Archive through August 22, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 General Systems: Archive through August 22, 2003
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 03:54 am: Edit

Quote:

As to the tech edge. A Bow and arrow will kill you as dead as a machine gun if it hit's. resulting in 1 dead target.


Not entirely.
1) When fighting in a passageway aboard a vessel the arrow can not be fired as far because to fire it long-ish distances the weapon must fire through a high parrabolic arc and therefore strikes the ceiling of the passageway...hence it's not very effective at longer ranges over the faster flying bullets which only need to arc up a little over the same range.
2) A full set of plate mail make you practically immune to arrows...this is not ture of 7.62 mm slugs.
3) The MG is probably a lot more accurate, it's certainly a hell of a lot easier to learn to use...hence it's probably more likely to hit...and the effects of full auto supressive fire on freeing up your troops to move and full auto effects on "gett`n' lucky with at least one bullet" ( sweeping ) means your more likely to kill the enemy.

Net result, whilst the arrow kills people reasonably often:- dead, it kills the less often dead then the MG. Ineed three MGs ( with a gunner and loader each) is probably better at the far end of your corridore than 6 archers. 6 Assault rifles at the far end of that corridor can repel a whole lotta troops.


Quote:

BPs that count as two casualties seems a quite the stretch.


Not if they are Robots controlled by a "tele-presence" interface divice ( which only X ships have the signal relay units to allow the to be controlled) titanium and hydrolic rams can take a lot more punishment than one person.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 05:45 am: Edit

Robo boarders smack of Andro tech. Making the whole idea suspect.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 08:01 am: Edit

I just worry that we're improving too many things. I leafed through my copy of Supplement 2 the other day. Other than the changes to the heavy weapon charts (OL's out to 12), the overloaded phasers, and 2-1 shield reinforcement, the ships weren't all that bad. Most had less warp/reactor power than X1, and none had any new super weapons like 24 point photons, mega plasmas, or super fusion beams. I'm afraid that while we are strictly avoiding the things that broke supplement 2, we're making things that have the potential to be worse. SIF's, P-V's, S-Bridges, bigger/better drones, 48-50 warp, "any" system boxes, transporting through shields, advanced maneuver options...the list goes on. AFAIK, the only thing we haven't touched yet is the crew. How much is too much? I realize we won't be incorporating it all, but many of these things compounded will be way to powerful. Consider Loren's new commando BP's combined with transporting through shields. Every X2 ship would then be an instant assault ship. (Not trying to pick on Loren...not at all. This is just one example that comes to mind of two ideas that, put together, will be unbalancing at best, and game breakers at worst).

Okay, rant off. I'm sure many will disagree, and that's cool. I just have to wonder whether or not a Fed XCC with 24 point photons, PV's, an SIF, 46-50 points of warp, a special bridge, commando BP's, and super drones will be any better for X2 in the long run than what Supplement 2 came up with.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 01:37 pm: Edit

Mike, I don't disagree with you. You are right. Of all the proposals (even among those I propose) only a select few should be used. My SAC Team would indeed not play well with transport through shields (which I'm opposed to. In my proposal I mention one of the off sets to my proposal is that you still have to make your ship vulnerable by dropping a shield.) But it is good to put all ideas on the table. Clearly all these ideas wont mix and I'm not the least bit worried SVC would do that no matter how much we begged (and we wonldn't do that either.).

There was talk of improving BPs some how. I thought to myself "Well, if X2 improves BPs in some way it should be limited and elite. Not a general improvement to BPs." Hence, I came up with the SAC Team. You have to buy the at a high cost (compairatively) and you can at most have just a few. Just enough to apply the tactics I propose.

NOW, if there is to be no improvement to BPs then scrap the idea altogether, of course. Personally, I like the idea of an elite team.(Aside from Prime Teams which are intended for a very different mission bracket.) The SAC Team (a pure combat team) must be played carefully otherwise you're throwing away good BPV (and giving an advantage to the enemy). Please note: I did not improve their offensive potental. Only that they can absorb more damage and the inherent benifits that go with that.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 06:18 pm: Edit

Mike, You said it all man.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 11:06 pm: Edit

Quote:

Robo boarders smack of Andro tech. Making the whole idea suspect.


