I was thinking along the line of a two point shield. This is an old proposal (shield pod) that is waiting for its time (IIRC SVC had at least considered such a thing for someday).

Plasma: two possabilities:

Adds the extra charge as per normal (no change to type) but the Mega-X pack allows plasma-F's to be bolted. In the rules it says the fighters small frame cannot handle the discharge but perhaps the X-pack would make it sturdy enough. As a balancing factor perhaps bolting would damage the fighter by a point and/or drop the 2 point shield (if there is one).

Upgrades Pl-F to Pl-L.

Adds 2xPl-K to Pl-D fighters.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 02:38 pm: Edit

Loren,

The normal megapack adds 2x D-torps. K-torps are freely swappable with D-torps.

My advice is just add 2x D-torps.

Heck, the megapack will add 2x D-torp to a F-torp assault fighter, which is kinda fun.

For extra fun, you can have the X-pack will sabot a torp for no energy cost.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 02:48 pm: Edit

Oooh, ya Sabot! Good one John!



Sabot it is!

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 02:53 pm: Edit

D's and K's only, I think, not F's or L's but still...

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 02:59 pm: Edit

Loren:

The standard mega-pack already adds 2 Pl-D to any plasma fighters. Are you suggesting these changes over and above that, or in place of it?

Alternate suggestion - mega-X pack allows the Pl-Ds added by the mega-pack itself to be bolted, but not any of the other torps. This is more in line wtih the proposed mega-x packs for drone fighters.

For Hydrans - I suggest no mega-x pack. The Stinger-X with standard mega-pack is already fearsome. Alternately, if shields for mega-x packs are approved, give the Hydran mega-x pack the shields, but no other upgrade above and beyond their standard mega-pack.

For Tholians - You got me. The problem is that under the current rules the disruptor is the worst weapon in Alpha Sector for mounting on fighters, despite being excellent on ships and PFs. One possibilty would be that the mega-x pack on a disruptor armed fighter adds two extra charges rather than one. But half the Tholian fighters in a squadron are phasers-only (except for Heavy Fighter squadrons). So even if the disruptor upgrade would work, you also still need something for mega-X packs on a phaser-only fighter for the Tholians. Two additional Ph-3s instead of one? Or does the mega-X pack add a Ph-2 instead of a Ph-3? Like a said, I don't know what to do about the Tholians.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 03:02 pm: Edit

Regarding sabot, the fighters can already carry sabot torps if the carrier has payed the BPV to buy the capability and the power to arm the fighters' torps that way. Sabot without the power cost seems to me an insufficient improvement.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 03:18 pm: Edit

One other issue occurs to me - mega-x packs for fighters (Fed or Tholian) with photon torpedos. Adding two extra charges instead of one might work for disruptors (assuming the arming ship had time to arm all those torps) but I think it would be unbalancing for photon fighters. An A-20FMx or Tholian Spider-VPMx x-packed heavy fighter squadron would have 36 photon torpedos and could salvo 12 per turn. Granted it would take the carrier a long time to arm those torps. But in a preplanned strike (or a scenario that starts at WS-III) this wouldn't be a problem until the fighters had to rearm. And they could stay out multiple turns and do enormous damage before that happened.

(By the way, Tholian photon-armed fighters can only fly from bases or planets, never ships. But that means their rearm point is protected by webs. And you think attacking a Tholian base is a headache NOW???)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 04:51 pm: Edit

Regarding Sabot: But here is the thing, no-power sabot (player decides at launch) is a propotional improvement similar to X-Drones over Type-1F.

If you think about a CVA here thats a lot of power savings.

Regarding the bolting option: Well, the idea was that the mega-x pack would add enough stability and the basic electronics to add bolting the the launcher. Remember the pack doesn't nessasarilly adds another launcher it adds another charge for the launcher.

