Bullshit. Sorry, but it is. 400 BPV of ship should be an even match for 400 BPV of any other ship or combination thereof. There is no "Force Dynamic" involved...either 400 points of GW ships are a match, or they aren't. If they aren't something is wrong.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 05:59 pm: Edit

Take 4 Hydran HNs and go up against a C7 a few times on a fixed and floating map and see which one comes out on top more often than not.
Alter the Hydran C.O.s to fit the same exact total BPV and the C7 will still win more than it's fair share.

Lots of little ships just don't stack up against one big ship and X2 ships are going to have deal with the fact that lots of GW cruisers going up against an XCA is in the same boat.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 06:51 pm: Edit

Nope. SVC has made few demands for us on X2, but that one is absolute...X2 BPV's MUST match up to GW BPV. If I have a 350 point X2 ship, I should be able to beat that ship half the time with a 350 point GW force. No compromises on this; it's the only demand he made. This isn't like Module Y, which is not meant to mix with GW or X1 stuff. These ships will still play with GW, X1 and such, and therefore have to follow the same BPV curve.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 07:20 pm: Edit

And SVC has also that even if one GW ship doesn't exist with a matching BPV, that that's okay.

Can an equal number of GW cruisers really beat a B11 half the time or does the B11 go down ( half the time ) only when a equal fleet of Klingon and other ships come together and no ship has the advantage of being ONE ship but rather it's 8 ships ( lead by a B11 ) Vs 10 ships ( lead by a DN ).

Do 4 Fed DWs bring down a B11 half the time!?!

I think SVC already knows that although the X2 ships have to play nice, they only need to play nice against ship that are individually the same BPV and in squadrons have parity with equal BPVed fleets.


Just because there aren't many 400 BPV ships to go up against the XCA+ doesn't create a problem, particularly not if the XDD+ can go up against a Fed DNG and win half the time and carrys the same ( or there abouts ) BPV.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 07:28 pm: Edit

Who said, anywhere, that the problem was that there aren't enough 400 BPV single ships to go up against X2? No one. This is not about numbers...it's about BPV totals. If my four D7's, at 600 points, can't whip 600 points of X2 ships half the time, something is broken. Period. This is how BPV works, and is core to the game. You cannot simply say "well, these are X2, so if I need 600 points of GW to beat 400 points of X2, that's okay". It isn't, and no one is going to agree to it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 07:38 pm: Edit

Here is the thing about Force Dynamics. They do exist but they DON'T make up for BPV discrepancies. When you have a very powerful ship like the B-10K it has a certain toughness about it that allows it to keep going through much damage. When you pit three smaller ships against it the must use their numbers to good advantage or they will get slaughtered. If they approach for an over run they get stamped out like bugs. They cannot act as one ship.

Now, X1 has a high BPV but the Force Dynamics of GW vs. X1 is such that there is going to be a small vessel which is eliminated easily.

By having X2 be a little higher, GW now can equal it with ships that don't go down with one punch. It is possible that X2 could be balanced against GW better than X1 is. However, get too high and it fails again, possibly the other way around.

GW's Force Dynamic can make up for the technology gap but NOT BPV.

Equal BPV to BPV must be a 50/50 win/lose ratio.

MJC: If I pick the right Fed. DW's it is entirely possible to kill the B11 (which is conjectural so not entirely a fair messure).

It is not really possible to match any combination of ships to beat a heavy unit 50% of the time. Twenty freighters aren't going to beat the B10K ever. But a reasonable number of combinations of GW ships should indeed win 50% against equal BPV of X2.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 07:50 pm: Edit

I think, also, the higher the BPV the more error prone it becomes.

Bases are unique since they aren't matched up against just anything and the match is well planned. Ships are different and when you get into numbers so high it could become near impossible to balance. 300'ish is the general concensus and is born of wisdom.

I would like to point out, however, there will likely be only one class of ship with a BPV so high. Most X2 will have at least on other unit that can match it (be it X1 or GW). While the XCA will be higher BPV than the CX a pair of GW cruisers should be able to give it quite a waluping. The XDD will have any number of opponants that are equal matches, one on one.

Only the XCC will be hard to balance. All this is really only about that; a single class. The star of the Era.

There is no way I'm considering anything over 320 BPV and that is higher than I'd like but would be a good BPV match up for two CBs.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 07:54 pm: Edit

'X2 should trump X1 because X1 trumps the GW ships'

Bah.

MJC, your bias is evident. 'X2R: Cheap Builds'? I cannot recall even one person agree with your proposal for >400 BPV ships. Why do you persist in insisting that this is some how a desirable thing?

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 08:01 pm: Edit

I may be mistaken, but it looks like MJC has his vision of what X2 should be, and everyone else has a different vision.

Is everyone besides MJC in agreement, in principle, on the basic design of X2?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 08:10 pm: Edit

Another way of stating what Loren says is,

"The higher the BPV, and the stranger the tech, the more severe the RPS effects"

Look at the Andros.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 10:45 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Who said, anywhere, that the problem was that there aren't enough 400 BPV single ships to go up against X2? No one. This is not about numbers...it's about BPV totals. If my four D7's, at 600 points, can't whip 600 points of X2 ships half the time, something is broken. Period. This is how BPV works, and is core to the game. You cannot simply say "well, these are X2, so if I need 600 points of GW to beat 400 points of X2, that's okay". It isn't, and no one is going to agree to it.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 10:56 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

The XDD will have any number of opponants that are equal matches, one on one.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 11:05 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Bah.