Since Super Inteligent Battle Computers already have Robo-warriors protecting them, I think we can technobably the taste away.


Quote:

Okay, rant off. I'm sure many will disagree, and that's cool. I just have to wonder whether or not a Fed XCC with 24 point photons, PV's, an SIF, 46-50 points of warp, a special bridge, commando BP's, and super drones will be any better for X2 in the long run than what Supplement 2 came up with.


So long as the BPV is right for the ships, I don't think it's much of a problem.
These are supposed to high technology things, have you read what it says in GPD about X2 tech?


On the matter of improving BPs.
The reason is that the X2 ships will either need hords of BPs to defend the vessel OR better BPs in order to make capturing the X2 vessel by a task group of GW vessels less possible.
So how about this...
In a ship's section that is under dispute, the control boxes in that section ( if any ) can be given up as casualties every turn, as though they were Klingon security boxes.
In this way the enemy defending X2 vessel will be able to take the first fewer BP hits and ignore them.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 12:04 am: Edit

Ya know, MJC has a point. If a XCA is at around 300+BPV it may face twice the transporters and likely twice the BPs if the scenario comes to boarding actions.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 07:51 am: Edit

Quote:

So long as the BPV is right for the ships, I don't think it's much of a problem.
These are supposed to high technology things, have you read what it says in GPD about X2 tech?



High technology does not mean every single aspect of the ship must be improved. A high-tech Ticonderoga cruiser from our modern navy can be easily sunk by the guns from a WWII cruiser of the same size, because it has virtually no protection against guns...it's designed to stop missiles. There is no such paradigm with the current crop of X2 proposals floating around, which improve everything and give up nothing.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 11:59 am: Edit

Quote:

There is no such paradigm with the current crop of X2 proposals floating around, which improve everything and give up nothing.


Are you out of your ever loving mind!?!


A 330 BPV Fed XCA fights a Fed BCG and an NCA.

• Four 24 point photons is probably about the same as eight 16 pointers on two different ships.
• 2 X2 G-racks will need to fire as 6 impulse delay Type IX drone throwers to be the equal of 6 G-racks.
• 6 bearing Ph-5s doesn't come up to scratch against 11 bearing Ph-1s, even with a shift.

Indeed, at WS-III the GWs can launch two Type IVF SPs each and their own drones.
Against 18 type IVF drones, even with the Ph-5s being able to rapid pulse as 3Ph-3 shots (which is debatable) and the S-bridge pulling down two and the G-racks pulling down 3 each, the X2 still need to invest all of its bearing phasers and use a tractor to avoid taking damage!

X2 ships might be good ships, but they give up some massive things, specifically, the sheer weight of numbers of weapons on the GW ships.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 12:35 pm: Edit

Yes, and while your BCG and NCA are rearming those photons, I'll be gunning you down with another volley of fastloads. Your drones will be useless against rapid pulses X-aegis controlled P6's, and I can completely dominate the EW environment of the game. I have movement precedence, I have an SIF that protects my A column, virtually insuring that you loose weapons before I do. A single alpha strike at close range will totally destroy either of your ships...and if not, I can run faster than you can, and have scads of reserve power. In any case, I have every chance of beating those two exceptionally good ships half the time...which is as it should be, if the BPV's match.

I repeat...these X2 ships give up absolutely nothing over a standard ship, and gain everything. What they are missing in weapons (and I haven't seen any missing that many) they more than make up for with superior shields, reserve power, SIF's, and movement capabilities.

By Aaron Gimblet (Marcus) on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 01:00 pm: Edit

But, Mike... your better off looking at WW1-WW2 Gunship evolution, where the paradigm remained the same.