Another thought (also note, not all things can go into a mega-x pack). Fighters have typically had easy access to ECM to protect themselves. What if, for a change, the Mega-X pack added better targeting in the form of higher ECM resistance, i.e. includes 2 ECCM. further more what if this was a sort of directional system with a forward dish so it would apply to only the FA arc. Lastly, could the fighter slow by say half for an additional 2 ECCM from this same system.

This would be on top of lent and pod EW. And no, I'm not suggesting the -1 die roll shift. Fighters do their DF up close and weapons up close do enough damage already. Not to mention how dangerous a die shift would be with a unit that can use CCM!

So this would lend to a X-feel without being exactly the same. Note: this would make fighters a bit more dangerous in terrain.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 05:21 pm: Edit

I can see bolting D's or K's but I'm not so sure about Fs and Ls.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 06:12 pm: Edit

If bolt=1 then Pl_L=0.

I would upgrade Fs to Ls if there was to be a bolt. For the most part only one of those upgrades could exist, not two or more.

Mayby Sabot + Bolt because Sabot is already possible.

Regarding no power Sabot: How about this, at any time a Mega-X equiped plasma fighter may lower its speed upon launching it plasma and upgrade one plasma per level of dropped speed to Sabot.

Example: Spd 30 F-plasma fighter. Drops to speed 15 and can then launch is F-Torp as Sabot.

Pl-D's require a speed drop of 8 per launch. Pl-K would require a drop of 4 per launch.

This eases power requirements on the carrier while maintaining flexability. Additionally, a ship could still sink the power into the fighters for sabot and slowing of the fighter would not be needed that plasma charge launch.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 07:08 pm: Edit

I wouldn't worry about that kind of detail.

It would be enough of a help that the x-pack could sabot just 1 D or K torp per turn.

Most fighters can't launch more than one D-torp per turn anyway.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 07:55 pm: Edit

Can you move the Mega-X-Pack discussion to the attrition unit thread?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 08:03 pm: Edit

I hear ya John. Just hashing out possabilities. Simple is better.


One thing is for sure, there isn't anything thats going to make a ship drop a weasle faster than 12 saboted Plasma-F's. If they don't have a weasle charged something still gonna come out the rear of that ship!

By the time you have Mega-x fighters the fighters are going to be the most advanced versions (and most expensive). Slap a Mega-X pack on them and they are really heavy assault fighters both in size, cost and durability. At this level I don't see a problem with allowing one f-torp per turn be saboted.

Bolting should have a cost like shock, that why I proposed it actually damage the fighter. One point to the frame plus one point to either shield or frame for Pl-F

For Pl-D or K, just one point to shield or frame.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 11:51 pm: Edit

We have been given a bit more time before Steve will be able to look at it. If anyone would like to make any suggestions or edits please let me know here.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 11:54 pm: Edit

Plasma Carronade: What do you want to do? The only Gorn ship to to mount the PL-L is the BDX so its not like they are losing anything. A direct fire capability for plasma against Andro is certainly helpful to the races notoriously poor against Andros.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 12:27 am: Edit

But plasma races already have a direct-fire capability with the plasma bolt. The carronade has three adavntages over a standard bolted torp.

1. It can fire every turn. But an X-ship can fastload its S- or M-torps as L-torps in one turn and fire them. So X-ships can already generate "every turn" short range plasma bolts.

2. The carronade is relatively insensitive to EW shifts. But this is less important for X-ships because of their superior EW suite.

3. It always fires at true range, which is a major benefit against cloaked ships but not against Andros.

Granted, the Andros are the major enemy during this time period. But that doesn't mean they are the major factor for consideration with respect to every possible tech development. They are, in fact, almost irrelevant to the question of whether Gorn L-torps (and possibly other types) should have carronade capability. Neither the Romulans nor cloaked Orions are going to disappear. And even during the Andro war the Gorns will keep that in the backs of their minds.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 12:55 am: Edit

