA; too many drones for it to handle, and stiff EW competition. Don't get me wrong; I like unusual match ups, too. But for working on BPV's, it's best to stick with more standard issue stuff.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 10:08 pm: Edit

That's what I'm trying to say.

Keep the oddball ships out of the playtests.

My post from May 19 on this.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 04:40 am: Edit

Quote:

Throwing in odd ships, while fun, isn't always as good an indicator of the relative accuracy of BPV's.


True but also the Admiralty wouldn't throw GW ships at the X2 ship if they could possibly avoid it...the Tech Difference is too great.
Consider throwing Fed 2YCAs and a YCL against a Klingon D5X.
The Feds should put up a good fight but as a Federation Admiral you'ld rather send a DDX or a BCG...or better still an NCA and a CARa+ or a CX.

So too with second generation X ships. The Admiralty will try as hard as they can to make X1s and X2s fight the X2 ship.

The usual stuff will be a CX Vs an XDD. We have a responcibility to mess GW tech with X2 tech but the BPV of the ships can be handled and guidelines written...300 BPV of BB is different to 300 BPV of CAs anmd we have a responcibility to make that clear in the Z section of X2 but I don't think we should bend the way the mechanics of the game work...especialy since it's X1 that gave us those mechanics and are enshrined in stone.


Don't you think a C7 leading 2D7bks is a little dull?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 04:44 pm: Edit

Sure but for initial testing the mainstream combos are what we want to focus on.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 05:08 pm: Edit

MJC:

A C7 + 2xD7K is one of my favoite squadrons. Sub on D7K for a D6D and you have a pretty tough team!

Anyway, that's not really the topic so I'll stop now.

Though, a D6D would bring up the EW level a bit.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 06:03 pm: Edit

We're talking about two different things here.

Ships someone would bring in a pick-up game.
Ships someone would bring in a playtest.

We have been told by SVC that X2 must "play nice" with GW tech. Meaning that the BPV measurement must work for X2, X1, GW tech. Unlike how it is in Early Years. (75 for a YCA? I'll take a GW FF for that).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 06:48 pm: Edit

Quote:

Ships someone would bring in a pick-up game.
Ships someone would bring in a playtest.


Alright...if we get it to work on all dull ships then we've got a hope.


Still 2 D7bks and an F5 up against an un refitted XCA is going to be able to stay out of a lot of trouble by flying ECM drones...although the F5 will probably have to stay out and hoik no closer than R13.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 06:51 pm: Edit

Quote:

Unlike how it is in Early Years. (75 for a YCA? I'll take a GW FF for that).


How much does a Fed FFG cost again?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 06:54 pm: Edit

75

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