The Modern/WW 2 Cruiser style differences dont apply to this SFB discussion, as they are completely different ships, with completely different missions... and would make for a LESS interesting fight than the discussion above. The Modern cruiser sends up its helo for targeting and blows away the WW2 cruiser with missiles from OTH. Perhaps we need to avoid that kind of 'realism' in SFB warship evolution.

Looking at the WW1-WW2 comparison... consider a 'Best of the Best' WW1 Dreadnought. Cream of the crop.
What does it do that the WW2 battleships dont do better? (Other than cost less, be smaller, and require less crew). How long does a Jutland era battleline stand against the IJN or US gunlines of WW2?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 01:04 pm: Edit

Quote:

How long does a Jutland era battleline stand against the IJN or US gunlines of WW2?



They don't. Radar would make quick work of the older ships. I agree with the comparison, though, and agree it's a better one. My point is simply that improving everything is not a requirement of making a ship "high tech." Supplement 2 was scrapped for some features that in many ways were no worse than some of what we're seeing in all the proposals out there.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 08:45 pm: Edit

Quote:

Yes, and while your BCG and NCA are rearming those photons, I'll be gunning you down with another volley of fastloads. Your drones will be useless against rapid pulses X-aegis controlled P6's, and I can completely dominate the EW environment of the game. I have movement precedence, I have an SIF that protects my A column, virtually insuring that you loose weapons before I do. A single alpha strike at close range will totally destroy either of your ships...and if not, I can run faster than you can, and have scads of reserve power. In any case, I have every chance of beating those two exceptionally good ships half the time...which is as it should be, if the BPV's match.



Just a few things.

1) 8 ECM has problems against a 6 ECM plus an ECM drone, particularly when battling with Photons ( although you could fight 9 ECM with 6 ECCM & 1 ECM to make the shifts equal ).

2) You won't be running me down with fastloads if the 32 impulse over heating penalty is applied to the 24 point pohotons but personnally I think that should be a 16 impulse penalty...where you're with your 12 or 16 point fastloads is a lot further than you think if I'm looking to make a three turn arming cycle for my photons.

3) X-Aegis, even X-Full Aegis doesn't not garrenttee kills on incommoning drones, in both the Type IF and IVF varrieties.
Just pick whatever Ph-6 table you like and start blasting at say 12 incomming type IVF drones and see if you don't get wollupped by a few.
6Ph-5s gives you 12 Ph-6 shots, unless you're usining table that lets the Ph-6 @ R1 do 6 points of damage you're stuck inflicting 2Ph-6 shots to each type IVF drone, so you're only pulling down 6 of the incomming drones. Even with 2 results of 6 points of damage at R1, the two shots you save will only kill one more drone ( unless you've got full aegis and get lucky ) so you're still taking 5 Type IVF drones to the sheild, if you don't use other defenses.
Ph-6 rapid pulses in their low numbers just do not have enough shots to destroy all the drones that the enemy can chuck at the X2...they are particularly retarded in their drone defense.

3) Your movement precidence only really works if you are at the same speed, if I'm moving faster then I can capitalise on the extra hexes to control the game.
48 warp, 2 AWR, 4 saucer warp, 4 impulse minus 24 (32) Photons, 5 HK, 6 ASIF, 8 EW means you can make a battle speed of between 15 & 7...the NCA and BCG can probably out pace that.

4) The ASIF shouldn't protect A collum results, that what a shield is for. But even if it did, how many points of damage would it block, (5!?! 10!?! )?
Even at 10, the BCG and NCA need only generate ( 48/40/40/40 shields ) in an oblique 50 points of damage to start inflicting internals.
Eight R8 16 point Photons even with a +1 shift is looking at 42.66 and 11Ph-1s with a shift is looking at 16.5 so there will indeed be some 9 odd points of damage inflicted internally.
But an ASIF should double the hull boxes and that would mean a mizia on the weapons of 19 points.
Of cause your 15 BTTY will stop a lot of that.

