How would this interact with X2-AEGIS, or would it?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 09:19 pm: Edit

RBN,

Tell me what X2 Aegis is and I'll answer that.

BTW the gatling P-2 had its range capped at 15.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 09:22 pm: Edit

Ah yes. What is X2 AEGIS . . . an excellent question . . . mumble mumble . . . (fade out) . . .

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 09:26 pm: Edit

It wouldn't. Since you would have to fire your tracer one impulse and fire follow up the following impulse it is really the opposite of aegis.

Aegis is a very fast responding targeting system where the tracer is more like firing a RW tracer round, observing the result, when you get a hit, you follow up into the same spot.

Aegis is multiple firing steps taking place in an instant. Tracer is a longer term thing. Using a tracer on a seeking weapon would be a waste.

Tracers on shuttles might be dangerous at certain ranges but Small target modifiers would balance out it affect. Since it takes up a phaser to use you would likely use the same amount of phasers anyway. If the Tracer doesn't role good then it's a waste and the shuttle gets away for two impulses. Using a tracer on a shuttle could likely require more phasers than just rolling regular right off. So, WW would be affected in actual game play.

Scatter Packs are a different matter. On might apply a tracer on one until they gain a good roll then sink enough to guarantee a kill rather than make it blossom. Still, this takes up several phasers and could be just what the enemy wants. Heck, the SP might not be real and just cost you three or more phasers.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 04:01 pm: Edit

I'd allow something like an A-10 to carry a tracer round in place of its photon

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 01:00 am: Edit

I've figured out that the races will not need bigger X2 ships when the Xorks come. There is only one new ship they will need...

X2 Maulers using Andro Mauler battery rules (i.e. each X2 battery is its own group).

If the Xorks are bad enough to handly those...well, god help us.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 01:48 am: Edit

Unless the Xorks have Mauler-Absorber Arrays ( What...you think Andy only sent ships to our part of the milkyway!?! ) that turn mauler damage into energy for the BTTYs to use...then we might have a hope, just so long as we keep the Maulers away from the Xorks.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 10:16 am: Edit

Aye, they might at that...

It is understood the Andros went to Xork teritory. It is mentioned that the Xorks may attack because we defeated the Andros, something they could not do. Hence, they didn't want us turning on them.

Speculation based on speculation, however.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 09:00 am: Edit

This idea keeps popping up in the other topics, mostly the photon topic where some would like to see fast loads disappear.

Basically the discussion goes, “X1 can do this so X2 has to be able to do it too and should be able to do it better.” Others say “not necessarily.”

My personal X1 pet peeve is the –1 to hit with an ECCM advantage. This reeks of outstanding crews to me and is something I’d like to see gone from X2.

What other aspects of X1 should be done away with as we transition to X2?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 03:37 pm: Edit

If I had my 'druthers, I'd add 2x phaser caps and fastloads.

I'm conflicted on the ECCM shift.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 04:25 pm: Edit

I find the ECCM shift to be quintessential to the High Tech. nature of X-Technology.

However, I would NOT want to see that improved (despite a recent post of mine suggesting an open end to the shift if the ship can gain that much ECCM advantage). Any sort of targeting improvement in X2 should just be reflected in the nature of the Ph-5. Part of the effectiveness of the Ph-5 is in fact, improved targeting.

In the new X2 Phasers thread I propose some techno babble but in any case the numbers on the damage chart show this to be true (whether my techno babble is or isn't the case). It's in the way that the damage is laid out to the die rolls over range. It is different from the ph-1 in how damage is distributed.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 12:46 am: Edit

I'm not sure justifications can be made to give X2 less of those X1 abilities.
-1 Shift capitalisation is probably the only thing that COULD be gotten ride of because the X1 crews need to be AWEFULLY GOOD.
..... In an email to me SVC gave; X1R rules to put poor & outstanding crews on X1 ships after a particular point after the YIS and rules for X1 ships if they didn't have AWEFULLY GOOD crews after said point after the YIS, a big MAYBE.

I dare say these questions need to be held back until X1R is published...the effect that a DNX will have on XCC design will also mean any X2 debate is purely academic until after X1R is published.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 01:12 am: Edit

I cannot see the -1 shift going away either. I mean, X2 should get worse targeting computers? That doesn't fit the picture, IMO.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 08:41 am: Edit

The -1 doesn't play well with GW tech. It doesn't in X1, it won't in X2.

Lets say X1 gets the -1 from its outstanding crew (G21.211), not advanced targeting computers. Mind you this contradicts (X1-Revision:XD6.34), but it gives us more room to work in the X2 era.

