They'll get carronading L-torps. They already have carronading F-torps

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 12:26 am: Edit

Sounds fine. They just have to be made to be balanced. Lots of stuff make Orions nasty. This would be no different.

By Joseph R Carlson (Bosn) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 02:54 pm: Edit

I am new to SFB and to this board. I have spent a number of hours reading past posting under various topics. I am trying to gain a better understanding of what X1R is. Is this a planed update of the X1 ships module? XP appears to be a service live extension program (SLEP) for GW ships. I also have noticed references to historical and conjectural ships (ones that were never built). The SCS NCC 2404 USS George Washington appears to be a historical vessel. Is this class be considered for an XP upgrade?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 02:56 pm: Edit

Depends on who you talk to.

Most people on this board tend to like XP upgrades for most classes, but depending on what that upgrade IS can adically alter the combat capability of the ship.

By Joseph R Carlson (Bosn) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Has there been discussion on an XP upgrade to the structural integrity field that is a lesser version of the ASIF?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 04:20 pm: Edit

Very much so. We considered two proposals a year ago and they're still both around.

Both ASIFs are designed to increase the durability of a starship.

The first allows the ship to pay 1 point of power to create a virtual hull box (upper-limit of 6-8 power to create 6-8 boxes depending on ship size)

The other is a 7th shield that defends each DAC column with a few shield boxes (starting in the 6-8 range for tha A and B rows and dropping off).

The first is more power-intensive, but gives the same leve of defense over and over, the second costs less power but the shield boxes have to be repaired like any other shield.

The first idea is the more popular of the two.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 10:17 pm: Edit

With the XP refit was there talk of allowing energy allocated into the ASIF to be used to improve the turn mode by one category for a few impulses? Also to handle shield leakage was hull armor boxes considered? Such as a few to protect a couple of vital systems in the forward hull section.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 10:48 pm: Edit

I don't remember that talk, but I may have skimmed it.

Loren has proposed that the ASIF add a +1 HET bonus, however.

We chose to stay away from anything involving armor as Franchise Star Trek shows use forms of energized armor (Enterprise, the series finale for Voayager) and the ADB doesn't have the rights to use background from any of the Franchise shows. (Also, it can't afford to get into a lawsuit with paramount, whether it is justified or not)

Which all means you just stay away from stuff that borders on modern Trek.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 11:20 pm: Edit

I remember seeing something like that. Let me call the type of turn mode in my previous message rapid. So there would be three forms, regular, rapid, and HET.
For X0 ships, regular and HET
for XP refit, regular, rapid and HET
For X2 ships, regular, rapid, and HET with the +1 bonus.

I am not sure how to fit X1 ships into this.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 12:41 am: Edit

I did propose that in the early discussions but my current proposal is different.

It absorbs hull and cargo hits perportionetly as you take damage (rate depends on power applied). It also has several other benefits that reduce repaire cost of some things and preserve somethings that are normally destroyed when the box they are in is damaged.

A +1 HET bonus on a ship with 2 HET bonuses already is too much. As it is tied with the ASIF it would be a renewable bonus. It's too much, IMO.

The ASIF is inappropreate for anytning before X2, IMO. As stated in the rules there needed to be a basic change in hull design to allow for X2 ships. The ASIF is that central difference. It also had additional benefits that affect game play. These are reflected in the rules for the ASIF.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 12:19 pm: Edit

I still have an ASIF proposal that will add 1 to your breakdown rating, but only when operated in "full" mode, which can be expensive. It is ONLY for X2 ships, though, and not for X1R...and certainly not for XP.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 01:36 pm: Edit

Joseph may be referring to the HEB?

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 02:15 pm: Edit

I take it that HEB means high energy braking? I am not suggesting for an XP refit an ASIF. I am suggesting improving the current SIF to an ISIF. That improvement does not make an XP refitted ship equal with an X2. Use of this option is done on the energy allocation sheet. It would be available for XP, X1, and X2 vessels.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 02:53 pm: Edit

Wait, I thought XP referred to partial refits of pre-X ships to a partial-X1 technology. I thought XP had nothing to do with X2. Did I miss a memo?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 02:57 pm: Edit

RBN: You're right. An upgrade to the SIF on XP would be beyond the scope of XP and X1.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 03:39 pm: Edit

Joseph,

Didn't mean to imply that it did! Just clearing up what the proposal was. I don't think anything like it will fly for X1 or XP, though. Too much of that generations rules are already firmly established.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 03:51 pm: Edit

The fact that X-ships have two HET bonuses would imply that their SIF was already improved. Also other factors would lend to the idea the X1 ship have a ISIF.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 04:11 pm: Edit

Is there a single proposal on what XP upgrades are allowed?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 04:24 pm: Edit

Sort of. There are a couple of schools of thought about it; one that gives the XP ships X1 type phasers and no better heavy weapons, and one that is the reverse. Batteries are up in the air, with two major camps...one espousing a simple 2 point battery, the other standard X batteries with a draw limit of one point at a time. In general, though, we all agreed that XP ships would NOT get:

• X shields
• X warp engines
• Any of the X maneuver bonuses
• No other X systems (labs, etc

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 04:29 pm: Edit

Mike,

Yes it does. Thank you

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 11:45 pm: Edit

The X1R draft and ship list has been submitted by e-mail to SVC.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 12:00 am: Edit

Kooky.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 10:07 am: Edit

Tos:

So what "made the cut" as far as recommendations to SVC? Naturally I have a proprietary curiosity about my suggested Tholian HDX, but I'm also interested in knowing what the recommendation for XP-batteries will be and what happened with BCHX/DNXs. Are mega-x fighter packs included in the recommendation?

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 10:33 am: Edit

What Fed carrier types were recommended?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 10:57 am: Edit

Of all the X1 designed warships I think only the Fed DDX used a never before seen design, and even that was based off a GW era ship. Proposing that the Tholians, of all people, could produce a new design straight to X-tech wasn't something I felt comfortable in proposing.

Understand what I was asked to submit, a skeleton of new rules and new ships to determine if it had sufficient legitimacy, appeal and depth to make into a product. Once the product goes from analysis to design you and every other player can bombard ADB with your pet ships and demands for the DNX.

I recognize the large gap in the Tholian fleet structure and as a player I’d like to see some sort of bridge unit. The other side of me argues this inequity is part of the Tholian flavor. I suspect this module will go a long way toward giving the Tholians a choice in all BPV ranges through the addition of XP refits.

Regarding batteries I simply listed all options and requested that they be playtested. The Steves will probably reject two of the four options and playtest the other two. I tried not to editorialize the debate and spoke only against unrestricted 3-point bats.

BCHX and DNX are included in the proposal but I have rated them as low priority probably conjectural units, a place that your Tholian could have shared if I had remembered the discussion before I submitted. Apologies for my oversight. The problem is we have 79 available SSDs and 124 suggested ships. My recommendation, though not spelled out as such, is to create an R5/R7 type follow-up product to handle these extra-large units.

Mega-X-packs are included. They allow a drone fighter to swap 2-IF droned for 2-VII drones, and control them. Non-drone using races were listed as TBD. My unstated preference is to not further improve non-drone mega-packs, charge the same for mega-X-packs as for mega-packs and make VII drones very expensive.