Another possible approach - an X2 tractor such that one "box" on the SSD can generate multiple simultaneous beams, for suitably high energy cost. This isn't quite the same as Tos' hex-sized tractor beam, but both ideas would allow tractors to play a much more important role in drone defense.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 04:44 pm: Edit

I forgot to explain my hex sized tractor, it only works against SC=7 targets. Think of it as a tractor net.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 04:54 pm: Edit

Tos;

Does it only affect drones in the hex at the time it is generated, or do new drones moving into the hex also get caught? Also, can the net be rotated to a different hex, or must it remain in the initial hex?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 04:55 pm: Edit

Beaming through shields won't fly, I'm pretty sure.

But I did make a proposal for a multi-stage T-bomb. Basically a Size Class gets twice the number of Half-Sized bombs that do 6 points each. These can be cuppled together to make one full sized T-bomb that does 12 damage. Once available to X2 ships these would become available to all ships. The cost for each 1/2 sized unit would be 3 points.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 05:55 pm: Edit

Tractor Net proposal moved to X2 General Systems.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 06:12 pm: Edit

Just a quick note. I think everyone has good ideas about the way X2 phasers could shake out, but that they tend to work best with their own designs. The details of the phaser suite on a ship (mix of P6 and P5, firing cost, caps, etc.) have to be viewed holistically. I know from playtests that the method I espouse works; I'm sure others' methods will work on their ships. I guess what I'm saying is that there is no real "right" answer to the phaser question that can be decided without looking at the entire project.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 10:36 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Aha! "Unique racial flavor." But after your suggested improved coolant becomes available, with the consequent reduction in volume required for a Ph-5, both races would just have 12 Ph-5s.

---

---

Quote:

The HAAS was obsolescent as soon as the TAAS appeared. By Y205, any surviving HAAS have probably been relegated to guard duty on some backwater colony. Front line squadrons would long since have gone over to the TADSC. This example is just weird.

---

---

Quote:

1. We apparently use very different tactics in our play. (By the way, do you usually play floating map or fixed? As previously stated, I much prefer a floating map but know plenty of others dislike floating map as much as I dislike fixed map. This is a fundamental difference that has a major impact on certain tactics.)

---

---

Quote:

2. You at least give the impression of wanting ships that can do everything and don't have to make tough choices. I'm not saying you really believe that. But it is how you come across in your writing. For example, you wrote:

---

---

Quote:

But the advantage has to be permanent if you want to preserve racial flavor in the phaser suites. Otherwise, all races would converge towards a common loadout as the refits become available.

---

---

Quote:

I don't fully see a need for the P6. But thats because I have some grave concerns about how much we can up armor drones and keep them at the scale GW ships can realistically deal with. But thats a discssion for the drone thread.

---

---

Quote:

Is a P1 in the role of a P2 as being an acceptable second choice for that race? That could eventually be upgunned somewhat in the face of dire need.

Or is the P1 playing the roll of cheap and effective short range fire power? Like the P2 was. (IE it would be designed in for the close rnage punch that comes rarely.)

---

---

Quote:

I'm thinking scout channel options, special lab functions, X-Aegis, hex-sized tractor beams, beaming TB through shields and such.

---

---

Quote:

But suppose these bombs could, unlike T-bombs, be stockpiled in large numbers and several could be transported in one transporter action. This might form the basis for X2 drone defense, though care would have to be taken not to make them too strong

---

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 01:49 am: Edit

What if some races (such as the Feds and Tholians) had nothing but ph-5s with the ability to downfire to ph-6.

But other races' ph-5 doesn't have the downfire ability and so they used ph-1X (downfire as 2 ph-3s or 1 ph-1) for drones, and never bothered to invent the ph-6?

Or to go a step further, since the Klingon economy is bankrupt, ph-1 firing controls may still be hard to come by. A D7X with ph-5s in the boom and ph-2s wherever they can fit?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 02:36 am: Edit

I think we all should be careful to say Rapid Pulse when we mean rapid pulse and down fire when we mean down fire.

I think the Gorns would be another ALL Ph-5 user but they would need rapid pulsing to fight Romulan Plasma.

I don't think there will be any ships with Ph-2s on X2 hulls (except through hasty repairs )...the advancement of years has probably made Ph-1 fire control easier to manufacture.
I would say that Ph-1s could be ( and should be ) cheaper than Ph-5s ( indeed 3Ph-1s should be cheaper than 2Ph-5s ) as a progression of the fact that the repair cost of the Ph-5 is 6 CDR points...and thus the Ph-1 option is the cheap option likem the Ph-2 was in the MY period.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 05:39 am: Edit

Mike,

"Just a quick note. I think everyone has good ideas about the way X2 phasers could shake out, but that they tend to work best with their own designs. The details of the phaser suite on a ship (mix of P6 and P5, firing cost, caps, etc.) have to be viewed holistically. I know from playtests that the method I espouse works; I'm sure others' methods will work on their ships. I guess what I'm saying is that there is no real "right" answer to the phaser question that can be decided without looking at the entire project."

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 10:59 pm: Edit

Mike,

Just so you know, you just got a convert for the 1-point P-5.

The fact that power levels aren't increasing a lot over X1 is a big factor.

The other is self interest in a past technoology proposal.

