I hate the -1 to-hit roll that comes with the EW advantage in (XD6.34).

What if we declare that the first X1 ships all used outstanding crews gaining this benefit (and a short list of others) due to the exceptional people rather then the technology. By Y18x few outstanding crews not already assigned to X-ships were available. Most X-ships built after this date use a slightly detuned set of rules.

The BPVs posted on the MSC assume good crews and to get the bonuses listed under the X-Outstanding Crew rule requires expending 10% of CO or fleet points.

Note an X-OC is only a 10% increase while a GW-OC is a 50% increase, this is due to the much smaller tactical difference an OC makes in the X-era.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 02:55 am: Edit

You would be canceling out the written rule that says "X-ships have better targeting computers. To reflect this..."

I believe it is even written twice. Once in the original X1 and again it the CL fix.

I didn't double check but I believe this is so.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 06:00 am: Edit

I hate the fact that any old GW ship with a drone rack can escort it'self with an ECM drone and keep the fantastically expensive and high tech, X ship at a +1 penalty.


Without the -1 thing the X ships just become fast BCHs. The Offensive crunch of the loss of overloaded phasers had to be gained from somwhere and the -1 thing was what compensated for it.
I'm okay with the -1 thing.
But I don't think it should be something for XP ( anymore ) as the ability to generate 8 ECM without the possibility of the drone being shot down is enough to stop the actual X ships from getting that -1 bonus and I think that's a tech-shift the Admirals would find to be most desirable.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 06:02 am: Edit

With the current rules the -1 can cost a lot of power to obtain. Making X-ships spend power is a good thing.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 10:02 am: Edit

“With the current rules the -1 can cost a lot of power to obtain. Making X-ships spend power is a good thing.”

The CX can afford the EW power far better then the two war cruisers its chasing can. It costs the two war cruisers twice the EW power to fight off the CX.

If there is going to be a crew rule for X ships it is going to be in this module. I've proposed one: the available crews get weaker over time and forgo certain X1 benefits. If you don't like it let me hear what else you have.

"The Offensive crunch of the loss of overloaded phasers had to be gained from somewhere and the -1 thing was what compensated for it."

The X-ship already has 50% more P1 and either 50% more HW or a HW that fires 100% more often. That adds up to plenty of crunch in my book without allowing all disruptors to auto-hit at range 8.

"I hate the fact that any old GW ship with a drone rack can escort itself with an ECM drone and keep the fantastically expensive and high tech, X ship at a +1 penalty."

It could have been written that X-ships ignore ECM lent from drones, but it wasn't.

My main concern is for the poor shieldless Andros, the enemy during the X1R period. If we assume their rules are fixed then X-ships may be unusually effective against them. We all know that Andros are notoriously hard to balance, particularly when the damage reaches above a certain threshold. At this point no one has been able to confirm that sufficient X1.rev1 vs. Andro testing was done so I need to raise my concern.

“X-ships have better targeting computers.”

It says this at least once that I can confirm.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 11:08 am: Edit

Note, I like the -1 benefit ONLY if heavy weapons are not otherwise improved AND it is impossible for an XP-ship to exceed 6 generated EW. Give the XP ship either of the above and I believe the -1 benefit is too strong - those combinations should remain reserved for X-ships.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 11:43 am: Edit

I'm with Tos.

The -1 was a bone tossed X1 after OL phasers went away (side comment: 2x caps should have gone with OL phasers). I can deal with it as a phaser-thing, but it gets obnoxious as a HW thing. I'd rather it be a Outstanding crew effect.

I see three alternatives for crew quality. For X1 to go mainstream, the Outstanding Crew requirement has to be lifted.

1. For X1 without OC, subtract selected X-benefits, such as the -1 ECCM bonus (To get full benefit out of any x-ship it needs an OC)

2. Leave all X-ships the full benefits of the rules, regardless of crew quality. This would lead to the question of what additional benefits ships WITH an Outstanding Crew get on top of X1-advantages (that way lies madness--IMHO, anyway)

3. Simply say there there is no Crew Quality in X1 except "poor".

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 12:32 pm: Edit

I'm all for X1 getting the -1 shift. Often case this will cost 8 ECM. The rules clearly state that X-ships have better targeting computers.

I strongly DO NOT believe XP should gain this advantage. As I've said before, surethey get the advanced computers and as such can generate 8 EW BUT bottle necks between the old and new systems slow it down enough that they just cannot gain the die shift.

In other words no die shift for XP. X-ships need to maintain superiority. XP is for bolstering the current fleets power and for making better X-ship lead mixed squadrons/fleets.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Certainly XP should no gain both the -1 and 8 EW circuits.

It's the combo that's bad. Further talk if needed on the XP thread.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 03:18 pm: Edit

John: I agree there. I'm totally into no -1 for XP but because of the ship not the crew.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 07:28 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Certainly XP should no gain both the -1 and 8 EW circuits.

It's the combo that's bad. Further talk if needed on the XP thread.

---