I'm not saying they would...just that their ships would be in such bad shape after one one turn of doing that, they'ld be unable to learn from their mistake.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 03:05 am: Edit

Loren,

That was one of my original proposals for X2's improvements before the ph-5 was invented.

Take a MY ship (CA before the refits), increase the warp engines from 30 to 48, increase the max EW from 6 to 10, increase the shields to 3-5 boxes above X1 levels.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 10:25 am: Edit

Well, all my proposal was was the remove the limit that X1 has as far as how much of a positive ECCM shift an X2 ship can turn into a negative die roll modifier.

Currently X1 can utilize a maximum of +1 ECCM to gain a -1 die roll modifier.

I was proposing that X2 be unlimited by the amount of shift they can gain IF they can get it. Say my enemy floats 2 ECM. I, in my X2 ship, float 6 ECCM. That's a +4 ECCM advantage and so I would get a -2 die roll modifier.

This could work in many situations but would fail ultimately. X2 vs. X2 would tend to just run in each floating 6 ECCM and clober each other thus returning to the old "Close and Hose" tactics I, we, you want so much to avoid.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 10:28 am: Edit

If you look at the Campaign designers book, (specifically the Teck Block section) it would appear that ECM and ECCM improvements have in the past been in 2 point steps...

IIRC, Early tech has 0 ECM/ECCM available, then 2 ECM/ECM become available, followed By 4 ECM/ECCM and finally 6 point ECM/ECCM is available for the years prior to the General War.

Since we have a pattern already established, why not allow X2 ships to power up to 8 points of ECM/ECCM?

Looking at the numbers, it is:

2 ECM/ECCM improve to 4 ECM/ECCM equals 100%
4 ECM/ECCM improve to 6 ECM/ECCM equals 50%
6 ECM/ECCM improve to 8 ECM/ECCM equals 25%

while Loren's "Natural ECM" proposal of +1 natural ECM stealth/ASIF would represent just a 12.5% ECM improvement (at zero energy cost to maintain)

I would suggest that if you are going to improve the Electronic warfare structure, atleast keep it on the same curve as previous changes have been.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 10:44 am: Edit

Jeff: Did I propose that? If so, I don't think it still stands.

My current proposal (barring the one above) to Sensor enhancement for X2 is the Special Bridge.

I think many have excepted that as the only change to electronics over X1.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 11:15 am: Edit

Loren, no you did not propose it.

It was an attempt to compare historical changes to X2.

I'm simply pointing out that your proposal is a significantly less powerful incremental change than has been added in the past while the trend has been for less effective improvements overall (sort of dimminishing returns.)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 01:29 pm: Edit

I like that for MC = 1/3 ships but nothing larger

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 04:04 pm: Edit

Not to divert from the discussion at hand, but did anyone see the EW suggestions I posted last night at 11:49?

ESM is the old term for ES (Electronic Warfare Support) and "CESM" is derived from Cryptologic Electronic Warfare Support Measures, albeit renamed as a SFB system. BTW this wouldn't necessarily have to be limited to X2.

Cryptology is somewhat esoteric and hard to translate into SFB so I figured the best way to introduce it was to rename one of its functions into a combat-oriented system and apply its benefits to existing SFB rules (i.e. EW and TACINTEL).

FWIW: ECM is the old term for what is now called EA (Electronic Attack) and ECCM for EP (Electronic Protect).

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 05:31 pm: Edit

Sorry?

When did that become "official"?!?

where were they published?

(scrounging for manual, muttering ' senior moment ' ...)

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 06:56 pm: Edit

Jeff, if you mean the EA/ES/EP EW terms I'm referring to modern usage in the military rather than SFB. I wasn't trying to suggest that SFB is or even should use them. These terms came into common (U.S.) military use nearly 10 years ago.

Sorry about causing a "seasoned citizen" moment.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 09:25 am: Edit

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 09:37 am: Edit

John Trauger-

I agree with your sentiment on MC = 1/3 ships...the EW system has been weighted against the smaller ships. (just an observation that a Fed POL trying to maintain a fleet speed of say 18 hexes per turn, power weapons, house keeping energy costs and fire control has less total energy (and less percentage available or the total energy the ship can generate) to allocate to ECM/ECCM than a DN has at the same time.)

In the X2 time frame, when more energy is able to be generated by ships, it may be less of a problem.

I just don't see a justification that the ability to generate 8 points of ECM/ECCM is dependent on a ships size class...

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 03:25 pm: Edit

It isn't.

It's just depoendent on power generation, which in turn is stongly tied to size class.

You'll notice that FFX's (first-Gen) get only a modest absolute increase in available power as compared to standard tech (12 warp goes to 16)

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 06:42 pm: Edit

In the GW, even fighters get 6 EW. 2 ECM, 2ECCM and 2 Swing IIRC.

