---

Quote:

Don't you think this trend in design would continue in X2? That Fed ships will still have more hull?

---

---

Quote:

In fact, giving both ships the same caps-to-ssreo ability does nothing to protect them against A column losses, since these occur after the shield is dropped and internals applied.

---

---

Quote:

Personally I don't like any form of ASIF

---

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 08:53 pm: Edit

The 7H phaser hit? When all the F Hull, Battery, C Warp, Shutle, APR, and Lab are gone, the crusier is usually not just crippled, but hopelessly crippled.

Admittedly, I have not really looked at the ASIF proposals, but if they're being designed to protect the H column phaser hit rather than the A column mizia hits, then I think the design needs to be re-examined.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 10:16 pm: Edit

Well, yeah but it also protects the B collum IMP & APR and the C collum BTTY...and the protection of those is going to have a huge influence over the battle.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 09:06 pm: Edit

New poll (comentary)

The reason I went with 10 EW and a -2 bonus is to avoid having to put bigger heavy weapons on the ship.

With a -2 bonus, disruptors would autohit at range 22, which would be the perfection of what was originally an accurate weapon.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 09:16 pm: Edit

I understand the reasoning, I just don't like it. Auto-hitting weapons are a big, big no-no, to me. I think we can improve the weapons performance to a reasonable level without making them too big (for example, no 24 point photons), and without making a 10 EW family of ships.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 09:21 pm: Edit

I agree. If you want to auto-hit you should have to work for it.

Besides, I not sure the X1's ECCM shift is capped at -1 either. I'll have to check the changes...

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 09:25 pm: Edit

I'm sorry, it is capped at -1

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 10:10 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Auto-hitting weapons are a big, big no-no, to me.

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 10:21 pm: Edit

MJC,

Without commenting on your desire to eliminate the ECCM shift, it's been too established that X-ships need outstanding crews just to function so don't excpect to make any headway restoring the bonuses when it's been made pretty clear that they weren't supposed to be available to X1.

My guess for why is that they'd be unbalancingly powerful.

The -1 ECCM shift was compansation for losing OL phasers. Don't expect to get that pulled.

Moreover, the Steves spent a fair amount of time pushing through and rebuilding X1 and I wouldn't expect they'd care to reopen the subject. Probably most of these points were raised during the revision.

Bottom line: trying to push either of these changes would be tilting at a windmill. I wouldn't advise it, won't support it and (more important) don't think anythign would come of it even if I took your side wholeheartedly. Even if all of us on this board did.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 10:36 pm: Edit

Also, I wouldn't care to see X2 having less capability that X1 on any level. However, keeping it the same is a valuable thing for X2 because it applies to bigger, further reaching weapons backed by a somewhat larger power core. In this way using the same specifications is an improvement. Improving both sides is too much, IMO.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 11:25 pm: Edit

I supose playtesting will show us whether or not our X2s need the TAKE ADVANTAGE of negative EW thing to be anywhere near the BPV we're aiming for them.


If we need the bonus to stay in the game then we can have, and just say it's a product of the advanced targeting computers.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 11:34 pm: Edit

Little choice since we're not going to be backpedaling on X-capabilities.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 11:38 pm: Edit

XP ships do not require outstanding crews and do not gain all of the advantages of an X1 ship. X1R is undefined. X2 ships do not require outstanding crews. XP and X2 ships may have outstanding crews or poor crews and with such would perform better or worse according to the rules of (G21).

X1 ships are good. They are good by design and they are good due to their outstanding crew. An outstanding crew in a non-X ship doesn’t have all the advantages of an X1 ship. An X1 ship without an outstanding crew would likewise perform poorly; so poorly that it just isn’t done. The crew and the ship are inextricably intertwined to gain the maximum benefit (XG21.0).

Why does this matter? It matters because if the X1 benefit was technology generated then it should carry over to X2. If the X1 benefit was crew generated then it would not carry over to an average crew X2. It is my opinion that the –1 to hit is generated as a function of crew not technology based on (G21.211). One could argue that the 8EW was partly or wholly a part of the crew based on (G21.212). Even the damage a plasma torpedo does over distance could be considered largely a crew function (G21.214). There are no rules that define how an X1 ship would perform if it did not have an outstanding crew (though these rules could be included with X1R or XP) but one has to wonder which benefit, technology or crew, is the root cause of each X1 benefit.

