Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through August 20, 2004	25		08/20 03:09am
	Archive through December 22, 2005	25		12/22 07:06pm
	Archive through December 26, 2005	25		12/26 09:10pm
	Archive through January 30, 2006	25		01/31 10:08pm
	Archive through May 21, 2007	25		05/21 09:01pm

Joe: First I'll address the second thing. SVC has said that is not the case. All the races continue to build GW era ships well past Y205.

On the first part; well BPV isn't that powerful. Here is an example of what you could do that BPV cannot accurately balance, namely because BPV cannot be adjusted depending on what enemy you are facing.
For instance, say we give X2 the ability to generate 12 ECCM and get a -2 to hit advantage AND those ships had the power to use it. You would give the X2 ship a big BPV penalty making it have a high cost. The enemy would just take ships equalling this high BPV but the X2 ship would still be able to hit them while they could not reach the X2 ship at all. Given time the X2 ship would always win. Ah but the enemy can just take a scout in it's squadron and not the X2 ability so dearly paid for in BPV is nullified and the X2 ship has to fight a more powerful force.

There have been other proposals that BPV cannot balance, EW being just one of the big ones. BPV covers a lot but not everything.

There is also a certain level of offensive punch a ship can have (combined with power) that becomes undefeatable by less capable ships. Even if you add a ton of BPV if the X2 ship can hit you with impunity and/or take down whole ships with a single blow the other side can never win. Then there is the matter of being able to fight better against some races than others. As it stands it's a good thing Sabot plasma came out because X2 was looking to make seeking plasma obsolete.


We also have a limit as to what level of BPV we want to get to. Making the X2 cruiser 400 BPV isn't going to be fun if the enemy has to take a squadron of GW ship to match it.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 08:55 pm: Edit

"Joe: First I'll address the second thing. SVC has said that is not the case. All the races continue to build GW era ships well past Y205.
"

Well, that may be the intent, but it doesn't really make sense. We find that the GW ships die in HUGE numbers. They can't compete, and the funds don't exist to repair them if they get crippled. I can see some of the special ships sticking around, things the X-ships don't really do, but with limited budget and an economic collapse, GW ships are a bad buy.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 08:56 pm: Edit

"Making the X2 cruiser 400 BPV isn't going to be fun if the enemy has to take a squadron of GW ship to match it. "

Why is that? Sounds like a fun battle to me.

People take a sqn vs. a battleship. This isn't very differnt.

Besides, why would you do it that often? Wouldn't you play X2 vs. X2 and/or X1?

The E4 was obselete at the start of the GW. I don't see why anyone would want one in Y205 (in game or otherwise)

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 08:58 pm: Edit

Interesting conversation - sorry I'm jumping in a bit late...

As far as the list that MJC has posted, I'll take those and raise you the following:

*Participate in long-range exploration of more distant regions of the galaxy, as well as the Magellanic Clouds.

While the victory of Operation Unity has severed this side's RTN node, it has not ensured that there will never be any more Andromedan ships eventually showing up in the LMC. Also, while the Magellanic Powers have the chance to rebuild, it will take time for them to re-establish themselves.

Also, it's not entirely outside of the realm of possibility that the deal which saw the Magellanics ally with the Unity fleets involved an agreement to support the former's reconstruction - which may involve the use of the chains of bases planted between Alpha and the LMC to ferry convoys back and forth.

And note that the Andros have RTN links extending from the Cloud into Omega and elsewhere - sooner or later someone is going to have to follow up on those bases, smash them, and see if the Andros have surviving remnants in more distant parts of the Milky Way, or one of its other satellite galaxies/clusters.

Even if only a few powers are willing to support Magellanic reconstruction, such as the ISC and Feds, the likes of the Klingons are hardly going to sit idle and watch their old rivals get a leg up on them in the trans-galactic influence stakes. (Think of the rival explorations undertaken by western European powers in the sixteenth century.)

Also, in the Y210s, the Alphas discover concrete data on the Omega Octant - most notably in Y214, when official contact between the FRA and UFP is established via wormhole, and the GSX Sakharov is sent to explore this distant region of the galaxy - which would lead to more concrete efforts by the Feds (and hypothetically the ISC and Klingons, who also have 'missing' worlds in the FRA) to establish permanent contact. Also note that the Sakharov is guided home to the Federation by the Iridani, via their Cluster - one could picture it as becoming a waypoint for such long-range explorations.

And there are plenty more such globular clusters scattered around the Milky Way, too.


All of this adds up to the nature of the game being changed - it's no longer a case of just influencing the rest of the Alpha Octant. There are wider stakes up for grabs, and few can afford to ignore them.


And one other idea - what if the Unity races agree to the establishment of a loose 'Alpha League', akin to the League of Nations or UN on Earth? This organisation would at least try to facilitate negotiations between the member powers, and act as an off-the-shelf infrastructure in the event that a future external threat opens up.

Of course, this would not necessarily be a wholly successful body - note how Greece and Turkey, theoretically NATO allies, have had their arguments in the past - and would have little to no actual power, but would be a good example of the efforts made to avoid the kind of near-disaster that the Andro War represented.

Of course, whether said League holds out in the face of the Xorks, or its members' rivalries, is another story...


Gary

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 09:01 pm: Edit

"via wormhole"

Ick.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 09:08 pm: Edit

Well, the wormholes don't last longer than a month - and apparently the farther in distance they travel, the greater the temporal discrepancy becomes...

...as one Omega power discovered in Y212!


Gary

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 10:29 pm: Edit

Joe: SVC can't design the module to work most of the time. It has to work all the time. We can say we'd only play a certain battle on occasion but it has to be fun all the time to sell right.

Battleships are MC1 with all that power. X2 ships would be. BB's are a completely different dynamic with the same tech weapons as the enemies while X2 would be higher tech. We found the two don't compare well.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 10:32 pm: Edit

"SVC can't design the module to work most of the time. It has to work all the time. "

Again, if the ships are properly valued, it WILL work "all of the time". I put that in quotes because you know as well as I that some matchups DON'T work well, for a variety of reasons... so I put it in quotes to signify "no worse or better than it is now"

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 10:35 pm: Edit

Loren:

How many SFBers would play a fleet of W-era ships against an X-squadron, and actually expect a semblance of a fair fight?

I'm not saying I want X2-tech ships to be overkill compared to X1, but there should be a point at which gamers can be expected to place a certain cut-off point in terms of which TL a ship would be to remain effective.

There's plenty of that in the game already!


Gary

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 10:48 pm: Edit

Exactly.

If X2 isn't enough of an improvement over X1, how does it represent a technological shift? Otherwise, it's just an evolutionary improvement, like the late-war refits.

Think of it this way.... how many early years ships would it take to be a threat to 1 X-CA? This is the same comparison.

Even if X2 is very powerful, you CAN play GW tech vs. X2. Maybe it takes 2-3 cruisers to match an X2 frigate. Is that so bad?

Think about the real world. How many ships/tanks/aircraft from 30, 50, 70 years ago could hope to have any chance at all against modern tech, if not in overwhelming numbers?

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 11:50 pm: Edit

Well if you outfitted a P-38 with sidewinders it might be kinda interesting...
regards
Stacy

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 11:53 pm: Edit

Look guys, it's not my mandate it's SVC's and he's said he won't publish an X2 that doesn't play nice with GW. I don't think anyone is pushing that back to EY ships but the history is that there are still GW designs in service throughout SFU history. That means all the way to Y225.

I agree with SVC that it needs to work. You should be able to take a GW DN and a BCH up against a couple X2 medium cruisers and have a fair and fun fight of it.

2-3 cruisers vs one X2 frigate would be bad, bad IMO. Super Munchkin equals no fun to me. 2-3 cruisers vs an X2 cruiser would be fine.

We've have huge and fairly productive discussions about X2 and we went about as far as we could with out the product being on the table for publication. We've developed some really good idea, the crown jewel being the Phaser-5 (IMHO). A conservative and logical weapon, not munchkin and very useful and plays nice with GW while still being superior to the Ph-1. An example of SFU Board brilliance.

Anyway, I digress. What I was heading for is that we also worked out an approximate goal for the X2 cruiser to be about 300 to 325 BPV (IIRC).

We worked out some basic core tech differences as well.

But then all that huge amount of work my be for nothing as SVC has said it might. He warned us at the beginning that we can do this if we really want and he will scan the threads for ideas when the itme comes and may or may not use anything. He may just come up with his own idea for X2.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 12:05 am: Edit

"Well if you outfitted a P-38 with sidewinders it might be kinda interesting... "

I'm not sure how you'd get the electronics packed into it, or fit the ordinance.. but beyond that, I suppose it would be interesting.

"I agree with SVC that it needs to work."

Of course it has to work. I didn't say otherwise. What I'm saying is that what is open is what the definition of working is.

"2-3 cruisers vs one X2 frigate would be bad, bad IMO. Super Munchkin equals no fun to me. 2-3 cruisers vs an X2 cruiser would be fine. "

I think you are getting hung up on semantics. You are looking at the word "frigate" and saying "a frigate shouldn't be a match for 2-3 cruisers"... but why? You and I are picturing the same ship. I'm calling it a frigate (or a destroyer if you like that better), and you are calling a cruiser.

But yeah, 300-325 sounds OK. Hey, isn't that 30-40% more than an X-CA? Isn't that kind of what I was talking about? I think 325-350 might be better, but either way, it isn't a lot of points difference.

I will remind you though that an X1 frigate is close to an CW in strength BPV. Wouldn't it stand to reason that an X2 frigate would be stronger than a GW-CA... more like a BC/BCH?

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 12:35 am: Edit

Guys-the word everyone is looking for is RETROFIT.

That's how you bridge the gaps.

regards
Stacy

By Mike Ptak (Norsehound) on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 04:54 am: Edit

Just a spectator comment- what happened to X1 = Prototype and X2 = next stage of evolution? Or was this thrown out?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 08:02 am: Edit

---

Quote:

What I'm saying is that what is open is what the definition of working is.

---

---

Quote:

If X2 isn't enough of an improvement over X1, how does it represent a technological shift? Otherwise, it's just an evolutionary improvement, like the late-war refits.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 09:50 am: Edit

We also have a limit as to what level of BPV we want to get to. Making the X2 cruiser 400 BPV isn't going to be fun if the enemy has to take a squadron of GW ship to match it.
Just so you know.
In my playtest a while back between a Fed XCA+ Vs a Fed CX and DDX, the two X1 ships...won. In no small part due to fastloads from the DDX.

Even if X2 is very powerful, you CAN play GW tech vs. X2. Maybe it takes 2-3 cruisers to match an X2 frigate. Is that so bad?
Actually we're making X2 and GW play well. Limiting the sweetspot of the Ph-5 and X2 heavy weapons all to R8 will give the big clobbering power of the GW ships a chance to fire and see if they can score a few hits.

By limiting an XCA to 8Ph-5s and the same heavy weapon output (or there abouts) of a CX but also having 48 warp engine power and an ASIF (and regenerative shields and an S-Bridge) means the ship is meatier and so an XCA will beat a CX...it just won't do it with monster weapons. It'll win through toughness...which is odd because the ships will also be more vunerable to relatively minor damage...go figure!

2-3 cruisers vs one X2 frigate would be bad, bad IMO. Super Munchkin equals no fun to me. 2-3 cruisers vs an X2 cruiser would be fine.
I'ld gladly see an XFF fight an NCLa+ or an XFF+ fight a CB.

Personnally I think the XCA should be 300-330 BPV because I don't really see admirals paying for a ship which can't go toe-to-toe with the ISC CCX or the Orion CX.
Where an XCA+ lands is another isssue.

Just a spectator comment- what happened to X1 = Prototype and X2 = next stage of evolution? Or was this thrown out?
Yeah, basically the GURPS PD timeline says X1 is TL13 and X2 is TL15.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 09:51 am: Edit

"BPV of X2 ships must be able to play with the same BPV of X1 and GW"

That's not different than ANYTHING I said. In fact, it is precisely what I said. My point is, has been, will continue to be, do not get hung up over the size vessel that has a given BPV, as long as the vessels are valued correctly

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 09:57 am: Edit

Perhaps the level that the Alpha races are aiming for in X2 is to develop a ship on the same level as an Andro mothership?


Note that while Motherships are quite handy in combat, they are also well suited for other roles - they have to be, given their need to operate alone or in small groups, far from their larger bases - and if long-range exploration is now on the cards for the Alphas, the example shown by the Andro ships would be a relevant one.

For example, while hardly on the same level as the RTN, Alpha ships could use the bases planted up to the Cloud in Operation Unity as strategic movement nodes...

And while an Alpha equivalent of a Dominator would hardly be on the cards for the time being, perhaps a CA and CL intended to closely match the Intruder and Conquistador respectively would be a good start (in terms of capabilities and in BPV).

Of course, the Andro ships would also be serving as flying hangars for SatShips, but since the Alphas could build X2 destroyers anyway, it doesn't matter so much.

And in terms of use, there are examples of X1 cruisers serving in non-combat roles - most notably the GSX Sakharov, which spends five years exploring the Omega Octant and the Iridani Cluster before returning to the Federation (alongside an Iridani guide) in Y219.


Oh, here's an idea - what if one of the X2-era technologies is based on a more primitive version of the Magellanic Volley Reduction Factor system? (Since the Mags have a long headstart over the Alphas in terms of using such technology, perhaps the best percentage the Alphas can manage is 20-25%.) The Magellanic inner shield system might be interesting, too.

While said systems cannot be retrofitted onto pre-existing Alpha ships (according to the relevant Anarchist article) they might be something that could be tried out in a wholly new design - even if it's not as effective as the Magellanic originals, it would be a start.


Gary