The Carronade is much more efficient as an every-turn weapon than an X torp loaded in one turn, needing just one power (though the average damage is a touch lower). I'm in two minds about Rom/ISC use, on the one hand the Orions already use it more than the Gorns (they can field ships with masses of F torps and it's one of the best anti-convoy weapons around), on the other the Gorns have little enough that's special.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 01:20 am: Edit

Andrew Harding:

Yes, the carronade is more efficient than a fastloaded L-torp. But right now the Gorns have no X-ships at all that can carronade. And a BDX with carronadable L-torps is certainly a better "all around" ship than a hypothetical BDX that replaces the L-torps with F-torps to retain the carronade ability. Since Romulans and cloaked Orions are still around during the X1 period, I would like to see Gorn L-torps given the carronade capability. I'm less sure whether allowing heavy torps down loaded as L-torps to carronade is a good idea. Not doing so means that Gorn X-destroyers could carronade but X-cruisres could not. But I'm not sure that's a bad thing. It produces more differentiation in ship classes beyond simple power and cost.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 01:26 am: Edit

I would suggest that the Plasma-L be able to Carronade even if there is only one full X-Ship to use it...but XP ship refitted with Pl-L would not lose their Carronade ability.

And come on...don't tell me that if there is to be a BCHxp that the Fed BCF shouldn't become the BCL.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 01:28 am: Edit

A thought just occured to me concerning cloaked Orions. Standard technolgy Orions have a BPV that doesn't include the cloak, and a BPV cost to add a cloak. But Orion X-ships have the BPV cost include the cloak. So far as I know, there is no way under current rules for the Orions to field an X-ship that doesn't have a cloak.

Suppose a Cartel Lord has a total of only two cloaked ships, both of which have been converted to X-tech. But he has the resources to convert two additional ships to X-tech, except that he doesn't have cloaks for them. Will this prevent him from converting the additional two ships? Under current rules I believe the answer is yes, but this seems silly to me. Cloaked ships would be high priority to be X-converted. But the lack of cloaks shouldn't halt Orion X-conversions. I think X1R needs BPV for Orion X-ships without cloaks.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 02:53 am: Edit

There is no provision to limit cloaks or provide for them. X-Orion have cloaks. AFAIK if the Orions build and X-ship it has cloak.

Now, in a campaign there might be a special rule and players could simply deduct the standard cost for adding a cloak.

I'm not aware of any rule that would stop an Orion player from building an X-ships for lack of cloaks and that is more in the F&E realm of things, not SFB.

Forign Systems limitations would apply in an unusual way. Since a CRX has a cloak, that might limit other Orion ships access to cloak but you could still have an X-squadron all with cloaks.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 03:27 am: Edit

Loren:

Right now there is no provision for the Orions building an X-ship without a cloak, so what stops the Orions from doing so is the lack of an enabling rule. I don't think that makes any sense. I understand your hostility to changing rules once established, and in most cases I agree with it. But in this case the rules change - an enabling rule that allows the Orions to build X-ships that don't have cloaks, coupled with BPV for such ships - seems to me to be warranted.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 12:41 pm: Edit

For those of us that have not been involved in this topic…

Could someone give us a synopsis of this topic and what the overall goal you are trying to achieve here?

If you are trying to make my set of standard SSDs useful by giving the ships X capabilities WITHOUT changing the SSDs that would cool (just a change in the rule set: X-batteries, x-phasers rules, etc.).

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 12:49 pm: Edit

Chuck, start with 3/20/04 10:24AM. That will give you a very brief overview of X1R.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 12:51 pm: Edit

Chuck,

There are three different ideas that have come out of the X2 discussions, and they have kind of gotten jumbled together.

X1R - varients for X-ships. New SSD book, new ships, all based on Module X1's technology. An "R" module in the traditional sence.

XP - partial X refits. A Y190 (or Y195 or Y185, depending on who you ask) refit for existing ships to use some aspects of X1 technology. The debate is if there should be a handful of new SSDs or none at all.

There is also debate as to whether the two concepts should be combined into a single module.

X2 - Second Generation X Ships. This is where the fancy stuff would go.