My original post seems to have been deleted, but roughly:
Replace the Phot and Disr with a Tholian specific weapon. I propose the "web arm", a weapon that fires web fists, and has NONE of the other abilities of a web caster. (I.e. a cost-reduced WC that only fires in fist mode, but which can be fielded in numbers.)

Problem #1: the fist only has three range brackets, which makes for dull tactics.
Solution #1: split each of the existing 10-hex range brackets into two 5-hex brackets, and give it +1 to hit in the closer bracket. (No change to damage.)

E.g.
Range___old___new___damage for energy
(hexes)_____________1 2 3 4 _5 _6 (energy)
0-5_____1-4___1-5___2 4 6 8 10 12
6-10____1-4___1-4___2 4 6 8 10 12
11-15___1-3___1-4___0 2 4 6 _8 10
16-20___1-3___1-3___0 2 4 6 _8 10
21-25___1-2___1-3___0 0 2 4 _6 _8
25-30___1-2___1-2___0 0 2 4 _6 _8

By michael wheatley (Mike_Wheatley) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 02:41 pm: Edit

RE: Web Arm.

Problem #2: It is too good for long-range sniping. (8 damage for 6 energy at range 30!)
For a DISR or PHOT, doubling the energy doubles the damage. For the Web Fist, adding 1 to the energy adds 2 to the damage. This difference makes a big difference at long ranges.
Solution #2: The proposed Web Arm (unlike the Web Caster) can not fire high energy shots to long ranges - i.e. it has the concept of a "overload" range limit.
Specifically: 6-energy shots can only be fired out to range 5, and 5-energy shots can only be fired out to range 10. (Two range limits, to make it a bit different to other weapons.)
This results in the following:

Range___old___new___damage for energy
(hexes)_____________1 2 3 4 _5 _6 (energy)
0-5_____1-4___1-5___2 4 6 8 10 12
6-10____1-4___1-4___2 4 6 8 10 --
11-15___1-3___1-4___0 2 4 6 -- --
16-20___1-3___1-3___0 2 4 6 -- --
21-25___1-2___1-3___0 0 2 4 -- --
25-30___1-2___1-2___0 0 2 4 _6 _8

By Ben Moldovan (Shadow1) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 07:08 pm: Edit

I don't know if I'm off base, here -- I've been away from the X discussions for a LONG time. Anyway...

It seems to me that X2 weapons should be SIGNIFICANTLY better than non X weapons. Being able to field more of them is good. Then again these are REPLACING disrs and photons. The improved to hit is good, but I don't know if this is ENOUGH of an improvement for an X2 weapon.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 07:40 pm: Edit

Better is one thing. But I think we're looking for something different as well as simply better. If you simply make the photon hit for 24 instead of 16, but everyone's shields increase by 50%, then what have you really changed?

There's the consideration that we do NOT want X2 to have some RPS advantage over GW. This eliminates most of the loony ideas.

Also, the general consensus is that the BPV should be roughly double the GW ship's BPV of the same size class. A CA with refits is in the 140-160 range. The general consensus is that X2 CAs should be 250-350. (Some will argue for 250-300, others say 300-350). But generally, a 2 on 1 vs. GW tech should be an even match, provided that the ships were originally designed for duels.

Where am I going with this? There's a tendency in the discussions to improve EVERY single system on the ship for X2. The result is going to be a behemoth that would demolish the B10.

To get up to speed with where the discussion is, check out Vorlon's X2 page.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 08:06 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Better is one thing. But I think we're looking for something different as well as simply better. If you simply make the photon hit for 24 instead of 16, but everyone's shields increase by 50%, then what have you really changed?

---

By Ben Moldovan (Shadow1) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 11:53 pm: Edit

Let's see if I've got this straight. The BPV is going to be freaking DOUBLED, but the weapons are going to be not that much better, and there's going to be "no RPS advantage over GW".

How is that possible?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 12:08 am: Edit

The requirement is that an equal BPV of GW can combat an X2 ship. Everything else is negotiable.

By Ben Moldovan (Shadow1) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 12:14 am: Edit

Ah, ok. Still, for twice the BPV on an XCA, the tholians' weapon needs to be better than that, IMHO.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 01:39 am: Edit

In general most proposals give X2 ships something effective other than just bigger weapons. These things add up BPV but it's not always double. Also, people err to the high side more often than not.

