Archive through November 16, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 Speed Limit: Archive through November 16, 2003
By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 08:28 pm: Edit

You are assuming GW tech circa Y185 and assuming that drones don't receive some future upgrade. If in Y205 all ships used the same drones and all drones had a max speed of 40 then speed 32 for ships looks positively quaint. Perhaps drones stay at speed 32 but now get a rechargeable phaser 2 that can fire once every turn. Even if drones stay at speed 32 it will become quite easy to build up a devastating drone wave, that X2 ship had better stay prepared for an anchor attempt.

The point is it can be balanced by other means and X2 deserves some minor advantage.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 08:33 pm: Edit

Quote:

...and if I'm running from a pack of GW-tech drones, I probably don't care about the movement restrictions.

They'll never catch me. The GW-tech ships will never catch me. (assuming I don't run out of scenario map) and I shoot them down and recharge my heavy weapons at my leisure.

My personal opinion is "just say no to starship speeds over 31."


Wait...it's a floating map.
I drop a few SPs from my D7W and C7 team.
You reach R8 long around the time the SPs bloom.
Your XCA has the power to het and run away at speed 32.


What's the big difference to that and speed 31.
Over the life of the Type IFs that are following you, three hexes.

And you can lay a T-bomb whilst running.

The big drawbacks of running from an SP should be the things the GW ships should be capitalising on.

1) The Type IVF drones held in the racks of those two Klingon ships are going to be murder.
2) The combination of the K-refit Ph-1s and the rear Ph-2s capasitors allows for quite a few turns of chaising you #4 sheilds ( which ain't the strongest sheild in the universe ).
3) BTTY and excess power can generate Standard disruptor shots which can graise you #4.

About the only advantages I can see that 32 has over 31 are 1) you might be able to keep Type IVF-P2 drones from stinging your butt 2) you can pull out of you attack run a little latter and therefore can be less exacting in your battle plan.


Quote:

Any ship speed increase above 31 negatively impacts plasma. Since a 31-32 jump denies the plasma-chucker that assurred 1-hex close on IMP 1 the following turn, the jump from 31-32 is not trivial.


1) Tractor!
1.1) Tractor Rotation.
2) Sabot.
3) Bolt.

At a certain point the GW plasma player has got take responcibility for his own actions.
Two Gorn BCs is a lot of bolt power so a ship that's looking like it might jump to higher speed should probably be ither hit with the bolt or blasted with the sabbot.


Quote:

All plasma will be sabot capable by then.


And at a 300-330 BPV the 64 odd points of warp engines can pay for it.


Quote:

Tos,

The sabot balanced GW's higher average combat speed. We up the combat speed more, we need to pile more onto the plasma.

Perhaps a zero-additional-energy sabot would be enough balance for plasma.

We've talked about the sabot being standard equipment and implied that we might zero out its cost, but we hevane't set that in stone.


Zero energy sabot might be a good move for X2 ships, although I'ld prefere that X2 ships have plasma that is able to handle speed 32 ships, and that is a speed 48 sabot.
Perhaps both could be given to X2 plasma ships.


Quote:

Some X2 stuff can be made up for purely by BPV. I was tempted to say a Spd32 unit would be no harder to hit and that the ECM from it would applie only to the Spd32 ship. But I felt not every advantage needs to be hammered back down with a big disadvantage. Not being able to turn is pretty limiting and travel not contributing to turn mode is prety big too. Any more and whats the point?


Personnally I think speed 32 is possible without a zillion and half extra penalties.
Just give the ships a high BPV and make it cost a lot of power and see where that leaves play.

At a certain point the Bolting power of the GW forces renders the speed 32 option ineffectual...and that in the end is a matter of BPV.


Quote:

So, whats the point of Spd32? Well, there is so little room for maneuver advantages to give to X2 and I think X2 should get at least a little something.


