All X2 BPVs are speculative. They have to be.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 02:37 pm: Edit

Loren:

OK, this was "my" initial idea for an X2 webcaster. The "my" is in quotes because it was a mixture of boosting capabilities that the webcaster already has, and giving it some new capabilites. Some of the specific improvements I tried were borrowed from other people and were not original with me. It was not my intention to steal credit, but to pull together some of what I thought were the best ideas to provide a comprehensive description of an X2 webcaster. In the event, however, the combination proved too powerful.

One final caveat is in order. The playtesting I did was solitary. I don't think this is as reliable as playing against an opponent since "both sides" know what the other is thinking, what their energy allocation is etc. My attempts were enough to convince me that the particular combination of traits I had settled on would unbalance the system. But I am also anxious to hear from anyone who has played a similar combination against an opponent and has come to a different conclusion.

Anyway, here goes:


The X2 webcaster could hold 7 points of power, when used as a webfist within 5 hexes it would hit on a 1-5, the solidification time is reduced from 4 impulses to 2, anchors can be added to cast free-standing web after it is created - turning it into a standard anchored web, and two separate X2 webcasters casting in the same impulse can cast adjacent to each other, either creating a linear web more than 5 hexes long or creating a globular web.

I hadn't worked out all the details of how some of these would work, but my initial attempts to play with this X2 webcaster revealed the following:


7 points is certainly powerful but probably not intrinsically unbalancing. Combined with the webfist hitting on a 1-5 at range 5 or less, it definitely increases the direct fire capability of webcaster-equipped ships but given the limited numbers of X2 webcasters and the anticipated improvements in other direct fire heavy weapons this is probably managable, especially if Tholian photons and disruptors stay at X1 level.

The other aspect is of course the increased strength of cast web. Let's review some numbers - a ship will have to roll for breakdown if it loses at least 12 movement points due to ramming a web at high speed. Any movement points lost in excess of 12 also cause one point of damage to the facing shield for each movement point lost. Plasma torpedos count impulses lost to web as part of the range when determining warhead strength. Fighters and drones that run into strong web take one point of damage for every movement point lost in excess of 20.

Now lets compare the strength of cast web between a 7 point webcaster and a 6 point (X1 tech) one.

In each case a one hex web would have strength 35 since that is maximum allowable web strength. No difference.

At two hexes the X1 webcaster creates a strength 30 web while the X2 would create strength 35. Either is strong enough to wreck a fast drone, with the exception of a few oddballs such as the Type-H, which would be destroyed by the X2 webcaster but could get through the X1, all-be-it with heavy damage. Either will at least cripple a fighter moving at speed 30, again with a few oddball exceptions like a heavy megafighter.

A three hex web would be strength 20 or 23 respectively. The former would not harm a fast fighter or drone, the latter would inflict 3 points of damage. While this wouldn't kill a Type-IF, requiring a follow-up phaser shot to take the last point of damage, the more important result is that it would reduce a Type-IVF or Type-VII to three points. That Type-IVF or Type-VII is now killable with a single phaser-3, where previously it would require two of them.

A four hex web would have strength 15 or 17 respectively. The latter would do two more points of damage to the facing shield of a ship that rammed the web at high speed (3 points versus 5) but both would force a breakdown roll, but this is a relatively minor difference.

Finally, at five hexes the strengths are 12 and 14. The former would force a breakdown roll, the latter would force a breakdown roll and inflict two damage to the facing shield, again not a big difference.

My overall conclusion about a 7 point webcaster and improved webfist accuracy at 5 hexes or less - a useful improvement but probably not in and of itself game breaking. But, see my comments about other improvements in my next post. (Because of the length of this, I will finish my observations in a second post, to be up shortly.)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 03:39 pm: Edit

Alan,

The 1-5 hit at close range is not unbalancing.

The most powerful aspect of your changes is the solidifcation time.

Combined with the additional power, what happens is it's easier to cast a 5-hex wide 12+ strength free-standing web that a ship MUST HET to avoid hitting and risking breakdown.

The 2-impulse solidification is an extremely powerul change. As it stands, a ship can usually run through the web before it solififies or slip around it. Your version, that's much harder to do.