So for those that accept any of the above observations it is NOT clear that an average crewed X2 ship should retain all of the advantages of X1. We may choose to include all X1 benefits in X2 but we should NOT feel required to do so.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 11:54 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Little choice since we're not going to be backpedaling on X-capabilities.

---

---

Quote:

An outstanding crew in a non-X ship doesn’t have all the advantages of an X1 ship.

---

---

Quote:

So for those that accept any of the above observations it is NOT clear that an average crewed X2 ship should retain all of the advantages of X1. We may choose to include all X1 benefits in X2 but we should NOT feel required to do so.

---

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 01:21 am: Edit

Response to the message posted in the poll thread:
"Where does it say that the -1 is due to their Outstanding crew. Indeed, SVC says that it takes an outstanding crew to operate an X1 ship and they lose all benefits of being Outstanding. The -1 is a function of "Better Targeting Computers". (XD6.3)"

Loren, I infer the -1 as a crew related component from (G21.211). (XD6.3) does not contradict my hypothesis but the errata found in (XD6.34) does. There are two ways to interpret this combination of rules, as a crew function and as a technology function. Both positions are easily defendable but neither is unassailable.

I’m not going to quibble about what the meaning of the published rules are. What is worth discussing is how would we prefer it to be interpreted. I’m betting you have never considered not giving X2 every X1 advantage. I’m asking you to consider it.

I believe there should be some few features of an OC manned X1 ship that are superior to an otherwise equivalent X2 ship. I’m proposing the –1 be one of those features. Put an OC in the X2 ship and it will whip the X1 ship handily.

In my universe X1 and X1R are still important enforcer and command ships during the X2 period. They remain the true warships in an era of peace freeing the X2 ships to be well-rounded and capable starships economically operated by average crews and used where combat is not to the death. The X2 era of the tradewars should politically resemble a patrol set in Y165.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 04:08 am: Edit

Tos: I had no intention to quibble over these rules and I appologise if I came accross that way.

I see X1 and X1R basically the same way as you. Further, I see those ships as becoming easier to opperate and requiring only standard crews by Y200-205. Their quality becomming a new standard. The best of those crews, though only a little better (standards of training having been improved), are the chosen crews for X2. Eventually raising the standard them selves.

This brings me back to a rule I proposed way back in the beginning of the X-Files. I suggested that every new ship suffer the effects of being "Green". This was less restrictive than a Poor crew but reflected the crew and ship breaking in together. Stratigic was reduced by one, Turn Mode was inclreased by one, acceleration was decreased somewhat, and some bonuses were negated like those for Weapon Status and a few others. This lasts for one F&E turn (six months) after the ship first leaves on its first mission.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 04:18 am: Edit

CFant: It was my intention that S-Bridge never have EW capabilities. I only suggested a EW capability if, after playtesting, it was determined that X2 needed a further EW advantage that the new advantage could be given through this rule rather than directly to the ship as a whole. I suspect that there wont be a need but if there was, I think this would be the best way to add it.

As it stands and as I proposed it, S-Bridge has no EW capabilities. One very important reason for this is for those players that do not use the EW rules. In this environment I wanted to still see X2 gain these advatages, which are basically uncomplicated.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 07:57 am: Edit

Loren,

No problem. I went back in the archives and looked, and it was actually Kenneth's proposed S-bridge I used.

Everyone, as far as the rules and "where does the -1 shift for X1 come from" debate goes, if it's really that important to know, the simplest thing is to just ask. Someone put the question in the Q&A thread and see what comes out of it. If its from the ship just being a better vessel with better computers, etc., then it should probably carry over to X2. If it's the crew, then it shouldn't have to, but we might keep it anyway.

We should tread very carefully with EW changes. There is much more potential to unbalance X2 by way of EW than by almost anything else. Consider what 10 EW and a -1 shift allows. Unless you happen to be fighting a scout, base or other scout sensor equipped opponent, you can pretty much guarentee a -2 shift throughout the scenario. It might cost, but hell, why wouldn't you do it? With a -2 shift, you can:

• autohit with disruptors to range 22, and hit on a 1-4 up to range 40
• autohit with overloaded photons to range 4, and hit with a 1-5 out to max overload range.
• autohit with proximities out to range 12, and on a 1-5 at all other ranges.
• autohit with plasma bolts to range 5; at worst, a plasma bolt will have a 50% chance to hit.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 09:43 am: Edit

Yeah.

