Flare Bombs

A ship can carry up to 2 flare bombs instead of T-bombs. The flare bomb's explosion damage is much lower but the blast radius extends out to range-2.

Damage at range 0: 5
Damage at range 1: 3
Damage at range 2: 2

Until it explodes, a flare bomb appears indentical to a normal T-bomb.

Flare bombs cost 5 BPV each.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 09:12 pm: Edit

What about a delayed fuse T-Bomb. It explodes the next impulse after it detects a target. This could be an add on to a mine and would be particularly effective on the Flare Bomb.

Or the flare bomb could have a variable detection range. I.e you could set it at R1 or R2 then determine move cost signiture.

That gave me another idea. A drone or shuttle move capable of mimicing any move cost up to one.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, September 20, 2003 - 12:50 am: Edit

The conversation in the Photon topic turned to a discussion of double power for X2 AWRs and I came up with this idea in this post.

==============================================
How much power do these ships need? I mean, my XCC has two 24 point Warp engines, six impulse and four saucer warp. I only put two AWR and the only reason was to have some present. That's 58 power. Even with 3 point batteries that's WAY plenty. Doubling the AWR provides no measurable benefit and is over kill, IMO.

Races with out Boom or Saucers would have the center warp engines but would have more AWR. Still, we are talking six total power from AWRs. Would I like to see those be eliminated with just three hits? No, especially when the Boom/Saucer counter parts have six hits to destroy theirs.

I figure the best way to improve AWR would be to reduce the repair cost, simply stating the new system is modular and can be repaired easier. Warp Engines repaired as AWR would cost the same as before.

Perhaps these replacement parts could be supplied outside of normal repairs. Any AWR present on an X2 ship can be repaired using the following procedure outside of normal repair procedures. A damaged AWR can be switched out and brought back on line. This can occur during the turn after it is damaged. I require the use of 2 repair points each but does not count as a system under CDR. That means if the ship has a DAM CON of 6, only four are available for CDR on that turn. Every ship with AWR comes with one replacement module for each AWR box. One additional AWR Replacement Module per AWR box can be purchased under commanders options for 2 BPV each.

Modular AWRs can be repaired with normal CDR procedures and this process would not use up an AWR Module and would count against the limit on systems repaired with CDR. EDR could also be used and would not use up a spare AWR Module.

A Legendary Engineer or Science Officer could use their own procedures or replace an AWR Module without the requirement of repair points. It still requires a full turn to switch the modules.

Consider this an actual proposal for Modular AWR (MAWR).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, September 20, 2003 - 12:09 pm: Edit

I agree.

Having double AWR power that applies to AWR and only AWR is a big hunk o' rules to add to touch up systems that will die rather quickly and don't add much to the game and will put pressure on X2R to have Double Warp Engine.


Even something truely minour, like giving the probe manouver thrusters so it can fire out to R8 ( instead of R6 ) and the Anti-matter bomb can reach R8 ( rolling 6 to hit on R7&8 ) has advanatges over the double AWR.
1) It won't create pressures on other systems.
2) It takes a lot more damage to hurt that system.
3) Players who want to avoid that system just don't send any power there...players with double AWR will be dealing with it just about every turn they fly an X2 ship ( atleast for the first few turns of each scenario ).

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, September 21, 2003 - 01:25 am: Edit

The 2x AWR is an unnecessary system. Just put twice as many AWR boxes on the SSD.

The 2x AWR and 3x vs. 4x Battery questions forget to look at the big picture: "How much power do we want on THE SHIP" is a more important question than "How much power do we want on EACH BOX".

The only reason I went with 4 4x batts is because I couldn't find a space to fit the 5th box and have the SSD look right. If I could have, I would have gone with 5 3x batts. Either way, the ship's battery capability is in the mid-teens.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, September 21, 2003 - 04:10 pm: Edit

Okay how about this?

Originally (as printed in the existing rules) X2-BTTYs could hold Warp Movement Power. Can they now? I recommend a compromise where they could hold WMP over 1 turn, after that one turn the WMP degrades to Warp Non-movement Power.

If we go with WMP-held for X2-BTTYs then I don't have a problem with 3ptBTTYs and 1ptAWRs; if no WMP-held then I'd like to see 4ptBTTYs and 2ptAWRs. I really don't want to leave them at X1 capability. Batteries are a vital component of SFB and there should be something for them in X2.