That could be too good right there.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 04:27 pm: Edit

(Second part of my observations from playtesting proposed X2 webcaster from previous post. One additional caveat that I should have noted previously but did not. Since I didn't have a comprehensive set of X2 rules to test, my playtesting involved an X1-tech Tholian CCX but with the X2 webcaster. Opponents included Klingon DX and C10, Fed CCX and DNG, Romulan FHX (but not dreadnought) and a small Tholian versus Klingon fleet action. I don't remember the exact forces but it was about 6 ships per side, mixed X-tech and GW-tech for both fleets. This one was even more problematical than my solitary duels since I was not filling out SSDs each turn for all 12 ships, only "wagging" what they might do. This factor and the fact that the X2 webcaster was never tested against an "X2" opponent probably skews my results somewhat. But I am pretty confident my "big picture" conclusions would still hold up.)

Reducing solidification impulses from 4 to 2 is devastating, and it is absolute death against non-X opponents. The problem is that it creates way too many opportunities for the Tholians to force breakdown rolls that the opponents can't avoid. An X-opponent at least has 2 HET bonuses before he risks an actual breakdown. But a GW opponent (with a few exceptions) only has one. And many ships, including most Dreadnoughts and Battleships, have a chance of breaking down even with the HET bonus. The practical effect is that dreadnoughts or battleships are pretty much forced to stay at speed-11 or less in the presence of X2 webcasters. Otherwise the Tholians can pretty much force them to roll for breakdown at will. Cruisers will generally get one "no-breakdown" web collision and then they are also in the "speed-11 or less" category. This low speed prevents the ships from taking any damage from webs, but gives the Tholians a near-insurmountable manuever dominance.

Overall conclusion - this one is just too strong, especially against GW-tech fleets. A solidification time of 3 impulses might work. I haven't playtested it enough to come to any conclusions, and am beginning to suspect there are sufficient "close calls" with it that only playtesting against another person would be likely to provide sufficient information. But a delay of two impulses or less is overwhelming.

Allowing anchors to be added to a previously cast free-standing web might work. The idea was that ships could move into position on a free-standing web before it disipates and assume anchor status. The web would then behave for all purposes like an anchored linear web. It could not revert to free-standing status, so if one anchor subsequently left (or was destroyed) the web would disintegrate instantly.

In my experiments I found some tactics that would make this capability useful, but none that have struck me as game-breaking. It should be noted that this capability makes webcasters even stronger against bases in a couple of situations. But here's the thing - a base that is attacked by a fleet with webcasters is already toast unless it has strong mobile elements (fighters, PFs, ships) supporting it. So making the webcaster a bit stronger in situations where the Tholians would already have a huge advantage doesn't seem to me to change things very much.

Overall conclusion - This one needs more playtesting, but may well be usable as an added X2 capability.

Allowing two X2 webcasters to cooperate to cast a globular web or a long free-standing linear web is like the 2 impulse solidiification delay. It turns out to be too powerful. (I only playtested this one once, however. That was in the fleet battle described above. The two Tholian X-ships in the fleet were both "modified" CCXs specifically so I could try this rule. This makes my conclusions a bit more questionable, due to few data points.)

First the globular web; the rules on cast web are that if it has anchors it solidifies immediately. A globular web is anchored to itself so this would return us to the "two impulse delay" situation, only worse. We can get around this problem by simply writing the rule so that instant solidification applies only to physical anchors. A cast globular "self anchored" web would still require 4 impulses. What we can't get around is the persistance problem. Once created, a globular web decays at the rate of one strength point per turn, rather than disintegrating after 16 solid impulses like a free-standing web. So if two 7-point X2 webcasters cooperated to create a six-hex globular web, it would remain on the board for 23 full turns, gradually growing weaker. But even at strength-1, it stops enemy direct fire weapons. And any Tholian ship with ordinary web generators could keep it from decaying at all, and even strengthen it. The persistance of these webs means that after a few turns the board could be dotted with globular webs that the Tholians could freely move through and could fire phasers through, but which would totally block enemy direct fire weapons and at least hinder their movements and seeking weapons. Creating a globular web by laying it is slow and energy-intensive and requires very particular movements by the web laying ships. This makes it hard to do in the face of an aggressive enemy. But each pair of X2 webcasters could create a globular web each turn at very modest energy cost and with very little restriction on their movements. And any globular web created would stay around for a number of turns even if the Tholians never try to maintain it after creation.

