Topic moved to Generic X2 Hull.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 10:11 am: Edit

So, who's up for X2 moving >= Spd32 then?

By Mark James Hugh Norman (Mnorman) on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 05:45 pm: Edit

I am against the change, as it seems to be a change for the sake of change, and there are plenty of other changes possible that would be simpler and have more of an effect of making X2 different

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 04:48 am: Edit

---

Quote:

We're supossed to be making up really cool ideas ( and to some extend proving them to work ) so that when SVC read this thread, he'll say, yeah, that is cool and it hasn't got an abovious flaw that players spotted...

---

---

Quote:

At any rate CONJECTURE IS GOOD so sheer conjecture must be pretty good too.

---

---

Quote:

Well Boo Hoo for you.

---

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 11:04 am: Edit

Okay calm down guys.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 08:46 pm: Edit

I was thinking about this idea last night.


What if X2 ships could pay for Erratic Manouvers by determining what fration of a turn ( minimum 8 impulses, round up to next movement point ) the ship would need to perform EM and then paying a fraction of the standard EM cost and thus perform EM for the number of impulses of that fraction ( or less ).

In this way it would "mesh" with the ability of the Romulan to cloak for a limited number of impulses for a reduced cost.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 02:33 pm: Edit

When did we debate a reduced cost for limited time cloak? Did anyone besides you think it was a good idea?

As with the cloak, I think both should remain "full turn" costs.

Not like X-ships need reduced energy costs for many things.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 02:52 pm: Edit

Not with the massive increases in available power that most people seem to want.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 03:18 pm: Edit

I have been looking for way to improve maneuvering for X2 ships but am lothe to reduce power costs since the other side of the equasion is addressed by adding power.

I think that for things such as cloak, EM and HET's, 90% (or so) of the power is used just for setting it up. The rest is used for maintaining the effect.

That said perhaps the maneuver thing I'm looking for might be in the HET. With no other special maneuvering rules it would work like this.
=============================
The HET Bonus is divided into sub-bonuses by the total maximum an HET can do; 180°. So you would have three check boxes for each main bonus. Each 60° facing takes up one sub-bonus. Example: A ship performs a 120° HET. The player checks off two sub-Bonuses. His next HET can be only 60°. If he HET's beyond that and doesn't have more boxes to check from a second HET Bonus he will have to roll for Break Down. Most X2-ships would have two HET Bonuses so they would have six sub-Bonuses.

Power cost: The cost for EACH HET is the same for any HET whether 60° or 180° or inbetween. (Most of the power being used to start the maneuver).

This gives the X2 ship the ability to use up their HET bonus in increments. The basic idea has been proposed before by myself and others but I think this proposal makes it simple, easy to track and understand and gives the X2 ship considerable maneuverability should it apply the power to do so. It fits with the existing rules. The technobabble reason is improvements in hull design and inertial dampeners.

Anyone recall why the Early American Frigate was so much better than the Royal Navys ships? It was because of a revolutionary hull design that directed stress allowing for greater maneuverability and greater weight (which ended up as more cannons usually). It was almost geodesic in design.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 04:03 pm: Edit

...which is why american frigates took down english firgates and even ships of the line in 1-on-1 fights.

Hornblower wouldn't want to cross the path of yank in a bad mood.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 09:20 pm: Edit

Rather than incrimental HET bonuses, it would be a hell of a lot easier to say that a very large part of the HET cost is the setting up, say 2 movement points. Then each hex facing cost 1 movement.

The conventional HET costs therefore 5 movement points.

But the X2 Het needs only pay for the energy to be spent in the HET as selected by the captain.
Thus a 60° HET costs 3 movement points.
A 120° HET costs 4 movement points.
And a 180° HET still costs 5 movement points.


In this way we don't mess up the SSD with lots of little HET sub boxes but do have a finer manouver capasity.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 09:43 pm: Edit

No good.

SVC has described an HET as investing virutually all the energy in setting up the effect and the actual hexside changes being trivial to inconsequential by comparison.

I can't see X2 changing this. We could reduce the overall cost of an HET if we really need to, but I don't see the need.

By Ed Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 09:50 pm: Edit

there are several reasons the the American 44s were superior to the typical frigate of the period. First the 44s had the structure and fittngs of a 74 gun ship.The 44s were 175 ft. long compared to a typical 38s 150-160. The heavier construction allowed them to carry heavier guns 24s and 32s or 42s vs 18 and maybe 32s. This was done by the special cross members installed during construction which prevented hogging. The crews for the most part were larger and at least as well trained. The captains were all very experienced sailors, and most had been trained under either Truxtun or Preble, both of whom were outstanding leaders and trainers. There were no engagements between ships of the line anda 44. The 44 did not have any real advantages against a 74 or larger. They could engage, but in the end the 74 which had as much staying power and more guns, a larger crew would win in a vast majority of cases. As with most classes of ships during the time there were vast differences in the handling characteristics of each ship. the United States was considered an extremely poor sailer, the President was considered the best of the 44s and handled very well. the constitution was in the middle of the road. Ship construction was not an exact science.the difference in the United States and the others was they felt the angle that the masts was stepped on set at.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 10:39 pm: Edit

Huh. I thought sure a US frigate engaged a british SOL (maybe smaller than a true-SOL but larger than a frigate) and won.