5) A single alpha from your weapons will not destroy the BCG in a single shot, it won't even destroy the NCA.
Even if you get a an R8 shot with a -1 shift ( on account of the fact that I was fool enough not to use the ECM drone ) the four 24 point photons only inflict 64 points of damage. If I'm using the ECM drone that'll drop down to 32!
If the X2 phasers are being consummed with drone defenses, then you can't add in the effects of them, but even if you could ( say you have a WW to deal with the rones ) it'ld still only be 24 points of extra damage if you have a -1 shift and 16 if there is a +1 shift...even in the worst case scenario, the 88 points of damage you inflict won't pop the NCA, although it'll definately cripple it.

6) The XCA should win more than half the time on account of the effects of force dynamics. 2 Klingon D5X would be more applicable to the situation or a BCG and a NCA, but I wanted to have an even BPV to show the situation.
The XCA can't play the same T-bomb and H&R games, it can't take mizias as well because it hasn't got as many weapons ( although an A collum protecting ASIF makes that less true ) and it's short on drone defense compaired to what it's BPV in ships can chuck at it.


.


Basically, boarding combat is one area we should touch up, because other wise the XCA becomes a ship that once it looses it's shield MUST leave.


Here's an idea.
Passage way defense gatling lasers.
Mounted on the ceil of the passageways through which passage way combat if fought ( aboard X2 ships ) are small turrets that hold remote controlled gatling lasers.
The weapons are remote controlled and when the owner of the vessel is defend a passageway and the first BP defending that passageway may opperate the controls of the gatling laser ( the gatling lasers have lock-outs to stop them being used by enemy boarders although a Legendary W.O. can begin to un lock the lock-outs like they were any other weapon) and thus inflicts casualties against the enemy trying to pass through the passageway as though they were two BPs instead of one.

Now there's something that makes the X2s more defendable without making them better at H&R and boarding other ships.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 08:52 pm: Edit

Maybe we need to play out these ships.

Perhaps a PBEM scenario involving 1 X2 ship vs. a comparable amount of GW ships.

I can moderate or play, as long as someone else does the web hosting.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 09:01 pm: Edit

Quote:

Ph-6 rapid pulses in their low numbers just do not have enough shots to destroy all the drones that the enemy can chuck at the X2...they are particularly retarded in their drone defense.



This is ridiculous. A single ship with aegis and the best, newest phaser in the game is "retarded" in terms of drone defense. My God, just because the damned thing can't knock down a wave of a dozen type IV drones is no reason to think it isn't good at it. This kind of logic is going to lead to far worse ships than Supplement 2 ever dreamed of. The example of a Fed BCG and NCA is an equal match for a battleship, for heaven's sake. But, you apparently think an X2 cruiser should be able to just romp all over them. What kind of BPV will that take, eh? 450? 500? What? I don't care if it can be balanced or not; a module full of 500 point ships just turns me off, and I bet I ain't the only one.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 09:11 pm: Edit

I agree Mike.

I think we need to get a handle on what BPV really means.

The Klingon D5W fights at 162 with fast drones. For the sake of arguement, let's put the XCA at 325. That means that in a 2-on-1 (324 points of Klingons vs. 325 of Feds), if the XCA is crippled and one of the D5Ws is destroyed, it's a draw.

I haven't seen any of these "thought experiments" go beyond the first battle pass.

I think we're close to having workable ships, but we're on the verge of screwing the whole thing up by putting too many gizmos on the ships.

That's why I propose we playtest it right now.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 09:31 pm: Edit

You want webspace Jeff, you need but to ask.

I don't have time to play, but I'll webmeister.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 09:43 pm: Edit

Long ago we all agreed that BPV was not the end all of balance. BPV show only be the final consideration for balance issues and design. Of course, you must keep an eye on it along the way to keep in a goal range but BPV is no way to fix things.

Thats what BPV means to me.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 09:44 pm: Edit

Quote:

"retarded" in terms of drone defense. My God, just because the damned thing can't knock down a wave of a dozen type IV drones is no reason to think it isn't good at it.


No seriously, a centerlining Fed DDX can knock down more Type IVF drones than an obliquing non refit XCA ( assumming the S-bridge can't be used in knock downs )...by an entire IVF drone.