A lot of X2 proposals have some form of Advanced Structural Integrity Field (ASIF) (might be renamed). This usually absorbs shield penetrating damage to a degree and might give additional benefits. This also means an X2 ship will be able to dish it out longer than an X1 of equal class and easilly twice as long as GW.

Most of us have adopted the group developed Phaser-5 which is moderately more powerful in damage points but has a longer range and a more even disapation rate than the Ph-1. It can also fire using Aegis as two Ph-6 (A Ph-3+50%).

Battery power is slightly incresed as well as warp power. Shields are top notch although only slightly incresed over X1.

Add ALL this up including more effective Heavy Weapons and now you can see where the extra BPV comes from!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 02:41 am: Edit

---

Quote:

How is that possible?

---

---

Quote:

In general most proposals give X2 ships something effective other than just bigger weapons. These things add up BPV but it's not always double. Also, people err to the high side more often than not.

---

---

Quote:

Add ALL this up including more effective Heavy Weapons and now you can see where the extra BPV comes from!

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 02:53 am: Edit

Consider this...
Take a Klingon DX and give it 8 more warp engine boxes and 8 more sheild boxes on every sheild and then give at an ASIF that for a not so modest amount of power causes the hull boxes to take two points of damage to destroy. Raise the Disruptors to have 4 point capasitors running them and a six impulse double broadside penalty and built in UIM/Derfacs, add another phaser-1 to the boom phaser suite, chuck in full Aegis as well and ask yourself what the BPV of the ship would be.


Quite a bit more than 250, I'ld guess, probably 330...which is why so many would want the number of disruptors dropped to 4 until after the refits.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 04:05 am: Edit

S-Bridge...heh, forgot my own proposal in the list. Uh duh...

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:11 am: Edit

Ben, Take one of the ships on Vorlon's X2 page, and fight it against the mainline GW cruiser from the enemy race.

If we balanced it right, then :
in a 1-on-1, the GW ship should be toast.
In a 2-on-1, it should be an even match.
In a 3-on-1, the X2 ship should be in serious trouble.

This is what I mean by "no RPS advantage". Some proposals made it so the GW ships couldn't touch an X2 ship. That's not going to work.


--------------------------------------------------
Here is a message I posted on Feb 22, 2003.

As long as the playtest report includes HOW the ship won, I would consider it essential that the Klingons and Romulans are tested against the Feds. If the Fed jackpots, it should be mentioned in the playtest report. After all, the chance of a jackpot is part of the game, and with more ships, the chance of a true jackpot actually decreases.

Here are some X0 squadrons featuring common ships that should have reliable BPV to judge X2 against.

Race	squadron	ships	Ship BPV	BPV
Klingon	3 NCA	D7W D5W D5W	169+162+162	493
Klingon	3 CA	D7L D7K D7K	156+152+152	460
Klingon	3 NCL	D5L D5K D5K	144+126+126	396
Klingon	3 DW	FWL F5W F5W	119+119+119	357
Klingon	3 FF	F5L F5 F5	109+ 87+87	283
Klingon	2 NCA	D5W D5W	162+162	324
Klingon	2 CA	D7K D7K	152+152	304
Klingon	2 NCL	D5K D5K	126+126	252
Klingon	2 DW	F5W F5W	119+119	238
Klingon	2 FF	F5 F5	87+87	174
Fed	3 CCH	CB NCA NCA	170+155+155	480
Fed	3 CA	CC CA CA	153+149+149	451
Fed	3 NCL	CLC NCL NCL	151+128+128	407
Fed	3 DW	DWC DW DW	115+101+101	317
Fed	3 FF	FFG FFG FFG	80+80+80	240
Fed	2 NCA	NCA NCA	155+155	310
Fed	2 CA	CA CA	149+149	298
Fed	2 NCL	NCL NCL	128+128	256
Fed	2 DW	DW DW	101+101	202
Fed	2 FF	FFG FFG	80+80	160

Replacing a mainline combat ship with a scout may make a more balanced squadron.