10 ECM can be paid for by the X2.
What with the 8 Warp more than the X1s and then you'ld just go to 9 point Fastloads ( or the equavalent ).
If you can't find 10 ECCM with that much power and the ability to dial down, you're just not wanting it.

Even with a -1 shift max.
The ability to hit 1-4 at R8 with Photons against a GW ship escorted by an ECM drone purely through BURNING your way through is a huge influence on the battle, undoubtled the single biggest influence.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 10:18 am: Edit

I'd go with 8 EW. With a max of -1. with my version of the special bridge.

For anyone wondering what my version of Lorens special bridge is. I've recopied it here.

Advanced Bridge

I went with Lorens proposal on using Special Bridge. (Renaming it to advanced.) But limited it to Detection type abilities mostly. As shown on the Romulan SSD’s.(With normal rules for being blinded.) Instead of Lorens more capable method. Because we need to leave a role for the true Scout in the Xork era.

Advanced Bridge
24 Controlling SW
25 Identify SW
26 Detecting Mines
27 Gather Information
29 Tactical Intelligence

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 10:20 am: Edit

As you can see. It has NO EW capabilities of it's own. I went with the basis that it was improved sensors. Not that you could channel the power used in the other operations. Of jamming breaking lock ons etc etc.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 06:15 pm: Edit

Geoff Conn: Special Bridge is a bridge with added capabilities of Scout Channel functions. These functions do not include any EW and some are not included as well as some are limited. The capability is lost once all S-Bridge boxes are destroyed. The S-Bridge capabilities are returned once repaired. (This may be that an S-Bridge cost more to repair or the capability is repaired after the first bridge box is repaired (and all subsequent boxes are S-Bridge)). The function list is above.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 06:17 pm: Edit

Kenneth: Definatly no EW capabilities on S-Bridge (any version). I could live with the list you posted just above but I recently posted a revised list that included some of the other capabilities but those were limited to a single target.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 07:44 pm: Edit

"I see X1 and X1R basically the same way as you. Further, I see those ships as becoming easier to operate and requiring only standard crews by Y200-205. Their quality becoming a new standard. The best of those crews, though only a little better (standards of training having been improved), are the chosen crews for X2. Eventually raising the standard them selves."

I see things differently. I see X1 ships as requiring an outstanding crew to function as designed in the rules. These were the best warships money could buy in a time of total war. Eventually the races would run out of outstanding crews available and be forced to place the best available average crew on their new X1 production. Contradicting the rules an average crew could be stationed in an X1-ship, but the ship would lose many of the advantages defined in the rules. I propose that X1R contain rules for non-OC crews stationed on X1 ships.

Certain X1-tech was easier to maintain than other X1-tech and the easier systems made their way into XP for use with average crews. An example of easy tech are the X drone racks. An example of hard tech unavailable to XP are warp engine upgrades.

X2 was designed to be easier to operate and more affordable to maintain. X2 was designed to meet the very different mission parameters of the trade wars. Average crews could operate them effectively. They were not pound for pound quite as deadly as a maxed out X1 warship with an OC, but place an OC on the X2 ship and the X1 ship would die every time. Where the X1 ship relied on a superior crew and massive but inefficient engines the X2 ship relied on advanced technology hull materials and the ASIF. The stronger hull allowed for upgraded weaponry that would cause shock on any ship not using the new materials and construction techniques.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 09:28 pm: Edit

Tos,

One of the biggest mistakes we made when we first sat down to look at X2 was to assume that X-tech was going to shade into general use. X-ships becoming easier to use and therefore not rquiring outstanding crews is, in my mind, part and parcel of that line of thinking.

I can't speak for SVC, but I don't think the requirement for Outstanding crews to make X-tech work will probably not be lifted for any X-tech, no X1 or X2. It is one of the primary things that defines X-ships as an "elite corps" of starships amid much larger fleets of GW-tech ships.

The MOMENT you lift the Outstanding Crew requirement, X-ships become de-facto general-use and become the defining baseline ship technology. In assigning a small, elite niche for X-technology, presumably including X2, SVC appears to have decided that the defining baseline technology for the SFU will remain standard technology.

That means keeping the X-genie in the bottle. Expect X-ships to continue to require an outstanding crew for use. Don't expect that to change any time soon.