Archive through March 23, 2004
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: Integrated Proposals: Archive through March 23, 2004
By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 11:14 am: Edit

Quote:

In short, if X2 gets weapon that penetrate shields of non-X2 then the entire module design needs to be centered around that. It's a bigger deal that it appears on face value.



You know it. I'm tinkering with this; had a sudden inspiration, and I want to play with it a bit. Might make for some interesting stuff; might not. The good thing is that most of the leaky rules we would need are just modifications of existing leaky shield rules, so it wouldn't be too hard to figure out. It's balancing those rules, weapons performance, ship design, and BPV that are going to be a bitch to do. Good thing there's no hurry...

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 12:09 pm: Edit

As a suggestion, I would start off with every 5th point being the leak point. If thats the way you want to go vs GW. But against X1 (or XP) you have to exced a threshold amount (Like Andro Disr/PA) of something like 20-25%.

And let all reinforcement be applied BEFORE any leak is calculated.

The 5 points would mean that Mikes Fed FF Could generate a Leak point at R15 with slightly above average rolls. And the XCA with 8P5 would generate around 3 leak points vs a GW. Almost any reinforcement will stop the XFF and only a couple of points would be needed to reduce the XCAs leak amount. R8 would be more damaging but the GW ships would then be able to deal more damage.

My concern is that even with the P5 costs being 1.5 the current table with any sort of HW enhancements will mean that a 2X ship will never have to close to within Overload range of the GW ships its fighting.

At R15 a Fed Firing proxies (standard type) would be able to reduce the facing shield quickly but not penetrate but still get internals. A single turn with 8 P5s+ 2Proxies that hit would average 24 points of damage. You add in Leak and it gets even worse.

As to a pair of Fed CCs fighting it. You would get 28 damage. But the Fed XCA can run out the drones launched and refill its Batts when needed for a turn or two and still come out ahead in the damage exchange. That assumes no EW adavntage for the XCA. *Note some groups do not use EW so the designs have to be fairly balanced BPV wise without it.

So IMO we have to work out the P5 before anything else can be set. If we add Leak into the mix then it definetly has to be done.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 12:27 pm: Edit

I wish my group could meet for more than 3 hours every Friday, now. I'm interested in trying to see how lighter designs than have been proposed would work with shield penetrating weapons.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 12:48 pm: Edit

Kenneth,

I agree. I'm going to play around with this concept, and the results will likely produce very different ships than what I have up right now. I'm starting to think more and more about making the P5 that "new" weapon Steve mentions in P6, and trying to find a way to make it a bit different than the normal phaser. Not just in terms of damage, but in how it is employed. I have an idea in mind, but it needs work before I can even start to post it. But if it works out, it would definately be different.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 02:17 pm: Edit

If something that does damage like a P6 was the only shield penetrating weapon it might be OK. I'd make it cost a heck of a lot of power though, and with no hold capability.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 02:58 pm: Edit

Tos, Then you might want to avoid Xonos Inter Dimensional Phasers:O (Yet another SG special:))

Seriously they have taken a LOT of work to balance vs traditional enemies. I can't say more at this time since SPP hasn't even gotten around to looking at the Xonos yet.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 08:45 pm: Edit

Quote:

At R15 a Fed Firing proxies (standard type) would be able to reduce the facing shield quickly but not penetrate but still get internals. A single turn with 8 P5s+ 2Proxies that hit would average 24 points of damage. You add in Leak and it gets even worse.



I think I see how you get 24 damage.
Four 6 point Proxie Heavy Photons 1-3
2 points of damage on average for 6 bearing Ph-5s.

Personnaly I don't like the idea that X2 ships force the GW ships to take huge ammount of leak damage but never leak themselves.
It smack too much of WH40K, and her WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A THIS WEAPON ALWAYS KILLS MEETS A CREATURE THAT CAN NOT BE KILLED paradox.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 09:01 pm: Edit

I'm not sure where you get the idea that this is a huge amount of damage. Maybe I need to break down and actually draw up an SSD.

Assuming that I'm swayed by the 'keep the cutoffs at range 8' arguement (and after re-reviewing the ph-5 I might be), you're not talking about huge amounts of damage from one of my ships.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 10:13 pm: Edit

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT><P>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
At R15 a Fed Firing proxies (standard type) would be able to reduce the facing shield quickly but not penetrate but still get internals. A single turn with 8 P5s+ 2Proxies that hit would average 24 points of damage. You add in Leak and it gets even worse.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think I see how you get 24 damage.
Four 6 point Proxie Heavy Photons 1-3
2 points of damage on average for 6 bearing Ph-5s. <!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

MJC,
8P5s=16 Damage. [average 2pts each at r15]+ 2 prox. photons at 4pts each=24

[6P5s at R9-15 do an average of 12pts with perfect dice distribution.]

Mike F.
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT><P>I'm not sure where you get the idea that this is a huge amount of damage. Maybe I need to break down and actually draw up an SSD.

