Oh I disagree completely. Since it works both ways I think it adds to the challenge. I would add however that we play it slightly modified. Shield reinforcement does not leak. Early weapons hits are easiest to repair and I have seen situations where a weapon would NOT have been available had it not been damaged earlier from a lucky leak hit. (Specifically, the over run happened the folloing turn while the weapons was being repaired. This protected the weapon from the Alpha strike and it was up a running the folloing turn.)

Leaky Shields provide an interesting dynamic that mimics the TV show better, IMO. The real down side is in fleets with small units as small units are more suceptable to each early damage point. (They have fewer weapons and less damage control). So it is slightly more imbalanced.

One way to solve that is to say smaller shields are more rigid. So leaky shields would work like SC3=1:4 and SC4=1:6 and SC5=1:8.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 06:36 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I think it's pretty much inescapable that a destroyer with 2-3 phasers that partially ignore shields, upgraded defenses, limited scout abilities (unblindable), and a superior power curve (if less power than is being proposed) will have a BPV that is higher than a general war cruiser.

---

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 07:00 pm: Edit

I mean to suggest that only X2-category weapons (ph-5, ph-6, any A-heavies) would impose the leaky shields rule. It's a bit more record-keeping ('I did 13 ph-5 damage, 5 ph-1 damage. Roll for 3 leaked internals and mark off 15 shields.')

It is a little GW unfriendly, but not a gamebreaker by itself. Throw it on a ship that can fly 31 all day long and still arm everything and still keep 6+ ECCM and fastload heavy weapons, and yeah. It's ridiculous. That's why I didn't want to include any of that.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 07:43 pm: Edit

But then how many people want to play a one trick pony?
Especially your one trick. I didn't like the movie HEAT but I'm quite alone in that. Sometimes the majority of people don't like what I like, so it's fair to say that some people won't like everything you like.


That's why I want Disruptors to have things that make them much more playable ( Built in UIM, Disruptor Caps, 6 impulse double boardside penalty ) whilst having Photons that have a bigger warhead.
Players want the ultimate in flexibility, they choose one race...players want to inflict a massive blow, they look to another race.


It's better to have a little improvement in everything than to hope that one great idea is thrilling to everyone.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 07:55 pm: Edit

MJC

I presume you are talking to me.

Then we appear to have an irreconciliable difference of opinion. You want the Six Million Dollar Ship, the Steve Austin, remade to be bigger, better, faster! I don't. I am completely distinterested in more accurate disruptors, bigger photons, or plasma that makes your average sun look like a dim flashlight.

I want a game that encourages maneuver. I want a game where you have to make hard decisions again (rather than flying to range 1 over a turn break with max defenses only to trade crippling, massive overloads on the next turn and limp away).

In short, you see a one trick pony in my proposal. I see a one trick pony in yours. We may simply have to agree to disagree.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 08:12 pm: Edit

Mike,

Perhaps you'd like to read Vorlon's X2 page where he tries to summarize everyone's proposals, and has posted SSDs that people have submitted.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 08:16 pm: Edit

JTonglet

Yeah. I check it every now and then. Despite not posting often, I do try to keep up with what goes on in here.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 08:23 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I want a game that encourages maneuver. I want a game where you have to make hard decisions again (rather than flying to range 1 over a turn break with max defenses only to trade crippling, massive overloads on the next turn and limp away).

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 08:25 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Then we appear to have an irreconciliable difference of opinion. You want the Six Million Dollar Ship, the Steve Austin, remade to be bigger, better, faster! I don't. I am completely distinterested in more accurate disruptors, bigger photons, or plasma that makes your average sun look like a dim flashlight.

---

---

Quote:

I want a game that encourages maneuver. I want a game where you have to make hard decisions again

---

---

Quote:

In short, you see a one trick pony in my proposal. I see a one trick pony in yours. We may simply have to agree to disagree.

---

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 08:55 pm: Edit

MJC:

So far, most of what I've had to say deals with phasers. I've said I don't want uber-heavies, but that's because I would like to see alternative firing options rather than bigger guns.

Your mini-mini-me photons (posted recently) were an interesting idea. As have been many of the other alternatives. As of this moment, I'm interested in almost everything EXCEPT more power and bigger guns.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 09:09 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I want a game that encourages maneuver. I want a game where you have to make hard decisions again (rather than flying to range 1 over a turn break with max defenses only to trade crippling, massive overloads on the next turn and limp away).

---

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 10:11 pm: Edit

Leaky Shield weapons will make 2X a VERY different beast. Believe me I've been working on a race called the Lorkesh (for the Shield Galaxy) that use Layered Shielding (Which is inherently leaky). It gives them more protection vs a single Alpha. BUT it makes them more vulnerable to paired moderate sized volleys.

Weapons that Leak vs ships that aren't designed for that will give 2X a HUGE advantage over non 2X (Especially if the weapons aren't designed to be weak in the first place. With their only advantage being a Leak threshold). If we incorporated any other improvements we would have to balance the XCA starting at 400 BPV and working upwards from that.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 12:19 am: Edit

I'm pretty leery of leaky shields.

Going outside the game, I think it's one of those things you either like or hate and I'm not sure I would care to see X2 *force* players to work with the rules.

Put another way, there's a reason they're *optional* rules.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 01:13 am: Edit

---

Quote:

and I'm not sure I would care to see X2 *force* players to work with the rules.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 01:32 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Put another way, there's a reason they're *optional* rules.

