Topic: X-Ship BP proposal

[Corbomite]

I fly ISC in PBR.   I know what a squad of ISC X-ships can do to "equal BPV" opponents.

They aren't the same ships though. OL Phasers make a huge difference.

No OL phasers on the Xboats

Thanks for repeating what I said. I think a guy in the back missed it.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I fly ISC in PBR.   I know what a squad of ISC X-ships can do to "equal BPV" opponents.

They aren't the same ships though. OL Phasers make a huge difference.

But since they have been removed from all X ships the relative combat effectiveness between X ships remains much the same. However 2x points for a Ii-CCX over other CCXs is still to much.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I fly ISC in PBR.   I know what a squad of ISC X-ships can do to "equal BPV" opponents.

They aren't the same ships though. OL Phasers make a huge difference.

No OL phasers on the Xboats

Thanks for repeating what I said. I think a guy in the back missed it.

Hey stop that, you know Lyrans have trouble chewing gum and walking at the same time.

[Hexx]

The Plasma Xships may be better than their BCH counterparts, I don't know
I would suspect having the power to arm,hold, ad chase down soemone would be nice

The Xdroners might be,

The non plasma/droner  xships will lose to their BP equivalnt builds everytime.
(Given equal player skill of course)

If the xships are a great deal for plasma races, then I'd say leave them as BP builds if you want.
(course I'm going to regret saying that I'm guessing)

[Julin Eurthyr]

I'm saying the I-CCX should be worth 1 1/3 to 1 1/2 CXs.  Bring me proof that she's worth 1 2/3 CXs, and I'll concede a value of 5, no further arguments.

I fly ISC in PBR.   I know what a squad of ISC X-ships can do to "equal BPV" opponents.

You obviously do not or you are lying.  I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt assume you are simply ignorant.

Does 685 internals to 2 count as proof? 

Third battle:   http://69.115.120.11:9000/images/GDA_Battle_3.rec

I-CCX - FPF-DieHard
I-CSX - Corbomite
I-CLX - FPF-TobinDax

G-CMX
G-HDX
G-HDX

This in D2 terms would be 10 BP versus 7 BP worth of ships.  It was a total slaughter against veteran Gorn Pilots.

I found 2 fallacies with this argument.  The first has been covered, ie, the fact that you're displaying the OP+ 3.4 X-boats with OL-capable Ph-Xs & Gats in the film, not the pure Ph-1 models on display today.

2: You took a CA and 2 CLs against a CM and 2 HDDs.  I don't care whether it's standard tech or X-tech, the CA / 2xCL force should beat the CM (which is, IIRC, the CW) and 2 HDDs (approx. CW size) ships every time.  The fact that you did it so decisively (only suffering 2 internals) is a testament to your, Corbo's and Dax's skills in the ISC ships.  IIRC, don't the G-HDXs only carry S-torps in their X-configuration, while you had 4 R-torps on the field?

Show me something like that with the pure no overload Ph-1 editions in this shiplist.  Then I'll start to consider your argument as valid.

DH, I'm not being dense.  I do not want an uber-cheddar ship at cheap prices that I can use to dominate the server.  I'm looking at it like this:
Dizzy's CXs are a new design, using solely Ph-1s (no gats / Ph-3s / etc.) and upgraded / upnumbered heavy weapons.  These designs need independant testing to help confirm their base BPVs, nevermind their "BP value".
There are no valid combat tests for these new vessels, yet you insist based on the performance of a different CCX variant that I am "graced" with an uber CA-sized BB on this server.  I am willing to listen to arguments based on the performance of the ship in question, specced out earlier in this thread, not the performance of any other I-CCX, flown by an ace pilot, in an group (show me a player who can accurately judge the effectiveness of a single ship out of a fleet engagement, at such a level where BPV or other pricing schemes can be accurately determined, and I'll be ready to introduce you to the next president of ADB).  Until then, I will stand my ground that while the BPV shows that this ship should be ready to fight BBs all day, and will draw them as their favorite non-X AI draw, I do not think that this vessel is worth 2 CA-hulled X-ships, of which I still have no proof that the CCX can handily fight.

Suffice it to say that I've given my arguments as to why the I-CCX should be a cheaper ship, and you've given yours on why the CCX needs to be a very expensive ship.  I'm willing to let the Admin, Dizzy, read these statements and decide for himself what price he's going to use.  I may complain / appeal, yet the Admin, as always, has the final decision.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I found 2 fallacies with this argument.  The first has been covered, ie, the fact that you're displaying the OP+ 3.4 X-boats with OL-capable Ph-Xs & Gats in the film, not the pure Ph-1 models on display today.

2: You took a CA and 2 CLs against a CM and 2 HDDs.  I don't care whether it's standard tech or X-tech, the CA / 2xCL force should beat the CM (which is, IIRC, the CW) and 2 HDDs (approx. CW size) ships every time.  The fact that you did it so decisively (only suffering 2 internals) is a testament to your, Corbo's and Dax's skills in the ISC ships.  IIRC, don't the G-HDXs only carry S-torps in their X-configuration, while you had 4 R-torps on the field?

The only things your 2 inaccurate fallacies prove is that you not only lack combat experience in the ships, but books smarts as well. HDXs are CWs and have 1 R and 2 Ss, a CM medium Crusier which is Gorn for NCA, thus CA equivalent. As DH stated the total BPV for the 2 fleets were identical, yet the matchup completely unbalanced do to the fact that the ISC ships have both short and long range fire power and the Gorn are largely limited to short. Removing the OL X phasers make these fleets more unbalanced not less.

[FPF-DieHard]

Julin, quit while you are behind 

[Julin Eurthyr]

Kroma:

I'm sorry for the misclassification of your hulls.  Not only do the classifications confuse Gorn Government officials, they confuse idle ISC officers who's not referencing the intelligence manuals (re: SFB R-sections...)