1) Hets on Impulse 1.
2) TACs on impulse 1.
3) Take a breather ( if you're willing to face your rear shield at the enemy.
4) Exhaust a bunch of Type IVF drones, if you're willing to show you rear shild to the enemy for thrwee turns.
5) Grab the Initiative when dealling with X1s and Hot Warp ships.

Speed 32 is worth while, and can be balanced with the game.
My playtesting ships had a top speed of 37, but the X2 player never got there, he was too busy paying for his uberweapons.
We can give people speed 32 ships but they probably be running at a battle speed of 15 with their enemies at 12.


Quote:

Loren,

I'm wary of simply throwing BPV at a problem.

X2 can be given advantages that counterbalance going speed 32 or better. GW-tech can't. My argument isn't X2 vs. X2, it's X2 vs. GW.


Again, sabot.
Again, bolt.
Again, Phaser suite.

At somepoint of BPV the combination of Bolts and Phaser and Sabotts and Phaser shall overpower a ship moving at speed 32.
Sure that's too much BPV and the game should be a balanced contest, but with our relatively paper thin shields and small numbers of phasers the XCA does quite badly.
If a Fed XCA has a 40 box #4 and can bring to bear two 360° Ph-5s and 2 LS Ph-5s and is being followed at R6 by two Gorn BCs for one turn.
Even if the BCs messed up with their Plasma, the four LS and two FA+L and two FA+R Ph-1s can generate damage back.
14 points of damage against either of two 30 box shields from the X2 and 17 from the against a 40 box shield makes the battle pretty close.
If the GWs kept even so much as 1 S torp ( blowing a PPT two Fs and an S at speed 32 against an X2 target ), each; the extra 15 points of damage would kick the GWs in an advantagious position!

The GW Gorns follow for two more turns and and are at R8 when they can Bolt their Fastloaded Fs...the X2 ship might have the ability to stop a lot of damage with SSReo and might have the ability to take a heavier pounding on it's number four than either of it's opponents can take onm their #1 but in the end the plethora of big cheap ineffectual guns that GWs can carry beats poorly played X2 vessels of equal BPV.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 08:45 pm: Edit

John, we are debating friendly, right? I hope so. I know I've riled you before and I don't want to do that. Cool?


OK

I would point out the situation you present. GW vs. X2. Let’s take a XCC at 300. At that BPV GW will gain force dynamics. Played well, the GW force can gain drone launches in multiple directions to the XCC.

The GW is forced to use drones in more way than just from behind. That is the only tactical situation where Spd32 would short change drones (or normal plasma). It is a tactical situation where you have to work to gain the advantage and there is so much that GW can do to circumvent that work (given natural force dynamics due to the inherent high BPVs of X2).

In a way, X2 may be easier to balance because the BPVs are higher, enabling GW forces to gain credible force dynamics with sizable units. Against X1, that was more difficult because a CCX turned into 1.5 GW units (about a CL + FF). The CCX could kill the force piecemeal. The X2 XCC will face a larger pair (2xCB or a CW + BCH). These ships won’t die so easily. X2 damage output wont greatly out class X1, as we've designed it. Heck, the Ph-5, while averaging smoother output, only gains one point over the Ph-1. Torpedoes gain the greatest increase (considering any of the proposals).

The Fed XCC with 8 ph-5 + 4 Torps facing a Klingon GW force of 2 x D7K will have to go through 60 shield boxes (counting #1 only for this comparison), 18 phasers and 8 Torps. If against a good player, if the XCC does choose Spd32, chances are it will be towards one of the Klingon ships and he will have a more difficult time killing those drones.

Indeed, use Spd32 at the wrong time and you could get your self in trouble (not being able to turn and all).

I would add that a player should be able to apply Mid-turn breaking energy to drop from Spd32.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 08:53 pm: Edit

Quote:

You're right. Speed-31, taken over an entire turn, isn't much different than speed-32 for outrunning seeking weapons. But for weapons launched late in the turn, there is a definite combat difference. Your drone will close by a hex in the near future come hades or high water, whereas at speed 32 there is no point where the drones will ever close, barring a fixed map. And we don't want drone-chucking GW's to be dependant on a fixed map to be able to engage X2 on a level playing field.