I realize this changes some dynamics but then X2 is supposed to be new.

As far as HOW MUCH power is concerned, I'm going with 58-62 for the X2-CC. This includes Warp Engine Power (1ptx2 FWD and 24ptsx2 AFT), AWRs (either 1ptx4 or 2ptsx4), and Impulse Engine Power (1ptx4). It does not include Batteries. SSD-wise, I have the AWRs split evenly between the fwd and aft hulls.

In any case I'm thinking 2xFWD and 2xAFT for BTTYs.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, September 21, 2003 - 08:20 pm: Edit

Curious, what practical difference is there in being able to hold warp power in batteries when a ship has enough warp to travel speed 49?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, September 21, 2003 - 09:15 pm: Edit

HETs and EM.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, September 21, 2003 - 09:30 pm: Edit

Bingo; any high Warp Power use. Also the Feds need Warp Power for their heavy weapon where the Klingons don't. Therefore the Klinks get more maneuver power.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, September 22, 2003 - 12:00 am: Edit

Lets say I have 48 warp on a MC=1 hull. That's 30 warp for movement, 5 for HET and 6 for EM (if I'm not using impulse for some reason). That leaves me with 7 spare warp to fill my bats with. In this example there is no particular reason to need warp to carry over the turn break as I will always generate more warp than I need.

So what if the ship is heavily damaged you say. I'll say show me an X2 ship with heavy damage and I'll show you an X2 ship with empty batteries. Warp carry-over won't help this ship either.

So what if the ship depends on warp energy to power its photons you say. I say this enhancement only benefits one race. If you want to provide warp carry-over to the Feds then you have a potentially viable argument. I can't see any other race bothering.

I say one race because I'm not concerned with an Orion's ability to generate warp power and I don't accept Tholians producing X2 photons, they are deadly enough with WC.

Make it racial tech available only to the Feds and it will add flavor, even if it adds little practical difference.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, September 22, 2003 - 08:57 am: Edit

The Feds already have a special Warp power rule. It's called AWR. Which just about no other race uses. Not even the Jindarians who have a Heavy Weapon that needs warp power just as much if not more so than the Feds.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 12:41 am: Edit

Loren Knight
The comment implied that when the problems were solved that allowed X-Tech on a BCH type hull THAT'S what X2 was.

John Trauger
Loren,

The problem is, the sort of X2 we're proposing (at least Y205 X2) here doesn't square with that.

XCX to XCA we trade 1.5 P-1's for a P-5. to got to the BCH benchmark a ship should then have 10-12 P-5s and we're stopping at 8.

We made a conscious effort to limit the escalation of raw power going from X1->X2 and I think that decision was the right one. Our XCAs in general are upgraded CX equivalents, Not BCX euqivalents.

Now come the Xorks, THEN we'll talk about true BCXs.


Loren Knight
I'm not seeing it as number of phasers (or any armorment) that defines the hull. And I don't want to call it a XBCH either.

The X2 ship will have more powerful/flexable weapons so it's a trade off. What does define the XCC as based on the BCH is it number of hull, command facilities, shuttles etc. My XCC is closely related to the BCH but not a conversion. The number of weapons remain the same though there is a few additions. Certainly the warp and impulse engines are different.

The XCA has a similar layout as the NCA with a few additions. Not to mistake it or a refit though. It's clearly a new hull.

I am totally not looking for BCHX's. But am basing the RAW hull on the GW BCH to keep in line with what was written before.

Internal consistancy is important to me. It was said and should be done. That's why I'm not keen on the "X2 is smaller" concept. Also, I don't want to blatantly contradict canon Trek. The differences are many but it's a good thing to maintain some similarities. Myself and new players would expect it.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 01:00 am: Edit

Now that that past conversation is out of the way, we can proceed with new stuff.

When someone says "BCX" (i.e. a X1 BCH), that conjurs up a certain set of expectations.

I expect the BCX will pile on the weapons by comparison to the CX, just as the BCH did compared to the CC. I don't think I'd be the only one thinking of a BCX--or an XCC claiming to be a BCX--this way.

Focusing on command and control as the measure of a command ship ignores what I and probably a lot of people expect from "BCX".

And it gives us no room for growth. Nothing in Y205 X2 should ever be called any kind of "X-BCH."

First we establish what a baseline XCA/XCC is, and save the BCH reference for Y225.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 10:28 am: Edit

I agree. The GW-BCH is not a souped up CC hull but a new hull laid from scratch.