If we can’t eliminate the –1 then the only alternative I see that can help restore balance is to allow XP ships to generate the same EW as X2. This can either be from XP being allowed to generate 8 ECM or by X2 being stuck at 6 ECCM.

I’ve always equated X1 ships with the outstanding crew rules because their abilities overlap in so many places. An outstanding crew costs +50% BPV. I’d say the ability to out EW your opponents plus the –1 to hit represents about 33% of this bonus. An X2 ship that is balanced at 300 BPV without the EW/-1 benefit would be worth 400 BPV with these two benefits. Conversely if we removed the EW/-1 benefit from a ship that weighed in at 300 BPV the ship would not fight closer to 200 BPV. That’s a HUGE swing for such an ethereal advantage.

24 point photons and a whole host of other options become a lot more palatable if we can eliminate the –1. Now if I could only figure out how to eliminate (XD6.34) from the X1 rules…

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 10:49 am: Edit

If we can’t eliminate the –1 then the only alternative I see that can help restore balance is to allow XP ships to generate the same EW as X2.

Well, there is a thought. I don't see why that can't happen at all. It keeps everything in line and makes the best sense. Why would better computers be apart of the XP refit. Indeed, sometimes such things are the only refit. We do that on todays Naval ships and Fighters Jet all the time.

Ya, 8 EW should be the first line of the XP refit list.

So now X1 and X2 have to consider that if they don't carry enough EW they could be facing granting the GW/XP ship a free -1 to hit! This will have the effect of narrowing the power advantage just a bit (depending on the tactical situation of course).

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 11:05 am: Edit

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that since the X revision rules clearly show that the -1 shift is due to targeting computers, that edge would disappear within a few years. As those computers become more commonplace, they will be installed on the fleet's remaining ships. The X2 ships might have some better stuff, but not good enough to warrant a further -1 shift. I suppose saying X2 has a -1 shift on all pre-X2 stuff would work, but to be honest, I never liked that rule in the first place.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 08:44 pm: Edit

Alas, not necessarily.

We have targeting computers good enough to get a laser to intercept an artilary shell in flight. It isn't going to backslide again.

I think giving XP 8-point EW (without the ECCM advantage) would be appropriate also.

Just make sure X2 doesn't go above 8 or we get the same problem again.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 10:54 pm: Edit

Anyone in favor of petitioning the powers that be to eliminate (XD6.34)? It would really help keep X2 down to a reasonable BPV range. That -1 could be 100 BPV in an XCC.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 11:20 pm: Edit

Frankly I like the -1 ECCM thing. It gives X1 flavor.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 09:04 pm: Edit

Well we could talk about it to SVC or SPP ( I have a feeling he'll say RULES QUESTIONS ALWAYS GO TO SPP but it's probably worth a try ).


Would some X ships keep it?
I can see XCCs keeping it ( having an awefully good crew ) but XFFs and XDDs dropping it to keep the BPV price down and allowing for other more inovative changes like Full X Aegis and ASIF and S-Bridge.

Still, maybe the prices shouldn't go down, just yet, I'm stil loave to see an XCA that can't keep an Orion CX in check!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 09:12 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

If we can’t eliminate the –1 then the only alternative I see that can help restore balance is to allow XP ships to generate the same EW as X2. This can either be from XP being allowed to generate 8 ECM or by X2 being stuck at 6 ECCM.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 03:41 pm: Edit

S-Bridge may be all the improvement that X2 ships need as far as electronics go and I assume that X2 will have the same EW capabilities as X1. But I had this thought.

What if X2 gains a second firing stage in the impulse proceedure. One just after the first Hellbore Firing Option and one during normal fire step.

This could be quite powerful in that fire could be divided into two volleys in a single impulse.

By Mark Norman (Mnorman) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 04:54 pm: Edit

Loren: Is this a second firing option like aegis but not limited to small targets, or do both stages have to be declared, together. In the first case it would make certain situations to easy to deal with (capturing a base for instance), while the second would provide no advantages, unless you make the two stages seperate volleys, in which case mizia become VERY effective.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 05:21 pm: Edit

Two volleys.

This of course would be a major thing and could only be apart of the lesser powerful proposals.

Goes with a certain paradigm towards lessening crew damage and preserving ships. You end up with more disengagements and captures.

This would be an example of a simple thing changing every thing if exploited correctly.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 06:23 pm: Edit

"What if X2 gains a second firing stage in the impulse proceedure. One just after the first Hellbore Firing Option and one during normal fire step."

That could be mimicked by simply taking the size class restrictions off X-Aegis. It is still resolved as a single DAC volley.