So a Fed XCA spends 3 turns out running a bunch of type IVF drones!.
How many SPs have the D7W and C7 made in the mean time!?!


Quote:

You are assuming GW tech circa Y185 and assuming that drones don't receive some future upgrade. If in Y205 all ships used the same drones and all drones had a max speed of 40 then speed 32 for ships looks positively quaint.


Heck if they get upgraded to the already existing Type VIII Ph-1, they'll make the running ship need more work than DamCOn and CDR combined can do on the shields...sure it won't do internals to ship on it's own but it'll definately alter the balace of play infavour of the GW seeker ship.


Quote:

Even if drones stay at speed 32 it will become quite easy to build up a devastating drone wave, that X2 ship had better stay prepared for an anchor attempt.


Yup.

What can the XCA bring to the table firepower-wise if it's also going to run at speed 32!?!
It probably will attack, use a mid turn speed change to jump up high-ish and then use the next turn to go at speed 32.
The D7W and C7 descide to go for the sacrificail lamb C7 move both ships make the jump up to speed 31 for the first half of the turn and both ships drop two Type IVF SPs each and both ship launch 1 Type IVF dronbe each ( keeping some in the racks in case of T-Bombs.
The C7 fires first and takes a hell of a pounding.
The D7W shows that it didn't do any arming by tractoring the XCA ( which blew most ( but not all ) of it's BTTY on SSReo ) and after adding BTTY to it's allocated tractor grabs the XCA.
The D7W ( having fired off it's phasers ) makes the Jump to ED.

Now how in the hell does the XCA spend the next three turns out pacing the GW drones!?!


Speed 32 can have a balancing point found with GW vessels.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 09:06 pm: Edit

With 2 ADDs on the D7W and 1 on the C7 and 6 B-racks to look around with the XCA will seriously be on the drone defensive.

Now if the Fed chooses to just go through the Drones with a Pair of Gx-ADDs he might find himself at a nasty surprise meeting Type IVF-P2 Drones set to Fire at R3.

With proper timing buy launching early enough to get the drones into plosition but late enough not to force the X2 player to fire early in order to save his phasers for use against the drones, the drones can deliver up some 21 points of damage.
That's half an X2 non-#1 shield gone from drone Phasers.
Sure, it'll use up most of the limited availibility warhead spaces, but it's the kind of level of damage, that lets you fire your Ph-1s at R8 and do the kind of shield damage to the enemy that your phaser-1s would only have done if you'd clawed your way down to R4.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 09:22 pm: Edit

Loren,

We're cool. The debate's heated up a little but is safely in-bounds.

A CCX runs about 225-250 points. That's about the same as 2x CW, with perhaps some spare change. The X1 does not have the walk in the park you seem to suggest.

The XCC facing the Klingons would be ill-advised to use the speed-32 ability to close with its opponents. It needs the power and maneuverability more than it needs the extra point of speed.

It will use the speed-32 on the turn after weapons fire to run away and evade seeking weapons.

Let's make the opponent a Kzinti or take an X2 squadron against a CVA group. That would empahsize the advantage against drones. I agree that DF-primary races would not badly bothered by a speed-32 ability.

Note that plasma chuckers without the Sabot must bolt or their plasma is useless.


Tos,

You're debating maybes. I'm debating known ships and technology. Maybe GW plasma will get a super-duper sabot and go speed-64. I see no use in debating what could be the case. We'd still be chasing shadows this time next year that way.