All I'm saying is that the XCC is built on the GW-BCH hull frame (with extensive rediesigns of course). When they drew the blue prints for the XCC they pulled out the BCH, not the CA.

That's what I mean. I'm not looking to call it a XBCH. Heck, after some sort of Xork refit I still wouldn't. I'd call it a XBC.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 11:46 am: Edit

Absolutely. The BC is an entirely new design. I have no objection to the X2 ships following this basic layout (in line engeines, etc) as it shows the continuing advancement of the basic cruiser hull. But, as loren says, just because it LOOKS like a BC doesn't mean it is an XBC. XBC's, IMHO, are a no-no. It may turn out that the X2 ships we're doing right now such as the XCA, XDD and XFF may be able to handle the Xorks nicely...we just don't know yet, and won't until we see a Xork in action. I think if we can...

• Agree on basic weapon abilities
• Agree on SIF or special shield rules
• Agree on basic hull designs for the CA, DD and FF
• Agree on special X2 rules and goodies

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 02:08 pm: Edit

Loren,

Ah. My error. I somehow got from that that it was the fulfillment fo the "X2 give you your X-BCH" line in Module X1.

Mike,

Agreed.

I would add that we wnt to work with the Y205-220 time period. You would expect in 15 years that a few advances would be made and more might be on the back burner for cost or political reasons. then comes the Xorks and we start pushing ships to their utter limit again.

Given that the empires will eventually be pushing the Xorks back to their home territories, a long-range cruiser might make much more sense for the Xork War time period.

(I kind of like seeing the races take a clue from the Selts and build a supermassive transport, but that's another topic)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 03:12 pm: Edit

Speaking of mid-period improvements I just thought of one. Actually it premis is an old idea but this one works better.


=============

Phaser Tracer:

A heavy phaser may fire as a Tracer. As a tracer it does no damage. Roll one die and record the result. Phasers fired at the same target the following impulse hit at one better than the die roll for the Tracer. These phasers must be announced as following the tracer at the time of firing. If the tracer roll is a one or a two then this also adds a +1 ECCM for firing other weapons at that target.

Use of a phaser as a Tracer counts as firing that phaser in its full mode for that turn. The power required equals the full cost of firing that phaser in full mode.

Use of a Tracer does not force the firing of more phasers the following impulse. The effects of a tracer only apply to fire on the following impulse. Only one tracer (on one target) can be used per two impulses (that’s how long the beam lasts).

Apply EW affects at the time of firing the tracer. EW changes after the tracer locks are ignored for the follow up PHASER fire. (The added ECCM for other fire can be countered at any time.)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 03:27 pm: Edit

My phaser lance also does this, albeit doing some damage in the process...

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 04:09 pm: Edit

Oh, sorry, I didn't know (or recall).


I did think of something missing from above. A particular Phaser Tracer can only guide phasers of it's own size or smaller.

John: Care to repost it?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 06:15 pm: Edit

Loren,

The phaser-lance is a hybrid of a mauler and a phaser. It therefore damages plasmas and seeking weapons as a phaser but isn't as accurage or damage-efficient.

Like a phaser it is limited to drawing off of its own internal capacitor system which is hit on phaser hits from any direction. For damcon purposes, a Phaser-lance capacitor box rates above a P-5, allowing the player the option to take boxes or not as he wishes. Energy can only used by the phaser-lance in certain amounts, never going above 4 points on any given round. It may be fired on any or every impulse.


The mauler is a hit/miss weapon

range	0	1-4	5-8	9-15	16-30
Hit(2d6)	10	9	8	7	6
damage
1 pt	4	3	3	2	1
2 pt	6	5	4	3	2
4 pt	9	7	6	4	3

I'm still stuck on capacitor energy. should a box hold 1,2, or 3 points of power?

The capacitors are not batteries. power xferred to them goes in and doesn't come out. You can transfer energy into the capacitors during direct fire and use it immidiately, just as you could with a phaser.

The neat trick is: every consecutive impulse the beam is focused on a unit the ship gets +1 ECCM to a maximum of +4 but only as long as the beam is on and firing at the same target. A miss loses 1 point of ECCM and the ship starts over if it switches targets.

The weapon's intended tactic is to take 1small shots every impulse to build up the ECCM then cutting loose with the heavy stuff.