Race	squadron	ships	Ship	BPV	BPV
Klingon	D7	D7L	D7K	D5S	156+152+134	442
Klingon	D7W	D7W	D5W	D5S	169+162+134	465
Klingon	D5	D5L	D5K	D5S	144+126+134	404
Klingon	F5	F5L	F5	F5S	109+ 87+94	290
Klingon	DW	FWL	F5W	F5S	119+119+94	332
Fed	CA	CC	CA	GSC	153+149+166	468
Fed	CCH	CB	NCA	NSC	170+155+128	453
Fed	NCL	CLC	NCL	NSC	151+128+128	407
Fed	FF	FFG	FFG	FFS	80+80+75	235
Fed	DW	DWC	DW	DWS	115+101+105	322

Since S8.0 says DNs only appear with 3 or more other ships, I won't post DN squadrons here.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:52 pm: Edit

Fed

2 CA

CA CA

149+149

298

CAs are 125 each, and the CARa+ is 145 so I'm not sure how you got that one...I guess it's 145 plus four type IF drones in the rack.

A better pair of CAs would be 1 NCA & 1 CARa+ anyway. I tend to think of a 300ish BPV as being one Klingon D7W and one D5W because the other players has an easier time of remembering which ship is which because they are so different.
Sure a good player wouldn't need the distinction but why set up a situation where it's easy to make mistakes during playtesting.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 03:50 am: Edit

Because if someone isn't skilled enough that they keep getting their D7 and D5 confused, then their playtest report probably won't be that reliable anyway.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:14 pm: Edit

I find it difficult to ever use a CARa+ for anything. There is just too many better choices.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 01:47 pm: Edit

For playtesting I think the CAR+a is the better choice than almost anyother Fed ship in the inventory.

It's a sturdy design with a good balance of firepower/sturdiness. Plus it's not a COMBAT optimized design giving it a better baseline BPV for playtesting.

Not to mention the fact that its been around for quite sometime. Meaning players are more experienced in its use, and will be able to give a more accurate PT report because of it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 03:22 pm: Edit

Good point.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 08:27 pm: Edit

Another idea is that the 2X material should be playtested Vs. Tournament ships. The initial playtesting for new races is supposed to match them against TCs. As listed in CL.

Thats what I'm using for first round playtesting of SG races. To help benchmark the BPV so as to move onto regular SFB ships, for final PTing and fine tuning of rules/BPV. (Not to mention against other SG races.)

IMO we should skip the TC phase for 2X. BUT it might add credibility to our testing efforts.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 12:21 pm: Edit

Just a random thought, but some spiders use their webs to snare victims and actually haul them in, like a fisherman would. What if you made a modified web caster that could be linked to a tractor beam, so that the target could be caught in a web, then hauled closer to the ship? Breaking out of the web or destroying the tractor would be the only way to get out. Balance would be achieved by making the web "line" sufficiently easy to break that a ship could do it if it really tried. Thoughts? Could it be balanced, or is it just too much?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 12:52 pm: Edit

Intriguing idea but I see a few difficulties. First I would be difficult to see ships being hauled in at FTL steeds. They would have to be since cast web doesn't last very long. Also tractor rotation occurs only once per turn (spd 1).

It was an interesting picture though of a ship casting web from a web hex and landing it on a ship. The web then starts to cycle, drawing the ship to or away the casting ship. Un-fortunately the webs cannot co-exist either.

However, there is my Sticky Web Fist proposal. The one that hits a single unit like a web hex and stays on that unit for a time (in this case the web moves with the ship slowing it down which is a fundamental difference from normal web). The Tholians could then jump out and tractor such a ship and bring it in.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 01:32 pm: Edit

I'm a little nervous about adding more webcaster capabilities because I'm worried about the "must play nice with X1 and GW BPV" requirement. I think that things like Ph-5s or making photon torpedos 10 points (5 point prox, 20 point max overload) can probably be accounted for with appropriate BPV adjustments more easily than can "exotic" capabilities. And the webcaster is already exotic, before any upgrades. I worry that adding still more capabilities to it will modify the combat capability in unpredictable ways that can not easily be accounted for by BPV, either due to strong RPS effcts or sensitivity effects.

I certainly understand the desire for X2 to have exotic capabilities, and I'm not saying these suggestions won't work. I do, however, think that adding extra capabilities to webcasters needs to be approached cautiously and the changes will require a lot of playtesting.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 03:29 pm: Edit

The web caster and the gatling are the two most unbalancing weapons in the game. We should avoid improving either.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 03:30 pm: Edit

Just pick those two out of your hat Tos?

They seem quite fine and balanced to me.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 03:34 pm: Edit

That explains alot.