As of today, GW hits its plateau at Y185. If a speed-32 option for X2 excessively unbalances combat vs. a GW opponent, there is cause for doubt. Nothing else makes sense to me.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 09:36 pm: Edit

Lurking mode off:

No trans speed 31. There is no reason to think there will be another speed upgrade to plasmas or drones. The only reason plasmas got the sabot mode was because they degrade over range, and the later war ships could outrun them long enough to eliminate their effects. Drones don't have this problem. With uber-phasers, uber-heavies, new drones, s-bridges, ASIF's, "any" boxes, and all the other stuff X2 will get, a super-speed mode not only isn't necessary, it takes X2 one more step towards being broken out of the gate. Speed 31 is the tactical warp speed limit. It is not a function of available power; it's a fixed limited speed. Leave it alone.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 10:24 pm: Edit

Well, if there is to be trans-31 speed this, IMO, is the way to do it. Having even higher speed, IMO, is too much and would cause real problems. Spd32 stays in the confines of the impulse chart and is therefore, IMO, workable. IT is not so powerful. You gain no profit in speed by using a Mid-Turn Speed change as the only gainable hex is on impulse one and you can't do a mid'turn speed change on impulse 1 at all. Beside, Spd32 has to be allocated.

In any case, I really prefere a upgrade in turn mode built into X2 designs. It goes to the "Smarter Design" paradigm that X2 should be.

So, I'll let this "No quite dead horse" lie.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 10:31 pm: Edit

Regarding turn mode, I'd make speed 32 double the turn mode of speed 31.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 10:58 pm: Edit

Quote:

Note that plasma chuckers without the Sabot must bolt or their plasma is useless.


We can always reprint the R10 rules in X2 before illminating which rules get improoved thanks to X2 tech...just for those few people who don't have R10...and we need only take the Sabot rules if we want to cut things down.


Quote:

As of today, GW hits its plateau at Y185. If a speed-32 option for X2 excessively unbalances combat vs. a GW opponent, there is cause for doubt. Nothing else makes sense to me.


Which is the case, GW plasma gets hurt more by Speed 32 or Drones!?!


You have a 330 BPV XCA and I have 3 Kzinti CMD ( with all refits and drone speed upgrades free to take care of force dynamics ).

You run from me.

You run at speed 32 until my drones run out of fuel.

I was smart and bought Type IVF-X-a drones.

You either fight these things or, you take a lot of Ph-1 hits to your number 4 AND give me 6 turns in which to build a bunch of SPs.

I can see that maybe a speed 32 retrograde should be out of the question and maybe not, but you have to come at me sooner or latter and in those 20 odd impulses the range can close 40 hexes so you'll have to fight some drones sooner or latter, you might make it latter but then thanks to T-bombs and speed 31, you could drag out the drone waves for a lot of turns anyway.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 11:12 pm: Edit

Quote:

The only reason plasmas got the sabot mode was because they degrade over range, and the later war ships could outrun them long enough to eliminate their effects.


Yeah, but then increasing 31 to 32 when the sabot moves at 40 is only going to make a few impulses difference before the plasma strikes.

I say capitalise on the fact that GWs now have Sabots to allow for a speed increase of 1 for truely high tech ( and expensive ) ships.


Quote:

With uber-phasers, uber-heavies, new drones, s-bridges, ASIF's, "any" boxes, and all the other stuff X2 will get, a super-speed mode not only isn't necessary, it takes X2 one more step towards being broken out of the gate.



Wargames ar about manouver and the application of force.

Some players like to focus on manouver ( because that's where their talent lies ) and some players like to focus on force application ( because that's where their talent lies).

If we make X2 highly advanced in the feild of force application and keep the same old manouver capasitites then we marginalise half the players because they know that playing an X2 battle is unadvantagious to them and probably advantagious to other guy or else he "wouldna" asked to have an X2 battle.

I for one don't want to marginalise half the players.

There's already a dicotamy forming between the manouver oriented players ( who like to play Y ) and the Firepower oriented players ( who like to play X1 ) and whilst I'ld love to see some serious firepower in X2, I don't think I'll find many opponents unless there is some ( or to some people; "considerable") "tweaking" of the manouver system.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 03:00 am: Edit

When the poll was take the 7 people who voted either 33+ or 32 kinda beat the 4 people who voted for 31.

A majority of 11 people isn't enough to change such a basic tenet of the game system.