Maybe not.

By Ed Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 07:52 am: Edit

A frigate 28 guns engaged a british 64 during the rev. war and suffered a magazine explosion. a british razee 44 guns under Edward Pellew accompanied by a 28 gun frigate engaged and under favorable weather conditions managed to drive a french 74 aground. the british 28 also ran aground and was lost. The incident you may be thinking about is the President-Little Belt affair. It took place after the Chesapeake-Leopard encounter. The President came upon a british ship at night.The President announced who they were and the captain of the Little Belt announced that they were a 74 gun ship, when in reality they were a 18 gun sloop. At that point the captain of the President Rodgers I think instructed his crew to lite their matches and opened fire. The Little Belt surrendered almost immediatly.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 10:58 am: Edit

The last thing I would want is to reduce the power cost of the HET. Why??? X2 ships are glowing with power.

The thing that restricts HET is Breakdown and its few bonuses. I don't want more actual bonuses either. This incremental system gives the X2 ship a lot of choices but can only put full reverse the same number of times as X1. But given the power available X2 could maneuver though some pretty tight spots pretty fast with my proposed system.

And it very uncomplicated. X2 ships would simply have two small tracks of three check boxes. Pull a full 180° and just mark all three.

Other things that take up a BD Bonus would take a full track as well.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 06:49 pm: Edit

Okay I'm going to reopen a can of worms here. Generally speaking people weren't too excited about X2 ships moving faster than speed 31 (though seekers may be a different story and I'd toss in fighters). How about a minor improvement? Let X2 ships move up to speed 32 (rules states something like "only X2 warp engines can move up to speed 32 without using engine doubling"). This gives them an option of moving one hex more than other ships during a turn.

Myself and others have tossed out warp booster ideas (e.g. my "HEB" idea) and others that let X2 ships move faster than speed 32 for an impulse or two. There was a lot of resistance to the ideas earlier but I was wondering about now? Anyone have any reasonably simple "booster" ideas?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 06:59 pm: Edit

I am playing around with a very new concept, Brodie, and part of it involves warp capacitors that hold an amount of warp power that is used for various maneuvers (HET's, mid-turn speed changes, braking, EM, etc.) I am working on a way for using this energy for allowing movement at speed 32 for a limited time, with some penalties. Right now, I'm leaning toward this:

• A ship has one warp capacitor per engine; each is tied to that engine, and looses capacity as the engine is damaged. For example, the XCM I'm working with has 18 point engines. For each six points of warp, the capacitor holds one. So, each capacitor can store 3 points of warp energy.
• The energy in the capacitors will recharge itself, in much the same way an alternator on a car recharges the battery as the engine runs. One point a turn is what I'm thinking right now.
• If the ship moves at speed 31, and allocates all remaining warp engine power plus all of its capacitor energy (six points) it can move at speed 32. Obviously, this means the ship can only do this for one turn, because the capacitors will be drained. In addition, there are other penalties:
• 1. Turn mode is increased by two steps.
  2. No HET or EM maneuvers can be attempted while moving this speed.
  3. The ship suffers from a natural four points of EW.
  4. Each warp engine will suffer one point of damage every time this is attempted, until the ship no longer has the energy to move this speed.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 07:23 pm: Edit

The speed 32 thing is a can of worms. Here is a compromise. X2 may move speed 32, but never more than 31 hexes a turn, one of which must be impulse. This can get you out of the everyone stops on impulse 1 problem at the cost of having to slow down later in the turn.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 07:29 pm: Edit

My previous speed 32 rule required that you had been preveiously moving pretty fast. Faster than double anyway. This would be something like 22 but should be higher I'd think. More like 28 and maybe even 30.

The speed would have to have been maintained for at least 8 impulses.


Mike: I'll have to get my mind wrapped around that. It seems complicated but then I need to settle down and get a shower. I'm all dirty and uncomfortable after a hard days work.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 07:33 pm: Edit

Loren: Take your time. I sent you an email earlier, with some of the stuff I'm working on, including my new phaser and a few other details. No rush; just get back when you can.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 03:42 pm: Edit

Tos I'm not following you there.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 06:16 pm: Edit

I think the idea is instead of not moving on IMP 1, not moving on some other impulse.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 07:41 pm: Edit

How about a minor improvement? Let X2 ships move up to speed 32

How about not?

"speed creep" was a problem of the GW that led us to plasma sabot and the like. Lets not ok?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 08:05 pm: Edit

I tend to agree.

I always thought there was a lot more to not moving on IMP 1 than just the lost of 1 hex of movement.