The problem with allowing two X2 webcasters to cooperate to create a long cast web is that they could also cooperate to create a smaller but very strong web. Consider the examples from the analysis of the strength of cast web from a 7-point webcaster. It could create a 2-hex 35 point web or a 3-hex 23 point web. The former would kill any speed-32 drone that hit it (except Type-H with internal armor modules) and while the latter would damage fast drones, it couldn't outright kill any except for Type-VIF. If drones are launched against the Tholians from multiple firing points, the Tholians can generally either cast a small web that will kill the drones that hit it but isn't big enough to stop more than a small fraction of them, or create a larger weak web that will hinder lots of drones but not actually kill, any of them. Multiple webcasters could create multiple small strong webs, but they can't be adjacent to any other case webs so there will often be gaps that drones will slip through. But two cooperating 7-point webcasters could create a continuous 5-hex web with strength-28. This could block an awful lot of drones and kill almost all of them.

One possible fix for the cooperating webcasters would be to impose a heavy energy cost to create a cooperative web. This would prevent the small strong web problem. Another fix would be to say that webcasters can cooperate only to create large (6 hexes or more) webs. A cast web of 5 hexes or less could only be created by a single webcaster.

Overall conclusion - cooperating webcasters might be usable with some kind of additional restrictions to solve the small strong web problem. But using webcasters to cast globular webs is probably unworkable.

Keeping in mind my caveats about the reliability of my playtesting, those are my observations about my "first cut" at an X2 webcaster. Some of the ideas are probably usable, some may be usable with additional restrictions or limitations, and some are probably unusable in anything resembling the form I initially considered them in. I hope other people found this helpful, or at least interesting.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 04:29 pm: Edit

John:

As you can see, I came to the same conclusion about two-impulse solidification.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 05:58 pm: Edit

Here is a new aproach that might prove interesting.

A)Web Caster can fire more than once per turn. Minimum energy is one point and cannot expend more energy than what the capacitor can hold per turn (you can't add reserves as you spend).

B)You can BUY a reduced solidification time out of this energy. The cost is one energy point per hex of web. The solidification time is reduced to 2 impulses. The extra energy must come from the capacitor AND DOES NOT add to the strength of the web.

Tholians would likely normally laid cast web as usual but could also fire multiple small or single hex webs. They could spend extra energy and have those webs solidify faster but the resulting webs would be a lot less strong very fast. Indeed, with a five point cap the Tholian could cast a two hex web but have the strength of only three energy points having spent two points on rapid solidification. Or they cousl cast two one hex webs with the same cost.

Alternatively, they could go with normal solidification and cast up to 5 one point webs. These webs would be pretty weak but might be useful against seeking weapons and fighters.

I haven't put it to any test but it sounds fun.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 09:39 pm: Edit

In my experience the 6th point of power allowed in an X1 web caster is already a devastating advance as it allows 5 hex webs of strength 12. That fifth hex makes a breakdown strength web much harder to avoid (requiring three sideslips or a turn, not two sideslips like the 4 hex version).

So I don't think X2 web casters really need any further improvement. Not that it's particularly crucial, fleet actions against a skilled player with multiple web casters are aleady a 'lets see how much you win by' experience.

By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 09:43 pm: Edit

The WC got the short end of the stick with X1 (compared to other heavy weapons, it didn't gain that much). Having it gain a little more than average wouldn't be bad.

Having said that, another option would be another small increase in WC strength, but then making them be mass-producable. Getting rid of Disruptors & Photons in favor of WCs would make the Tholians much more interesting (IMHO).

By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 09:44 pm: Edit

opposite extremes in thinking

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 10:50 pm: Edit

If what Andrew says is true, we don't want to mess with the power available to web casters or its solification times.