32 will probably be the top speed for X2 ships ( and (that'll probably allow warp TAC & HET on impulse 1 as a result )!

A gross assumption there, and unwarranted.

The average tactical speed of an X ship will likely be higher already, breaking the envelope is not warranted. There is no reason for it, nor worth the game balance issues it will cause.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 03:34 am: Edit

Quote:

The average tactical speed of an X ship will likely be higher already, breaking the envelope is not warranted. There is no reason for it, nor worth the game balance issues it will cause.


See above about appealing to manouver Oriented people.

Total power Ship W-Eng IMP AWR
58 Fed XCA 48 4 6
59 Kli XCA 48 5 6
48 Fed CX 40 4 4


Now assuming we have an ASIF that cost 6+15 and a both ships choose to run the ASIF at low power and HK is 5 ( thanks to special bridge) and we pay 8 EW we are looking at ships with battles speeds of.

Klingon 59-19 and then if the ship uses her Disruptor caps then she has 40 points of power for movement ( and if we count the 32nd point of movement as costing 10 points of movement) then she may run at 32 if she frees up an impulse boxes by employing a point of BTTY.
If she doesn't use her Disruptor Caps and instead fires her six Disruptors on overload then she has a battle speed of 16 ( but doesn't need to use a point of BTTY but if it did it would then have a battle speed of 17 ).

The Federation XCA, is probably dumping 6 points of warp power into Overloaded Photons and pays 8 EW and 5 HK and low powered ASIF for 6 and 24 into Photons thus has 15 power to go into movement.

The Fed CX, is probably putting 8 into EW, 4 HK, and 24 into Photons gibving it a battle speed of 12.


I don't know about the rest of you but I don't see 15 as being so much more than 12 that I fear breaking the game.
On the other hand giving players a new set of dynamics ( such as making hack&slash less profitable ) will add FUN to the game.
Perhaps it will break the game...but we really need to playtest a lot more before we can say for sure.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 10:46 am: Edit

Have we kept the idea that X2 Heavy Cruisers have MC1?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 01:23 pm: Edit

Not everyone. The mainline cruiser seem to be MC=1 but some have suggested the command cruisers be the size of a DNL.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 01:48 pm: Edit

There's the general consensus, as Tos' post suggests there is a vocal minority dedicated to MC = 1.25

As I have said before, I am a traditionalist about such things. My personal view is you're gonna build a XDNL, call it a XDNL. Don't muddy the waters by calling it a XCC or XBC or XBCH.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 05:02 pm: Edit

Its a play balance thing designed to drain off excess power at high speeds. You can go fast or you can power your uber-weapons. Too frequently with a lower movement cost you can do both, which reduces the power management aspect of the game. Of all the reasons this is to me the most important and will only be proven or disproved through open minded playtests.

It also pays homage to the D4 -> D6 -> D7 -> D7C -> D7W -> C7 theory of cruiser development, which is to say cruisers keep getting bigger. If they continue to grow at some point they must get so massive that they are no longer MC=1.

Lets look at how many boxes are on each ship:
D6: 86, MC=1
C7: 118, MC=1
C5: 143, MC=1.25
C9: 155, MC=1.5

Now lets look at average move cost per non-warp box:
D6: 86/1 = 86
C7: 118/1 = 118
C5: 143/1.25 = 114.4
C9: 155/1.5 = 103.3

If we design X2 ships to have 120 boxes or less then I’m fine with MC=1. If we start getting into 140+ boxes then we should be thinking about raising the MC.

What we call an X2 ship with a MC=1.25 is less important. Some would call it a DNL due to its movement cost, some would call it an XCC based on its mission. I prefer the XCC nomenclature because it gives us more room to expand when its time to take on the Xorks.

As I stated initially the most important reason is to limit excess power when moving at max speed and this is a theory that can only be tested by play.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Gee...I must have a real mild position on the XCC thing.