Assuming that I'm swayed by the 'keep the cutoffs at range 8' arguement (and after re-reviewing the ph-5 I might be), you're not talking about huge amounts of damage from one of my ships. <!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm talking about a pair of GW Fed CCs. 24 pts a turn is more than sufficient to trash them. Especially since the XCA would not be threatend with shield penetration even by two 28pt hits by simple application of Battery power.

Making the p5 even at 1.5 power simply to powerful vs GW tech IMO. As it is currently done on Mike Rapers SSDs.
<EDIT>

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 10:26 pm: Edit

Ghah! When will I learn to never EDIT any post with quotes? The board seems to throw up on it all the time.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 12:18 am: Edit

KJ:

Okay I didn't think centerlining was good point to calculate from, particularly at range.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 12:38 am: Edit

Ph-1s coupled with Proxies is pretty nice for the XCA but the Fed CCs ( I assume CCa+s ) could fire proxies other turn and I doubt the XCA can really run fast enough arming fastload standards keep the CCa+s completely at bay.

Sure the XCA can generate 20 points of damage in an oblique with 6 bearing Ph-5 and 4 Fastloaded Proxies, but that's not enough in an of it'self to put a stop to the Command Cruiser Charge, particularly if EW is taken into account.
48 + 4 + 6 total power minus 4 HK ( skip the S-Bridge power ) and 16 for those fastloaded Photons leaves 38 points for movement and with EW that would become 30 and with an ASIF up it would be een less.

On the other hand the CCa+s can move at something like ( I.D.H.T.S.S.D.I.F.O.M.A.T.M. ) 23 (no EW ) holding one Overload and loading Three Proxies ( each ).
..... A Huge wollup at R15 ( I assume ME TOO firing ) will lead to 12 Bearing Ph-1s ( 12 damage if no EW ) and 3 proxy photon hits ( of the 6 fired ) for a hit of 24 damage.

If the Fed wants to fly the sabre dance it might be the best of the X2 ( non disruptor ships ) but it's not all plain sailing.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 07:44 am: Edit

Ken Jones

Heh. Yeah. That quoted piece was a bit hard to pick through! :)

The one thing that, I think, every SSD that has been posted have in common is that they are more powerful, in shielding, power curve, and/or weapons, than the equivalent X1 ship.

That wouldn't work well with what I'd suggested, no.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 08:11 am: Edit

I'm starting with a few new ideas; haven't gotten all the details worked out, though one of the big centerpeices of the plan is a new way to use phasers in an array, so that firing more than one at any single target gets a bonus of some sort; haven't figured out what yet. If I go this route, though, I won't use the P5 chart as it exists now, becuase it would be too much. Probably I'll go with a modified P2 chart, one that will get some fire out to range 75. The end result should be a much smoother damage curve, though one without a higher threshold at close range from any single phaser.

As for the existing P5 chart, I don't find it too powerful. The key is not to mount too many. On my last few SSD's, and those the Tos and Jeremy posted, as well, the P5 was only used in limited numbers. For example, on the Fed XCC, XDD and XFF I had put up, they had only four, two and one P5 respectively.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 08:59 am: Edit

MJC take a look at Mike R. Fed XCC I was refrencing. 8P5. 4FX 2RX 2 360. So no Centerline shot was involved, it was oblique only.

Quote:

Sure the XCA can generate 20 points of damage in an oblique with 6 bearing Ph-5 and 4 Fastloaded Proxies, but that's not enough in an of it'self to put a stop to the Command Cruiser Charge, particularly if EW is taken into account.
48 + 4 + 6 total power minus 4 HK ( skip the S-Bridge power ) and 16 for those fastloaded Photons leaves 38 points for movement and with EW that would become 30 and with an ASIF up it would be een less.



You seem to be making some assumtions. With Phaser Caps letting the example P5 fire twice theres no need to power phasers and the fastload torps only cost 16 power. Housekeeping is only 4 points since theres no need to power ASIF at this time since theres almost NO chance of getting penetration. 7 power is all thats needed to prevent having a shift of less than one. (And EW was disregarded because of total differences in its use.) So thats 27 power total leaving 23 free for movement. Since CCa+ only have 36 power and the proxies+ housekeeping equal 12 points a turn, that leaves only 24 for all other needs. So they will be firing into a 2 shift. If they power any ECCM then the XCC would be able to boost the amount and manitain the same speed, But since X ships have a movement advantage over non X ships the XCC will always move AFTER the CCs.

With only minimal application of battery power the XCC can power housekeeping (and ASIF if needed) and always be able to open the range. So the CC charge across the board simply wont work. Not after having a front shield knocked down before they close to R8. All they will do at that range is trash the XCCs shield and the XCC will gut the damaged one. Leaving the other CC to deal with the XCC all by itself essentially.


Thats my basic concern with the P5 in that as presented it might be to good.