Optional interesting effect: The weapon tends to make deep gouges in a ship and is resolved as a separate volley. After 8 points of damage are scored on a ship, even if totalled over multiple impulses, the "A" row is no longer accessable even if there are undamaged system boxes on that row. Damage After 16 points of damage "B" row systems my no longer be hit and so on, digging deeper into the ship.

Interaction with my ASIF (which shields some or all DAC columns): The key phrase above is "damage scored on the ship". Destroying the boxes shielding the new row does not count as damage scored on the ship. If the B-row ASIF shielding is 6 boxes, those 6 have to be destoryed then another 8 "B" row damage points have to be scored, before the beam starts with the "C" row.

My ASIF will massively slow the ability of this weapon to dig into a ship as compared to what would happen to a GW or X1 ship.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 08:39 pm: Edit

Oh, OK. Not quite the same. Mine is the paralel to a Guns Tracer round; allowing you to observe how your shot is doing an make adjustments. The Tracer shot fires a long term low power shot (but still takes full firing energy), firing over a period two impulses. The other firing computers take note of the result of the trace and home in (gaining the tracers score plus one).

I you fire a tracer round and roll a six typically you would not follow up with other phasers but would, two impulses later, fire another or take your chances with normal fire.

John: Please allow me time over the holaday to mull your idea over.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 08:42 pm: Edit

Feel free.

My original proposal combined it with a Quari-esque turret proposal.

My Fed XCA on my X2 site uses this system. I just don't have the rules written up for my site.

http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/x2/vorlonagent/Fed-XCA.gif

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 05:43 pm: Edit

Loren, the tradeoff is a two phasers fired with one guaranteed a decent hit?

John, is the Phaser Matrix (vice Lance) intended to be a Kzinti-only weapon? Would the Orions be able to grab a copy? I can see the Hydrans wanting to get their hands on it too, especially if they can combine it with AEGIS and Ph-G.

Oh yeah, has anyone suggested an X2-Ph-G?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 07:09 pm: Edit

RBN,

My X2 philosophy is that everybody should have something uniquely theirs. Be it a unique flvor of Disruptor, a super-huge plasma torp, something.

The Phaser-Matrix was intended as a Kzinti-unique thing, as was the drone array. Figure that the phaser-matrix could end up in Orion hands the same way all other tech does. How many option mounts it takes up is an interesting question. I lean towards two, but have no strong opinion.

The Phaser-Lance was intended to be a common New Thing to all X2 ships.

There have been discussions about what sort of X2 P-G there should be. Two common contenders are a gatling P-6 and what amounts to a Gatling P-2. You'll find that in the Defensive Phasers thread.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 08:55 pm: Edit

RBN: More than that. One tracer can be followed by one or more phasers.

Here's where it gets interesting. Say I fire a tracer at a ship and roll OK with a 3. The target then knows he's tracked for a possable follow up. He can turn a reinforced shield in time or declear fire as he's been warned. Now, did I hit him with a tracer to really fire or did I do it to egg him into firing. Can my plans allow for wasting a phaser shot for that? Or do I intend to follow up with my whole load?

To me, this sort of thing add depth to play. It has built in balance in that the target is warned the impulse prior. (or fooled at the cost of one phaser).

This has long ranged implications. One could fire one phaser every two impulses until he makes contact then follow up with the rest with a guarenteed hit(s). Example: On impulse 9, a Fed XCA fires a tracer phaser-5 at a Klingon DX at R30. The first phaser rolls a 4 for no damage. No trace is possible and follow up fire would be a auto miss. On impulse 11 the next tracer fires rolling a 5; again no trace. On impulse 13 a third tracer is fired and rolls a 2, this would be a lock as normal damage is at least one point. On impulse 14 the XCC fires 7 follow up phasers that get an auto roll of 1 doing 14 damage to the DX. The DX, having seen the good lock, turned a side shield and absorbed most of the damage with specific reinforcement and batteries.

In an alternative scenario the Fed might not have fired the follow up phasers since his goal was to get the DX to turn away and slow his approach to gain a bit more time to reload photons.

===============
Rule addition: If the range bracket increases during movement between the time the Tracer is fired and Follow up fire the auto hit number of the follow up fire is at -0 (that is remains the same as the tracer die roll). If the range bracket decreases it is still at tracer roll -1.


Ya, know, this could be an interesting optional rule for all eras.