I'ld say it was an XCA with 50/40/40/40 shields instead of 48/40/40/40, has two flag bridge boxes, has two 360° Ph-6s chucked in and carries an extra G-rack mounted in the engineering hull.
And maybe has a "Admiral's yatch" in the exspanded shuttle bay.

For the Fed's anyway...

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 06:03 pm: Edit

Limiting power is why I kind of like Jessica's idea of reducing effective movement cost and using pre-X1 engine power.

That's why my Fed CX looks like it does.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 06:33 pm: Edit

Tos: You an I a least agree here. Couldn't have put it better.

Class, IMO, is not determined by MC. THere are examples of this already. If the DNL had not been suggested yet there probably would be a problem. I don't understand how one would look at the two engine F-XCC or the K-XCB then look at the MC and say "Oh, it's a DNL." when it's obviously a cruiser, just a big one.

As before, I also have suggeted a CM as a main workhorse cruiser with MC1.

And, given the designs above, there should never again be a DN. The Xork fighter should be the XBC (upgrade of the XCC).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 07:07 pm: Edit

The counterpoint is technology.

A "space" is not necessarily a fixed unit of interiour space measure.

A Fed CX has 12 P-1's, twice that of the MW Fed CA. But in the intervening 30-40 years are we to believe that the P-1s are identical and that the CX hull has simply gotten larger to accomodate the extra weapons? Yes, the CX hull is proabbly larger, but I don't think it's THAT much larger.

That means that the components have gotten smaller, too. More hull boxes on a ship can reflect superior materials and more efficient and damage-resistant bulkhead layouts. Increased warp can reflect increased efficieny and safety both.

An so on.

We already have evidence of this in the way plasma torpedos are handled. Think Klingon->Romulan conversions.

Also, you can't tell me that the R-torp hasn't shrunk since its introduction in what? Y50? If the R has shunk as tech advanced why not other stuff?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 08:56 pm: Edit

Personnally I'ld don't really mind how many boxes are on a MC1 SSD for X1, but then I would actually like to see X2 cruisers being SC2.

I don't know what JANE'S ALL THE GALAXCY'S STARSHIPS would call an MC 1.25 XCC or maybe that should be STEVES' ALL THE GALAXCY'S STARSHIPS but I don't really mind.

The Klingon D5 seriously outclasses a Federation CL even though it has a lower MC, but does it really matter, not really, the SC and MC are really just to make the game feel as though it has some kind of "real physics" basis but the big banana is and always has been BPV.

If the Tholian DN can be MC1 and SC2 and not make a lick of difference to the way the game runs, why should MC1-SC2 XCCs be any different.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 09:36 pm: Edit

yeah, I think of the Fed as a CLX too, but it's really a DD (on steroids).

As an aside, I would have preferred to see the DDX called a CLX with 30 warp and a 2/3 MC instead of 24 warp and a 1/2 MC.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 11:00 pm: Edit

John, that sort of thing doesn't just happen with advances in technology. Take Orion cargo for example. Six Orion cargo is equal in volume to three standard cargo (hold half as much) but takes six hits to kill. This reflects a more sturdy structure as the Orions really want to preserve their cargo since it was hard earned.

I understand your point and to a degree that works for me. I did consider that and, in fact, apply it to my proposals. Still, may XCC is a pretty big ship and has nearly the same number of internals as a DN. Also, while the X1 Ph-1 may be smaller than the EY Ph-1 the X2 Ph-5 is at least as big as the latter (IMO, I guess it could be any thing we want it to be).

Cargo would be one thing that doesn't get any smaller. Bridges (especially Special Bridge) probably get bigger. Impulse probably stays the same but gets easier to maintain.

Hull, on the surface, would stay the same per box but there is nothing to messure individual hull boxes by so the total number of hits could represent various amounts of volume (though Barracks remains a constant as it is enough for 10 BPs).

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 01:35 am: Edit

I don't think there's a single proposed MC1 X2 ship from anyone that's more than 130 boxes, at least, that's from what's on Vorlon's X2 web page.

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