I still don't think the CCX, as written on SG4, is the equal of 2 combined CCXs of any other race.  I've stated my case, and that is all I can do.

[762_XC]

Nor is a battleship equal to two DNH's and a BCH.

Two words: combat density

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Two words: combat density

What does Hexx's decision making in combat have to do with this discussion.....

[Capt Jeff]

<Head explodes>

I would agree with Julin here.

The CCX is not twice the ship.  If other CX's are 3 BP's then the CCX should be 4-5, not 6.

[Corbomite]

As DH stated the total BPV for the 2 fleets were identical, yet the matchup completely unbalanced do to the fact that the ISC ships have both short and long range fire power and the Gorn are largely limited to short.

I don't know what number base system you guys use, but in base ten 748 does not equal 690. TBPV were the same. They decided to buy extra stuff instead of a CA hull. They lost that fight in the selection screen. A difference of 58 points in hull makes a huge difference.

And Julin, the 1st gen ISC X-Ships don't have gats. In fact they have no "point defense" at all.

[Dizzy]

5 and let's settle the issue.

Alliance/Coalition gets:

2281:  1 XBP
2283:  2 XBP's
2285:  3 XBP's

I.S.C. get:

2281:  0 XBP
2283:  1 XBP
2285:  2 XBP

The Alliance and Coalition must distribute their XBP's evenly when possible among their respective empires. The X-tech BP's compliment regular BP's when building X-ships, but can't be spent on anything other than X-ships.

Simple enough?

[Kroma BaSyl]

As DH stated the total BPV for the 2 fleets were identical, yet the matchup completely unbalanced do to the fact that the ISC ships have both short and long range fire power and the Gorn are largely limited to short.

I don't know what number base system you guys use, but in base ten 748 does not equal 690. TBPV were the same. They decided to buy extra stuff instead of a CA hull. They lost that fight in the selection screen. A difference of 58 points in hull makes a huge difference.

Now it is Corb showing his ignorance, what Gorn X-ship combo would you have taken to match the BPV more closely. The problem Corb is the imbalanced X-ships, we took the CA and 2 CLs just like you, but as the hull BPV and results showed they are not an even match. Maybe you need to brush up on the PBR rules if you have bothered to read them at all.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

5 and let's settle the issue.

Alliance/Coalition gets:

2281:  1 XBP
2283:  2 XBP's
2285:  3 XBP's

I.S.C. get:

2281:  0 XBP
2283:  1 XBP
2285:  2 XBP

The Alliance and Coalition must distribute their XBP's evenly when possible among their respective empires. The X-tech BP's compliment regular BP's when building X-ships, but can't be spent on anything other than X-ships.

Simple enough?

As war drags on, the various empires should begin suffering economic exhaustion.  (In Fed and Emppire, this is handled by reducing the economic points your provinces produce.)

It really doesn't make sense for us to start getting *more* points to play with. 

-S'Cipio

[FPF-DieHard]

5 and let's settle the issue.

Alliance/Coalition gets:

2281:  1 XBP
2283:  2 XBP's
2285:  3 XBP's

I.S.C. get:

2281:  0 XBP
2283:  1 XBP
2285:  2 XBP

The Alliance and Coalition must distribute their XBP's evenly when possible among their respective empires. The X-tech BP's compliment regular BP's when building X-ships, but can't be spent on anything other than X-ships.

Simple enough?

As war drags on, the various empires should begin suffering economic exhaustion.  (In Fed and Emppire, this is handled by reducing the economic points your provinces produce.)

It really doesn't make sense for us to start getting *more* points to play with. 

-S'Cipio

Wanderer is a liberal, he simply can raise taxes

[Dizzy]

As war drags on, the various empires should begin suffering economic exhaustion.  (In Fed and Emppire, this is handled by reducing the economic points your provinces produce.)

It really doesn't make sense for us to start getting *more* points to play with. 

-S'Cipio

I agree with you, but this is such a small stimulous package... We are talking a total of 6 extra BP's for X ships from 81 to 85 per Alliance/Coalition. ISC get less. Thats worth 3 CL Xships at most. Not a lot. If you want to burn 3x BP's on a CCX when you can have a BCV or BCT, you might be nuts.

Can you go along peacefully?

[GDA-S'Cipio]

I agree with you, but this is such a small stimulous package... We are talking a total of 6 extra BP's for X ships from 81 to 85 per Alliance/Coalition. ISC get less. Thats worth 3 CL Xships at most. Not a lot. If you want to burn 3x BP's on a CCX when you can have a BCV or BCT, you might be nuts.

Can you go along peacefully?

I still disagree with it.

1)  There are plenty of OOB ships at anchor already.

2)  The current situation mimics the same decision "historical" fleets faced:  should we spend all this money ona  new tech line ship, when we could crank out another couple BCHs instead?

3)  This would be yet another mid-server rule change.

4)  It doesn't fit with the role-playing economic reality you've tried to develop for your server.  The construction of a BB is supposed to put you in the red and seriously mortgage the future of your empire.  Since this is abstracted by spending over large points over several turns, it doesn't make sense to suddenly feed new points toward X ships.  If the empires had such a stimulus package to crank out more points, they'd have been able to use it in BB construction.

-S'Cipio

[FPF-DieHard]

Three type of "money" does fit the F&E production model

BP -   Represents the Capital ship sipyards.

CP -  represents an empires ability to do conversions at starbases

XP -  Represesnt R&D spent on new technology.   

I don't think 2 x Light cruisers or an X-Heavy and DDX per build cycle will throw anything out of whack.

[762_XC]

What S'Cippy said.