I'ld say X2 Frigates can generate 8 EW. The EW-SC thing would havebeen cool IF it had been introduced as part of doomsday but we've gone past that...maybe some X2 Omega ships will have what you're looking for.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 02:31 pm: Edit

Fighters just get 2 ECM and 2 ECCM. I don;t thjink they get swing. That's what EW pods and the squadron's EWF is for.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 11:57 am: Edit

I'm concerned about the Andros. I know that some of you were involved in playtesting when the X1 rules were re-written. Specifically the EW rules (XD6.34) and (XD6.393) from http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/X-shipCL23.pdf

My concern is the Andros as published do not get the ability to generate 8 EW putting them at a huge disadvantage against X1 ships who can force a +1 and a -1 on every battle pass.

If this truly is the problem I perceive it to be, and I need your help here guys, then I don’t want to exacerbate the problem with XP.

Which is more unbalancing against the Andros, the –1 to hit or the 8 EW?

Should the Andros get the ability to generate 8 EW as a refit in the XP module?

Are there any other refits we think the Andros should get to compensate for XP? Rapid pulse the Andro-P2 with X-Aegis anyone?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 12:35 pm: Edit

Tos,

Please do NOT open the can of X-andro worms.

The problem with rewriting the Andros is that Andros worked to fight XP are andros that may not enegage standard tech.

Maybe this will force the much-needed rewrite of Operation Unity, but changing Andros is borrowing trouble.

Andros have plenty of ways of dealing with Seeking weapons, speed and T-bombs high among them. An Andro that has to gun his way through seeking weapons is an andro that has already made a mistake.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 01:07 pm: Edit

I am strongly opposed to XP gaining the -1 die shift (I've posted the tech reasons before so I wont here). This will be a problem to Andros but I don't think 8 EW will be.

I goes that XP could generate 8 EW as a bennifit from new computers.

As to Andros...Hmmm, I don't know. Could be that once the Galactics start using higher EW levels the Andros adapt. Not a refit, they just adapt suddenly one year. They are mysterious after all.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 01:17 pm: Edit

I agree no -1 shift for XP. Give them 8 EW and call it a day. This maintains the special flavor the -1 shift gives X-ships. I also maintain the -1 shift carries over to X2. It's a simple benefit that gives a distinctive edge to the X-ships. So to bring it back the XP ships should benefit only from 8 EW. That maintains the relative difference between XP and X-ships for EW.

I'm not going into the Andro can-o-worms. My gut says no shift for them but I'll leave it there and let the Andro experts (which I am not) hash that one out.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 01:31 pm: Edit

I would prefer to give XP the -1 and not 8EW. My reasons are many, but Tos raises another good point. Unless we give the Andros the ability to generate more EW, they are gong to be at an EW disadvantage against both X-ships and XP. X-ships alone is bad enough.

The -1 thing but only 6EW can be beat. Note that I advocate this with no additional upgrade to heavy weapons ONLY. Juice up the heavy weapons any other way, and it is going to be too much. The Andros have the power to keep their EW up enough to mitigate the -1 shift in most cases. Give XP 8EW and the Andros are facing an uphill EW battle.

And yes (on a seperate subject) Op Unity needs a revision. Andros have big problems in large fleet battles (but are awesome when the fleets get a little smaller). Using that campaign as it currently stands is probably not a great idea. Adding XP to any galactics in the campaign will result in the absolute slaughter of the Andros unless they are adjusted as well.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 02:03 pm: Edit

One of my big, BIG reasons for not allowing the -1 is that I'm a proponent of XP replacing the heavy weapons and having the -1 on those as well is too much. The major case being the Photon; no other weapon gains as much from a -1 shift like the photon and is too great an advantage (I would hate to see Fed XP ships have a much higher BVP than others just because of the Photon).

Even if you don't change out the heavy weapons the -1 is a lot for the Feds.

To address an argument I've used before, if it's OK for full X why not XP, I would submit that the situation would not be equal across the board. Feds are not so unbeatable if their shift is only on their relatively few X-ships but if the Feds can field a shift on a great many more ships, say enough to field several large fleets that would greatly shift the balance of power.

Against Andros it's a greater problem since success against Andros depends a lot on crunch and the photon is all about crunch. A -1 shift will only increase Federation crunch disproportionately.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 02:23 pm: Edit

I agree it's an either/or

The -1 shift + EW + heavy weapons is like rapid pulse + X-aegis + 2x caps

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 07:45 pm: Edit

"Please do NOT open the can of X-andro worms."

Not intending too.

"As to Andros...Hmmm, I don't know. Could be that once the Galactics start using higher EW levels the Andros adapt. Not a refit, they just adapt suddenly one year. They are mysterious after all."

Possible solution but would really hurt GW ships.

From this point on for this post I am discussing X1.rev1 only NOT XP.

The point that I need an answer for is was anyone looking at X1 vs. Andro (throughout history the most common enemy of an X-ship) when they wrote 8EW (XD6.34) and -1 (XD6.393)? To me this combination seems like death death death to an Andro. If I'm right and it is indeed both broken and under tested then I suggest we get it fixed with the release of XP/X1R.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 09:24 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I agree no -1 shift for XP. Give them 8 EW and call it a day. This maintains the special flavor the -1 shift gives X-ships.

---

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 09:28 pm: Edit

The simplest fix is "the X-ship -1 shift EW bonus under (XD6.393) does not apply to Andros." Put simply, they're Andros. Their tech isn't like ours.