I was editing my phaser-matrix proposal today and I noticed that it would have a very natural set of advantages and disadvantages as compared to a 1-point P-5.

Since keeping the P-M viable was a big part of my remaining opposition, that opposition hasdisappeared now that I can make it work, and make it work pretty well, too.

By Adam James Villatorio (Merlinfmct87) on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 11:35 pm: Edit

Hey John, when are you going to update your Firemane page? I'm really looking forward to seeing that...

Merlin

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 03:27 pm: Edit

Editing and organizing it requires a combination of time and inclination. Usually I've been short one or the other, usually time.

Then there are times I forget it's there.

Firemane's site is posted as a raw transfer from his page. If Sandy was smart in the way he linked his pages, it should function just fine. I just haven't gone through it to clean things up.

You can find it at:

http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/firemane/index.htm

By Adam James Villatorio (Merlinfmct87) on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 04:08 pm: Edit

John:

It would then seem that Firemane's HTML coding is horrific, because no links work on that site! I always get 404 errors.

All the links are pointing to the right directory(/sfb/firemane/) so I can only assume that eithor the links or files are misnamed or the files are missing.

If you would like I could fix it up for you... all I'd really need are the Firemane files, linking them together would be a piece of cake for me.

Talk to you soon,

Merlin

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 07:20 pm: Edit

Adam,

I would love for you to do that and give you credit for your work to boot.

IIRC Firemane's stuff took up about a meg of space. Can I forward you a zip that size?

Is the address you have on this site correct?

By Adam James Villatorio (Merlinfmct87) on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 07:43 pm: Edit

Addy is spot on(Remove the DIESPAMDIE of course). That account should be able to hold a zipped meg. If not, I have another netscape account you can send it to.

So send away and I'll get the fixed copy to you asap, K?

Merlin

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 10:33 pm: Edit

Headed your way.

My estimate was a little low. 1.8 MB.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 11:09 pm: Edit

Your mailbox is getting full.

By Adam James Villatorio (Merlinfmct87) on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 09:14 pm: Edit

Ack. Someone sent me a huge attatchemnt before you did, so I'm going to send you another email account addy.

Sorry for all the trouble,

Merlin

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 07:40 am: Edit

Dang, John. I was re-reading your Phaser Matrix and it occured to me that an idea I had for Ph-5 would be nothing more than a variation of yours. Back to the drawing board . . .

I've been on board for the 1pt Ph-5 and will remain so in the foreseeable future. To be fair, I'm not saying the 1+pt Ph-5 people are "wrong," but within the context of my X2 ideas 1pt works right.

I understand the basic reasoning for making the Ph-5 a 1+pt weapon, but I'm curious who else is "on board" for the 1pt Ph-5 (and ½pt Ph-6 I presume) paradigm and why it works for them.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 06:51 pm: Edit

I have just read *all* the posts for the x2 ph-1 thread. You guys have worked hard, but the sinking feeling I have is from what I read in P6 about the 'guidelines' for X2 from SVC. It seems that the ideas and assertions are not that spectacular-don't get me wrong you have worked a lot-but the wording in P6 calls for more 'revolutionary' things than 'evolutionary'. Why is this so?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 07:40 pm: Edit

Because we the players are afraid that revolutionary things are more prone to break the system. SVC decreed that X2 must be BPV balanced with X1 and GW. Incremental improvements is the best way to ensure this.

Also, many players don’t want to stray too far from the game we know and love. If we want something completely different there is Omega and LMC. It’s a prime directive of X2 that it be compatible, no, integrated with what has come before. The Tradewars provide the setting in which multi-generational combat is the norm.

This is a case of the players not being aligned with the designer. If the direction of XP is any indication the players will lose.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 07:41 pm: Edit

Roger,

First, SALUTE for reading even *one* archive from start to finish.

I guess I'm to blame for the general shape of X2. I was the first to articulate this following idea when we were first kicking it around:

SVC has stated that X2 must keep equivalance with standard-technology ships. What that means is that a BPV of X2 buys the same degree of combat power as a BPV of standard technology. Put another way: 500 BPV of standard technology should fight a 50-50 battle against 500 BPV of X2.

We often refer to that as X2 "playing nice" with standard-tech.

SVC's playtest resources are finite. The stranger and more offbeat technology gets, the more difficult play-balance becomes. (RE: Andros or Jindos). Moving off the existing technological paradigm into completely new ground can produce or heighten rock-paper-scissors situations where ships of one race have a great advantage over ships from another and in turn have an advantage over ships from a third. Not to mention RPS advantages over standard tech as a whole.

Another effect is to create effectively a different game using the SFB game-engine. This is still supposed to be "SFB" so we decided to keep ships recognizable.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 08:25 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

This is a case of the players not being aligned with the designer. If the direction of XP is any indication the players will lose.

---

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 11:50 pm: Edit

Mike, as will every player that mourns the loss of the S7 ship customization rules. There is a reason those rules were removed and I see us traveling inexorably toward the same cliff.

But that's not the point. We the players spent years on this board hashing out what we thought XP should be. We reached a delicate concensus. SVC and SPP sat down on a Saturday and decided that XP was possible, and then invented their own system. Beyond demonstrating a desire for such a product and a way to do it without publishing SSDs they pretty much ignored what we developed. I expect the same for X2.