---

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 07:20 am: Edit

Then you have the same general situation you have when the andros come into play. Alternatively, a note is added to X2Dwhatever stating that X2 ships never suffer from leaky shields.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 07:58 am: Edit

Well, it might not be an unreasonable approach. Steve wrote the following in module P6 about this very topic:

---

Quote:

One possibility is that an X2 phaser could leak through X1 shields and punch through non-X shields, creating an interesting dynamic. We might extend overload range or provide ships with an "overload capacitor" that could be recharged when you didn't need all of your power.

---

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 08:20 am: Edit

I don't think it's any more unbalancing than a photon this is guaranteed to drop a shield. Rather than elevate the BPV, I'd be more inclined to play games with the leak threshold. Yes, it's potentially deadly to mizia someone who has full shields ("oooh, I got lucky and destroyed every one of your CW's control boxes! Sweet!"), but a few internals don't automatically throw the game off.

It sounds like Loren's group plays with leaky shields as a general rule, and he's already sounded off that they aren't a game breaker.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 08:30 am: Edit

I'm sure it would work; that's what I meant. The issue is going to be how to make it work, particularly against GW ships. If X2 weapons can leak through X1, that's an easy enough application of the current leaky shields rule. But "punch through" non-X shields is more problematic; how much punches through? Half? Less? More?

That's what would have to be worked out, and could result in a very high BPV price tag. That, apparently, is not a concern to Steve...at least, not according to his post on the subject last year, when he said he didn't mind high BPV's, so long as they are "true". That is, if an XCA has a BPV of, say, 500 points, then 500 points of GW ships should be able to beat it half the time. He was very insistant that this work.

I've been having a few ideas that I need to play with that will likely take me in a different direction than I've been going. I kind of got to feeling bogged down in all the posts, rebuttles, and arguments that have been going on, so I went back and re-read the article, and looked up all of the Steve's posts that he's put up in here. Kind of got me thinking about a new approach. The one thing that is crystal clear, though, is that there is no way we will all ever agree on what to do. So, it may be that we'll just have to do several proposals. For example, if X2 phasers can leak through any but X2 shields, it may be that the X2 phaser does less damage than the P1...not more. Just food for thought.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 08:41 am: Edit

Leaky weapons aren't game breakers. But the leak threshold of D3.6 needs to be VERY carefully considered.

The Default for D3.6 is every 4th point. But other settings are also suggested.

But a number of questions have to be answered.

Reinforcement, how does it effect the threshold?

What are the effects of weapons that already produce Leaks? (Spearfish for one). Are they combined?

How are different weapons striking simultaneously handled? I.E. Photon/Disruptor with Leaky Phasers.

What happens if certain weapons have a different volley function? Do they combine with any leaks that occur during that step? How are phaser (or other directional) hits handled?

What happens to targets that don't have conventional shielding? Andromedans etc. (Which is a VERY big part of the Shield Galaxy. Otherwise why would it have that as a working title?)

And there are plenty more where those came from. Plus the fact that D3.6 is an optional rule, so it might not be adviseable to make it an integral part of 2X.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 09:33 am: Edit

Kenneth Jones:

Fair questions. If you want playtested answers, though, I'll have to disappoint you Off the cuff, since the whole thing has been off the cuff...

Reinforcement: Works just like shields. One point of reinforcement is a virtual shield box. The strength of the shields makes no difference to the leak. (edit) Though there is something just satisfying about the idea of allowing general reinforcement to raise the threshold for penetration. I'm not sure why I like this idea, but I do.

Assuming that multiple leak-producing weapons strike on the same impulse, the effects would be combined only if the hit on the same shield facing.

Different weapons striking (leak/non-leak) I alluded to above. Leak points are 'pulled out' of the damage pull before shield hits are calculated, so if a shield goes down, the leak damage is included as part of the volley. (eg: 16 points of X2 phaser and 8 points of A-photon strike a 30 point shield, along with 20 points of non-X2 damage. 6 points of leak damage are pulled out, leaving 18 X2 damage and 20 points of normal damage to strike the shield. The shield drops and 14 points of internals are scored.)

I assume you mean hellbores and similar weapons on the volley question. It's still early, though, so I could just be obtuse. If the weapon volleys separately by default, then X2-leaks won't change that. And the hits are still directional. Internals are scored as if the shield was down.

Unconventional shielding would have to be handled on a case by case, since I only know the rules for one (andros). I'd be inclined to modify the special rules for disruptor hits to andros.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 09:34 am: Edit

Scrolling back, I missed a question from MJC.

I have no idea what module Y provides. I don't have it.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 10:11 am: Edit

Mike my main point with those questions was to show some of the stuff SPP has been asking me. Which will have to be answered before any meaningfull playtesting could be done since the P5 (and possibly other phasers) are so integral to 2X design.

The biggest problem with a leaky weapon is that the threshold has to be low enough to be of use. While not being so low that a few impulses spent in R8 sniping away wont mizia away all of the targets weaponry.

If the threshold is to high its simply a bookeeping headache that would only be used a handful of times. In moderate phaser strikes that aren't combined with Heavy weapons. Because at R5 or so, you should be generating enough phaser damage to mangle the shield anyway, if not penetrating it outright.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 10:43 am: Edit

Kenneth:

Oh, I understood where you were coming from, and pulled those answers out of my posterier to illustrate that every question has an answer (even if I don't know what it is yet).

I agree, though, that setting a threshold is an interesting exercise.

In this case, it would be desireable for it to work with the Ph-5's ability to reach out and touch a ship at longer ranges with a greater certainty of effect.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 10:55 am: Edit

---

Quote:

It sounds like Loren's group plays with leaky shields as a general rule, and he's already sounded off that they aren't a game breaker.

---