Suppose, instead of going down after 16 impulses, a cast web lost 1/2 its starting strength after 16 impulses, then lost the other 1/2 8 impulses later? For starters, the web would last 24 impulses in some form.

Also, let's say you can target a second web caster on the an existing cast web and allow the existing web to absorb the strength of the the second caster. Downside would be that the strength of the second cast web would add to the "starting strength" of the web. You could keep the web going between 32 and 48 impulses before it would have to go down. All loss times are alway tied to the solidification of the first web.

The web would have to be solidified before it could be reinforced.

Example:

I cast a 4-hex web with a strength of 10. 16 impulses after it solidifies, it loses 5 strength points, losing the other 5 at the 24 mark.

4 impulses after it solidifies, another web caster fires into the cast web (same range for simplicity's sake). The cast web's strength is now 20, but it "starting strength" is also 20, so the strength will also drop by 10 (not 5) in 12 impulses.

At IMP 24, as the cast web is about to dissipate, another webcaster (same range) fires into the cast web reinforceing it again. It has The "starting strength" is now 30 which means the strength will drop by 15 at the 32 impulse mark. The tholians would need to get closer to the web or throw 2 web casters into the deal.

Snares can be used to reiforce cast web, same as casters.


Other web-related thoughts:

Snare-fist.

By Charles E. Leiserson, Jr. (Bester) on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 10:01 am: Edit

---

Quote:

What we can't get around is the persistance problem. Once created, a globular web decays at the rate of one strength point per turn, rather than disintegrating after 16 solid impulses like a free-standing web. So if two 7-point X2 webcasters cooperated to create a six-hex globular web, it would remain on the board for 23 full turns, gradually growing weaker.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 10:51 am: Edit

There is that Web Bunker thing too.

I think the Web Caster can gain some new fun stuff without modifying it prime functions. You then get a more flexible device without creating a possible imbalance. This would also open the door to untold new tactical situations. (Which equals more fun)

One this that might be a good thing to consider is that after the Andro war the Tholians are going to realize that they cannot continue to maintain a purely defensive mode of operation. In order to defend themselves they may have to again have to bring the fight to the enemy. Their X2 designs should reflect this. Their main goal would still be to defend the Hold Fast and they would still prefer "Let's you and him fight" but they would also prepare to fight in open space better. Hence the modifications to the Web caster I've suggested like: Sticky Web Fist, The A and B advances from six posts up, and the Web Bunker.

They must also consider they may have to fight along side of allies again. To this end I suggest this modification.

=============================================

Web Gate Device (WGD): Some but not all Tholian ships were fitted with a device that could open a section of web to none Tholian ships. It requires one point of power to operate once and the equipped ship must be in the Web hex that the Tholian player wishes to open for the entire time the Gate is to remain open. A WGD can be operated once per turn. There is no box on the SSD but can be the target of a Hit and Run. The device cannot operate on non-Tholian units as it requires the Tholian Pass Through ability (which must be on) to work.

No ship can have more than one WGD as it is an added function to the ships Pass Through ability. One ship, one Device.


Any non-Tholian (non-pass through) units previously stuck in the web where a Web Gate is opened remain caught. Any of these types of units in the hex when the Gate is closed will then become caught in the web.

Rules regarding units in the same web hex are unaffected by the web gate except as noted here. (Can still fire on each other, drones still strike etc.)

When a Web Gate is open any unit can choose to pass through it unimpeded by the web in that hex (is not caught). A Web Gate is opened just prior to movement and is closed just after movement (before fire). Once opened a Web Gate can be held open for the remainder of the turn. To continue to hold the Gate open over a turn break the Gate Keeper simply allocates the require power and announces that the gate will remain open. He can, if he so chooses let the gate close over the turn break, and reopen another gate at a later point of the turn. But if he holds the gate open over the turn break that would constitute use of the WGD for that turn.

Seeking Weapons may be guided through an open Web Gate (enemy or allied).

Non-Tholian units (and Tholian non-phasers weapons) may fire through a Web Gate at targets in a perfect straight line from the firing ship hex center, through the gate hex center and to the target hex (need not be center but hex edge line is not eligible).