Mike F.
Quote:

The one thing that, I think, every SSD that has been posted have in common is that they are more powerful, in shielding, power curve, and/or weapons, than the equivalent X1 ship.

That wouldn't work well with what I'd suggested, no.



Most of the SSDs that I've seen have had only a 20% or less increase in shielding/power from X1. But 2X is supposed to be an improvement, so IMO the ships need to be better than the X1 ship that they are replacing. Otherwise why do 2X in the first place.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 09:40 am: Edit

Quote:

Thats my basic concern with the P5 in that as presented it might be to good.



How can the Ph-5 be less and still be good enough to be worth using.

When the Ph-5 was generally accepted I was proud of this board for adopting something of a moderate improvement and not going for a monster weapon. I'm surprised to hear concern that it may be too good.

It's intended purpose of a smoother damage curve is good but in raw damage it only gains a maximum of one point (10 over the Ph-1's 9 max damage). This is true of most range brackets.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 09:54 am: Edit

Kenneth Jones

Quote:

Most of the SSDs that I've seen have had only a 20% or less increase in shielding/power from X1. But 2X is supposed to be an improvement, so IMO the ships need to be better than the X1 ship that they are replacing. Otherwise why do 2X in the first place.



Then we will likely differ in very significant places. I addressed my views of X2 in my original book...err...post. I'm interested in a qualitative increase, rather than a quantitative. If I spelled that properly.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 10:16 am: Edit

Mike F,

Yeah, I agree with that. 'Newer' doesn't necessitate being bigger or better in the same areas. If you consider, for example, the new Stryker AFV. Is it as good at straight up combat as an M1-A2? Heck, no. But it is lighter, cheaper, more maneuverable, and easier to maintain. It's new, but it doesn't trump the previous vehicle it is going to replace.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 11:19 am: Edit

“The one thing that, I think, every SSD that has been posted have in common is that they are more powerful, in shielding, power curve, and/or weapons, than the equivalent X1 ship.”

True, but this can be moderated by altering YIS dates. For example if the first SC3 unit came out in Y215. We can look into the suggestion of reducing power curve and shields easy enough, it’s just some simple cuts from the SSD. What BPV target are you looking for?

“Most of the SSDs that I've seen have had only a 20% or less increase in shielding/power from X1. But 2X is supposed to be an improvement, so IMO the ships need to be better than the X1 ship that they are replacing. Otherwise why do 2X in the first place.”

The thing is X2 isn’t replacing X1. It is replacing GW and XP tech. X1 only makes up 10-20% of the fleet. I agree that X2 should be better then XP, but it need not be better (at combat) than X1.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 07:03 pm: Edit

Quote:

So the CC charge across the board simply wont work. Not after having a front shield knocked down before they close to R8. All they will do at that range is trash the XCCs shield and the XCC will gut the damaged one. Leaving the other CC to deal with the XCC all by itself essentially.


I would like to point out that one Fed CA beats 2 F5s for pretty much the same reasons, especially when EW is brought into play, the Fed CA can find 6 EW if it wants to, but the F5s, have trouble finding 4 and then they need to find it twice.

Hows does a BCH stand up against these Fed X2 cruisers? Can it launch an ECM drone if EW is in play?


Quote:

The thing is X2 isn’t replacing X1. It is replacing GW and XP tech. X1 only makes up 10-20% of the fleet. I agree that X2 should be better then XP, but it need not be better (at combat) than X1.


I wouldn't mind holding in reserve the concept of refits.
An 8Ph-5 boats does okay against a 12Ph-1 boat but refitting to have 12Ph-5s is a whole new ball game.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 05:12 pm: Edit

Well, it's been awhile, but I did play around with that whole "new concept" approach, and even managed some playtesting. I have the bulk of the new stuff worked out, and the first three Fed ships. All in all, the proposal as written is 10 pages long. It does include a bit of proposed history, though, but the majority is still new rules and systems. I can't post it...it's just too much. It has worked out pretty well, though. Here's a few "teasers"...



When I finish up a few things, I'll send the whole document to anyone that wants a peek.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 06:29 pm: Edit

I'd like to take a look. Just from what you've said, this is qualitatively better without being quantitatively better.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 05:29 pm: Edit

Okay, in PDF format, here is the integrated stuff I've been working on. Even got in a little playtesting, though more would be nice. I've come to the conclusion that there are any number of ways to do X2; the trick is getting it to balance. So, one persons approach may be totally incompatible with anothers, but both may still be perfectly fine in and of themselves. This is mine, and it's way different than anything else so far. It's also about 14 pages long, so if you feel like wading through, knock yourself out! The SSD's at the end are hyperlinks, so it's easy to view.

X2 Proposal

By Kerry Drake (Kedrake) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Mike, FWIW, I read it, I liked it.

Have you play tested it?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 01:45 pm: Edit

Some. Cruisers only, at this point. Fun stuff, I thought.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation