The hope is that the treaty will be left behind.

So we can have ships that have refits and change throughout the period of X2.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 08:26 pm: Edit

What the heck is this "treaty" thing? I've never heard of it. Somebody email me a two-paragrah explanation (first paragraph what it does, second why we need it) and I'll decide if I'm going to accept it or reject it.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 08:43 pm: Edit

Sent.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 03:51 am: Edit

William T. Wilson,

I'm afraid I don't buy the argument that "... the ships themselves aren't any tougher than MY ships from 70 years previous."

A Fed CA from Y130 has 88 internals "within the outline" of the ship. Go to the fully refitted CAR+ and the number jumps to 95. The most powerful non-X version of that hull, the CB, has 104. The CX has 113 internals within the ouline. It also has a damage control rating of 6, which means that it can repair more internals than the non-X version, and repair them faster.

One of the most important survivability advantages of an X-ship, at least in my experience, is the ability to move at max speed even after taking moderate warp engine damage. A CA or CC loses a point off its maximum speed every time it takes a warp engine hit. A CB can take 2 warp engine hits and still travel at speed-31 if absolutely necessary. But a CX retains this ability to 12 warp engine hits. Granted, it can't really fight at high speeds after taking this damage. But if it needs to outrun some incoming plasma, the ability to move at high speed even having taken significant engine damage can literally be a lifesaver. I've found this to be particularly important in fleet actions.

An X-cruiser most definitely is tougher than its non-X counterpart. It is an eggshell with a hammer if the player chooses to play it that way, and sometimes the tactical situation will force or at least strongly encourage eggshell-with-hammer style play. But there are also plenty of times when the player should not play an X-ship that way.

If you are claiming that the offensive capabilities of X-ships increased more than their durability, and an X-ship is thus relatively more fragile, I agree. But the eggshell-with-hammer bit tends to get blown out of proportion and you cannot claim that the X-ship is no tougher than its non-X counterpart.

Just my .02 quatloos worth.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 05:51 pm: Edit

Some of the earliest proposals hereabouts were ones to make X2 ships tougher than X1 without adding pointless system boxes.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 08:48 pm: Edit

I have a question for all of you. Is an XCA equivalent to a CA or BCH? If it is similar to a BCH what is the X2 CA called and what weapons ans sytems does it have?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 09:12 pm: Edit

CA. BCH class ships await the Xorks.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 09:40 pm: Edit

No one knows. That's what the X-Files are for...to discuss the possabilities.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 10:53 pm: Edit

Well there is a push for the X2 cruiser to be CM or CL rather than a BC or CCH or BCH.

The General consensus is that c powers built ships that were better capable of being off-on-their-own then CXs but still had the same ( or better ) strategic speed capabilitites.
Lots of BCHs, CWs and DW aree great for holding-the-line but one XCA is better for getting out there and seeing what the Universe is really all about.

By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 03:54 am: Edit

A rather expensive fact finding mission.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 06:27 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I have a question for all of you. Is an XCA equivalent to a CA or BCH? If it is similar to a BCH what is the X2 CA called and what weapons ans sytems does it have?

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 09:34 am: Edit

John Trauger,

Yeah, I know. And I have no problem with X2 improvements to make ships more survivable. But I did want to address the often repeated eggshells-with-hammers claim. I think the claim contains a grain of truth but the extent is often exaggerated. And I'm not sure what you mean by "pointless system boxes". Do you mean things like lots of hull? For whatever my experience is worth, the larger warp engines on X-ships improve those ships' survivability greatly, by providing the ship the power to either continue fighting or escape, even after having taken significant damage.

That being said, I want to repeat that I have no objection to things like ASIF, and indeed think something like this would be a very worthwhile addition for X2 ships.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 03:23 pm: Edit

Alan,

keeping that concern at the forefront is never a bad thing either.

Commander's X2 sufferred from exactly that problem.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 04:43 pm: Edit

Well...not really, at least not as much as you might think. The X2 stuff from supplement X2 wasn't that bad; in fact, the X2 CA had less warp power than the CX. The problems were the overloaded phasers, the 2 to 1 shield reinforcment, and the re-designed weapon tables that made everything super accurate and gave range 10 overloads. All that combined made for one hell of a mess. Do away with those things, and I think you'd find that the X2 ships printed therein would be pretty darned tame.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 06:43 pm: Edit

Mike,

That WAS Commander's X2. Throw it all out and you don't really have a module.

Retreaded for standard tech you still have CAs with--what?--16 P-1s?

That's not what I'd call "tame".

IIRC, phaser-overloading was just an X1 thing. Phasers in Old X2 could function as P-Gs with no targeting restriction.

That really put them over the top.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 06:51 pm: Edit

I suspect that XCAs might indeed be (more or less) even less like eggshells with slegde hammers.

Consider an R1 strike of a Fed CA is Y140 againsyt a mirror of it'self. 64 (possible points of Photons plus four Phaser-1s yeilds a total of about 85.33 points against 24 shield boxes and four BTTY leaving 57.33 points to be applied over the 88 boxes inside the line ( 65.15% ).
..... But a Fed XCA firing at R1 against a mirror of itself would fire Four 24 point Photons ( worst case scenario so let's not argue ) for 96 points of photons damage and her 6 bearing Ph-5s will need to be used to kill the type VII drone she will otherwise eat and thus only four of the phasers shall be fired at the ship at R1 and will generate 30 points of damage for a total of 126. However with five 3 point BTTYS and 40 shield boxes she applies 71 points of damage her internals. With the ASIF unraised there are 124 inside the outline, raised to low levels 144 inside the outline and with the ASIF on full power 172 inside the outline. That causes the remaining 71 points of internal damage to be 57.26% and with the ASIF on full power 41.30% which means even witht he ASIF off the ships are even more rugged relative to their weapons than MY ships. ( Admittedly my ASIF is probably the most intence of all ASIF designs .)


Personally I like the idea that XCAs ( during the tradewars ) had a free hand in the implimentation of their defensive systems and were so restrricted in their offensive systems that MY ships were more dangerous ( ralatively speaking ).


Also I'ld like to say that the term USELESS SSD BOXES just doesn't mean HULL. I personnally can't see a use for a ship to have 7 Transporters. Six I understand, ten I understand but seven really just is another free hit to me.
I also can't see much of a point in having more than three tractors ( in a regular cruiser; PFTs are different ). I loose one to the alpha strike, I tractor my target, I get hit with H&Rs ( I should be using Guards ) & loose one and I'm still in the game. But I can't see any need to have one more unless my opponant is a complete Mizia nut.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 07:11 pm: Edit

RE: Tractor numbers. Just wait until you see how useful Tractors are in dealing with one of the Shield Galaxy races. Suddenly you'll want a lot more of the things

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 08:04 pm: Edit

John,

I know about the phaser-G thing. That's the point, though. The ships weren't that bad without all that crap. I'll grant the deplorable excess of phaser-1's was too much, but even so, it was the special rules and all that made 'em so bad...not the ships themselves.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 11:08 pm: Edit

...And without the special rules there is no module, just some funny ships.

Those rules are THE REASON to play X2.

(or to not play)

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 06:49 am: Edit

I think you misunderstand me. I didn't like supplement 2. My point was that the ships themselves were not that bad; it was the rules that were a problem. Lots of talk has gone on about how too much warp or other "useless" boxes can ruin the ships, but I don't think that's the problem. I can make an XCA with 48 points of warp and a move cost of 1.25 that isn't a whole bunch better than a CX. Supplement two had ships that were no better (in some cases even worse) than X1, but it was the rules they used that broke them. In other words, focusing too much on how many boxes a ship has can be misleading; you have to look at the whole picture. That's one reason I want the first round of X2 ships to be no better than X1, just different. I don't see any requirement that X2 ships should be significantly better than X1, at least at first. Better systems and more flexibility, with some new toys? Yes. Overall better in every way, to the same degree that X1 was better than GW? No.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 10:25 am: Edit

The Phaser-V is a brilliant example of what Mike is talking about. The X-Files finest moment is that design. It reflects the kind of technological advancedment that is a solid but non-game damaging step forward.

On a ship that will have a generaly better power curve the Ph-V still doesn't totally out class the Ph-1. Indeed, on a ship with less of a power curve you would likely fire it as a Ph-1.

The design is conservative but useful and therefore logical.

X2 in general (i.e. the big picture) should take a similar step.

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 10:51 am: Edit

I think when you're trying to create the tech matrix for that era it might be helpful to look at the shifts in technology in the navy over a similar time period.

Over the last 100 years we've gone from coal, to oil to nuclear

Weapons have gone from primarily artillery to better artillary to missiles and currently we're playing around with lasers.

Over the same era the shift in fire control methods, radar sonar computers. Vessel defense went from passive (Heavy armor) to active (Aegis). Crew requirements dropped as technology took over many jobs. Strategy went from direct engagment artillary duels to stand off-even over the horizon engagement.

A look at the speed ships are able to move is also interesting over the same time period. Just think of how much has changed since the Great White Fleet sailed and the Navy today.

And even as the Navy today has changed from the Navy then- we're currently on the threshold of even more amazing changes.

Some things may even seem to have regressed-modern ships don't have the armor of earlier ships. An artillery shell from an Iowa class battle ship would do real nasty damage to any modern warship. But the trick is for the Iowa to get close enough to USE it.

Good book out right now Choice of Weapons by John Binghamton (I think I got last name right) shows what happens when a modern war fleet from the very near future is transported back in time to WWII.

Anyway, I think that's the feel you should get for it. Imagine a dogfight between a WWI biplane and an F-16 or an F-22! Heck the jets could destroy the biplane just with their backwash turbulence.

regards
Stacy

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 11:32 am: Edit

We've discussed that, and while it makes sense historically, it doesn't work so well for a game. To paraphrase, do we really want to introduce F-16's into a game of biplanes? I don't, and I imagine I'm in the majority. Playbalance is of the utmost importance; X2 must play nicely with GW and X1...that is the only maxim laid down by ADB. I think that a good compromise of advanced tech and goodies combined with more usefull, peacetime hulls is a good start. You should end up with a ship that can fight as good or maybe a bit better than X1 in some ways, but is not as combat oriented overall.

By Don MacPhail (Dontz125) on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 01:09 pm: Edit

The Final Countdown was, IIRC, a movie about a modern CVN poofed back to the day before Pearl Harbour. F-14s vs Zeros...

Stacy - I recall reading a story a while back about a jet fighter poofed back to WWI. He couldn't lock on with either Radar or IR missiles, and had no guns. Jet wash was the only way he COULD down the biplanes!

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 01:33 pm: Edit

Don
Yeah but they wimped out in Final Countdown. The book I mentioned is viscerally MUCH more satisfying. If you know the name of that story I'd like to know I've heard about it for 30 years and have never seen it.

Mike
The spectrum of technology that already exist in SFB is pretty broad from the Early Years to X tech already. People don't take Early Years ships against X ship much I don't imagine. But they COULD if they so chose. I remember we had a scenerio published low these many years ago that featured a warp ship transported buck to the sublight era and fighting a huge number of Gorn sublight ships. But I digress...

My point is that if you truly want to get the feel of advanced tech I don't think it's simply in more advanced versions of existing weapons-that's just more of the same.

I've played a number of naval combat games ranging from Wooden Ships and Iron Men to Ironclads to WWI, WWII and modern naval warfare (Harpoon) and the tactics and "feel" was different for each era and the strategy required changes (I never will forget the time I was playing Midway and ended up with the Japanese fleet in the same area as my carriers! Needless to say we lost that version. But a HUGE difference between modern naval warfare is simply situational awareness.
During WWII a lot of times it was •••• hard to engage the enemy because you had to FIND the enemy.

I'm not saying I have the answer, I'm just suggesting looking outside the box a bit for the inobvious. No one has ever done a naval warfare game that goes from the age of sale to present day so we're in blue water here.

regards
Stacy