Indeed it takes all 6Ph-5s rapid pulsing Ph-6 shots ( if that's what it's limited too ) to pull down half a dozen IVFs and the BCG & NCA can hurl that every turn without a problem.


It seems to me that drones of about equal numbers to the drone control limit can be stopped by each level of technology.
By using 1 trac' and 2 type IX drones, an obliquing CX can stop the full drone control limit of 6 type VII drones from an SP and 6 type VII from the racks of a DXD...the CX is even better if it uses the G-racks as ADD-12s.
Indent So too an X2 ships should be able to stop a number of drones equal to it's drone control rating ( I wonder if that'll include the S-bridge control ).
Perhaps with the X2 G-rack running like an E-rack and the Ph-5s being brought ( the phaser refit ) to have the number of phasers as an X1 vessel, it might get close to shooting down that kind of level of drone numbers.
So I think the S-Bridge should have drone lock-on knock down capasity.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 09:50 pm: Edit

Quote:

( assumming the S-bridge can't be used in knock downs )


And assuming the X2 G-racks can't fire as E-racks.


I agree that 2 CARa+ and a DD+ might not be able to throw huge numbers of drones at the XCA, but do we really want to limit the GW ships to being, just simply DF focused vessels only?
Note that a force Dynamics bonus has been given to the GW ships.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 10:26 pm: Edit

Loren,

I consider this part of "keeping an eye on it". We have some ships that have been designed; let's see how they fly.

If we did something that creates an RPS situation that violates SVC's "play nice" directive, playtesting should find it, especially in a PBEM format where players can take the time to study the ships.

Vorlon,
As soon as we get some players and/or moderators, I'll let you know.

Personally, I'll be out on vacation the first week of September (trust me, I need it), but I can play before or after that.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 10:41 pm: Edit

You know, one way to get around the S-bridge kills all the drones that a Fed XCA can hurl at an X2 opponent, is to have varriable drone knock down rates for the S-bridge.

We can technobable our way around it somehow, by saying it's not a full special sensor and just simulates some of the special sensor capasities.

I also recognise that this may not be seen at first glance as playing nice with GW ships but it should be okay because of the BPV diferencial in that GW ship that do hurl drones will do so in large numbers in comparison to X2.

So let try this:-

The X2 S-Bridge can knock down drones but the more advanced drones become more difficult to knock down.
To knock down GW remains as rolling 4 or less on a D6.
To knock down X drones with an S-bridge requires a roll of 2 or less on a D6.
To knock down X2 drones ( if any come to pass ) requires a roll of 1 on a D6.


Now the big question become shall the XFF Vs D7bk battle fall apart, or is stopping the XFF from upping it's drone control rate with the S-Bridge enough?
Or do we need to make the S-Bridge even less effective of smaller ships or drop the drone control rate of the XFF to force the player to use the S-bridge more often to control drones rather than knock down drones.

I would like to note that I assume the drone knock down effect only works out to R6 ( being tied through the Aegis system ) and thus isn't likely to steal away the ECM drones that ships might be escorting themselves by...at least not at longer ranges.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 12:01 am: Edit

I still think it should retain the "Break Lock-Ons" capability but be limited to one target. This is still very valuable and would be the sort of protection an X2 ship needs. I.e. it renders it a little less susceptible to surprise launchings from planets or what have you that the X2 ship might be investigating. That would be part of the motivation to develop such a capability and it utility in combat is obvious.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 09:20 am: Edit

I think the special bridge discussion belongs in the EW thread.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 08:51 pm: Edit

If some one will send me the 2X ships they want done I can do them up as SFBOL.def's. Make sure the boxes are 16x16 pixels or they wont work. You can use the construction toolkit from the sfbol DL page to build/rebuild them.

Note these would have to be emailed to your opponent since they could NOT be uploaded directly into SFBOL.

I can give you a step by step guide to using a ship in SFBOLXP for those who don't really know the client that well.

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