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 09:03 am: Edit

Does anyone want to try an Tholian unit with Plasma? The Tholians borrow Disruptor, Photons and Suicide Shuttles, why not try the Plasma-M or Plasma-L?

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 05:26 pm: Edit

Tos I'm working on an idea inspired by Steve Petrick (though for the life of me I can't recall where). It's a web-plasma torpedo. The basic idea is it arms, fires, and moves like plasma but when it hits it creates a "micro-web" that surrounds the target and prevents it from moving and shooting, and other functions. I'll send you something once I get it together.

The rule can probably fit in the (FP) rules section since it's very similar to typical plasma torpedoes.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 06:51 pm: Edit

RBN: Like my web bunker idea with a seeking mode?

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 10:32 am: Edit

Loren, there are some surface similarities with Web Bunker (which made me think "Spider Hole") but where yours is a defensive measure (or did I read it wrong) mine is a weapon. It would be an interesting combination of tactics to use though.

The Web Torpedo (my working name for it) also causes damage. I'm trying to have it ready enough to post some time this weekend.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 11:10 am: Edit

Yes, mine is defensive. I don't see why yours couldn't be both. I mean, Tholians have pass through and couldn't you just target it on a hex?

Naturally, your's is far easier to deploy. Mine takes an HET and speed 0.

I do like the idea of a seeking weapon though it would be pretty powerful. I would suggest that if it needs toning down it could be speed 20 (I assume you intended speed 32). Or possibly a sliding scale of strength vs. speed. The stronger the web the slower it goes. Strength 24-35 might only move speed 12. Strength 1-12 moves 32 while strength 12-23 moves 20.

Limit the range too, probably to 32 impulses. Make it at least a two turn arming process from web casters. Maybe require reserve at the time of firing (this is the energy that propells it as a seeking weapon instead of cast web). Could require it to be warp power.

Just some humble suggestions.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 01:48 pm: Edit

Seeking web snares, 2 per ship. Nasty.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 02:02 pm: Edit

Gimme a little time to post. The torpedo targets a specific unit rather than a hex and yes I am thinking speed 32.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 02:24 pm: Edit

Tos, seeking web snare is closer to what I'm working on.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 07:39 pm: Edit

Any comments on the Web Gate Device? (8th post up)

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 07:58 pm: Edit

I think Tholians and only Tholians should be able to go through Web.

Tholians are very reclusive and nothing is going to change that.

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 08:31 pm: Edit

I would have to agree with Cfant. Based on the Tholians background, I do not believe they would even consider developing a Web Gate Device.

On the topic of Web/Snare torpedoes, personally I think the technology is interesting but ultimately too divergent from the base technology.

I think snare fists would be an in character technology for the Tholians.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 08:40 pm: Edit

From that same post: One this that might be a good thing to consider is that after the Andro war the Tholians are going to realize that they cannot continue to maintain a purely defensive mode of operation. In order to defend themselves they may have to again have to bring the fight to the enemy. Their X2 designs should reflect this.

Now, just opening up for debate here:

Wouldn't the Tholians see the wisdom that they may have to fight against another invader and team up with other non-Tholian units. They were forced to do so with the Feds and then with everyone else against the Andros. Surely they would see that in order to survive they must consider the possability. I agree that they would go so far as to share technology or anything but the web gate is a device that can only work on a Tholian ship and would be fully under their control.

Sure they have to be careful when they open it (but then so does the castel keeper). But I would think that if they are forced to be in a mixed fleet they would want that fleet to have the best advantages possible. A way for web to NOT disrupt the whole fleet and allow non-Tholian elements fast access to inside a web would support that notion.

Only equipped Tholian units could opperate such a thing. It could not work on non-Tholian units as it requires the Tholian Pass Through ability (and for it to be on).

It's been 20+ years of opperation with other races. Reclusive yes, but they want to survive too.

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 09:30 pm: Edit

Loren,

The Tholians may have participated in the Andro War, but I doubt that would convince them to change thier long standing habits. It might convince them to create more diplomatics ties with the Allies but not much more.