MJC, your bias is evident. 'X2R: Cheap Builds'? I cannot recall even one person agree with your proposal for >400 BPV ships. Why do you persist in insisting that this is some how a desirable thing?

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 11:13 pm: Edit

MJC,

ONLY you believed that a XCA should fight even with a CX+DDX.

There was no consensus for this.

I certainly never signed onto that. Did you, Loren? Tos? MikeR? Any of the old-timers around here?

What I remember, MJC, is that you posted that comparison a lot, like you posted "Caps-to-SSReo" a lot.

There wasn't any consensus for that idea either.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 11:14 pm: Edit

Old-timers? J

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 11:16 pm: Edit

"Old" in computer years.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 11:42 pm: Edit

Can we close off all discussion of post-Xork X2?

SVC had said (last year) that he has specific ideas for the Xorks, but won't make them public yet.

So any ship that's designed for Xorks should be a taboo subject, for now. MJC, that includes your refits.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 12:27 am: Edit

I would just like to see crusiers still be crusiers.

We really do NOT need to make a crusier into a DN and slap a crusier name on it.

If you take a CA, CB, CX and XCA and put them all side by side they should be very similar but a better every time you go up.

I am still of the opinion that the XCA should NOT be as good a warship as the X1 CA. I think it should be a better all around ship, but designed for the new fleet workhorse job, or at least the strong arm division of each fleet. If the XCA has about 8 P5s, and Photons that are of the X1 variety, you should be able to develop a ship that is an all around better design, but come in somewhere between 250 and 300 BPV, and still be a crusier.

I would like to see a Fed XCA for example, have 44-48 Warp, 4 impulse and 4 AWR. That is 4-8 more power than an X1 CA.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 12:42 am: Edit

---

Quote:

If you take a CA, CB, CX and XCA and put them all side by side they should be very similar but a better every time you go up.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 12:50 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I am still of the opinion that the XCA should NOT be as good a warship as the X1 CA. I think it should be a better all around ship, but designed for the new fleet workhorse job, or at least the strong arm division of each fleet.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 02:29 am: Edit

I always had this concept that X1 ships were, even though they were high tech, finicky and complex requiring highly skilled crews, and that X2 is the streamlining of high tech ship design wrought with inovation, maintainability and flexability.

That were it not for the pressing needs of the GW, ISC and Andro conflicts, X1 would have been more a prototype for X2. X2 being the ultimate goal of the desiners back in Y180 (scheduled for Y190).

That why I have a little bit of a problem with X1R bringing new X1 designs. The XP refit makes perfect sense and a couple applications of X1 tech make sense too, but not more war ships.

I'm not saying that X1 ships aren't things of beauty either, just that they were not the final goal of the X-Project (for all races. Co-mingling of basic concepts is likely natural. It's a big Galaxy and information travels though many a wood, desert and ocean by foot, plane and boat. By friend, foe and those unknown.)

I imagin this view is unique to me so I'll understand if you all disagree.

By Mark Norman (Mnorman) on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 06:39 am: Edit

Loren:
I agree with that idea, and seem to have got that idea from the discussion in module P6

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 06:49 am: Edit

---

Quote:

nd if people would read and see XCA+ rather than assuming they read XCA and jumped on someone for wanting UBERSHIPS, we might actually be able to HAVE IT ALL.

---

---

Quote:

Me; I want the best of both worlds, I want an XCA that starts off at 300-330 and gets refitted to 400-410 BPV.

---

---

Quote:

Well, yeah...if three 400 BPV X2 cruisers go up against a full fleet of GW ships ( that happen to come in at 1200 BPV ) anjd wins about half the time then everything is fine...that's what I've been saying and SVC has said it too.

The fact that you might need 3 D7 type ships ( with some Outstanding Or Legendary stuff thrown in ) to build a 500 BPV force to oppose that 400 BPV ship is an oddity of Force Dynamics and is cured in the GW period by requiring DNs to be part of a group no smaller than 4 ships in total...think about it.

---

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 06:55 am: Edit

According to the poll.

Please only Answer the Questions. Keep the Commentary in the Appropriate Thread.

1. What BPV should an Fed/Klink XCC have. Keeping in mind a possible 1X BCHX being around 300-325. (The ISC CCX is 315 but the ISC CC is just about a BCH in firepower anyway.)
A. 250-300 (2)
B. 300-350 (5)
C. 350-400 (5)
D. 400+
E. Undecided (1)

2. Should traditionally high BPV races (BP in general) maintain the:
A. Same relative spread on BPV 4)
B. Shrink the relative spread on BPV (6)
C. Undecided (2)
D. Case by Case per race. (1)

The general consensus was between 300-400. With 350 as the presumeable mid point of agreement.

Personally I prefer 300-325 for average XCA cruisers. With 350-375 for XCCs for Fed/Klink.

With the high BPV races having the relative difference shrunk. IE: A Rom XCA at 375 or so. And a XCC at 400.

I'm going to reask the basic question but with more of a point spread than before. So there will be more choices.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 09:23 am: Edit

Somewhere along the line, I got the impression that X1 was a 'failed experiment', in the sense that the ships were so specialized that they were impossible to maintain/crew effectively/mass produce/or-something-else.

I do not recall where or when this notion osmosed into my noggin, but it provides the basis for much of my disagreement with the idea that X2 must trump X1.

That, plus a 400+ point uber-cruiser just sounds boring and uninteresting.