Archive through March 09, 2005
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
The "X" Files:
OLD X2 FOLDER:
X2 disruptors:
Archive through March 09, 2005
Brodie,
No problem! The "boom" disruptor, combined with standards, would be an interesting approach for the Klingons, provided the rules and performance of the boom disruptor are worked out. As I said before, I did play around with that notion because I thought it was cool, and it reminded me of the big attack cruiser in the TNG series...you know, the one with the big horkin' gun on the front? A sort of disruptor cannon type thing was what I had in mind...yours sounds almost more like a gatling disruptor. Very cool, and certainly different. I'd like to see your SSD's when you get them done. I can even post them for you, if you don't have any web space (though John probably should, just to keep things all together.)
If an FX or FH disruptor arc is only possibly with pairs of disruptors, then that could be a valid reasons for dropping to 4 disruptors...but it seems the XC7 says different.
Quote:Putting six on one hull is putting all the eggs in one basket.
Coversely Cruiser have a higher survivability rate and thus the stronger shielding will protect those disruptors from destruction increasing their cost-effectiveness.
Quote:So, because the DX mounts six disruptors, anything after that must mount six as well, is that right? Wanna show me just where that rule is written? I reiterate. The DX mounted six disruptors because it was a war-time production ship built for only one purpose. Further, the old disruptor still only did a base of five. There is no game based or logic based reason to support your assertion that they wouldn't use lesser numbers of a better (much better) disruptor. None at all. In fact, it's just plain silly. We've already all agreed that X2 ships would mount lesser numbers of phaser-5's because they're better weapons. And yet for some bizarre reason only known to you, this same principal just cannot work with disruptors.
Not everything after the DX must mount 6 disruptors but everything after the DX must be able to mount 6 unless some other factor ( other than ecconomics ) comes into play.
The Ph-5 is not mounted in fewer numbers because it was techically not possible to mount them in full numbers but rather was restricted by a treaty ( as current thinking stands ). To run around with Ph-5s in smaller numbers simply because "it will be cool" will create a huge push for X2 counter-Xork vessels with full X1 levels of Ph-5s and heavy weapons.
There is no way that the Klingons would be convinced that the XCA would be a peacetime only ship and the ships would be designed ( if remotely possible to do so ) to carry full war production levels of weapons as a refit.
Quote:And where, where did you get the notion that this is forcing some limitation on disruptors? You said "you can't limit disruptors and then let the Feds have unlimited advances and numbers of photons". What the hell is that about? Would you please show me anyone that advocates such a thing? Anyone at all? I haven't seen one post, one SSD, or one proposal allowing the Feds to have "unlimited" anything. In fact, most of the photon proposals out there are pretty mild, modestly increasing damage output, or perhaps adding a third turn of arming for super-overloads. This is hardly "unlimited".
Okay, that was rhetoric.
What I meant was the Fed with say even the hellish 24 point super-photons would still get them in X1 levels ( specifically 4 ) were as the Heavy Disruptors going down to 4 would be a restriction. Brought about by the SSDs rather than the rules but still a restriction.
I guess what really matters is the balance between the Disruptor one is keeping level with and the Photons it will be battling.
Quote:But stop trying to rationalize your views as "game lore based", 'cause it isn't happening and certainly isn't true.
All I'm saying is that if we can avoid the two Steves from getting flooded with a letter writing campaign demanding 6 Heavy Disruptor armed ships, then we ought assemble X2 to avoid that.
I guess the XC7 solves that problem although I suspect that if the Feds have got some mild 20 point Photons ( against six heavy disruptors, even Four 24 pointers wont acheive balance ) or some such that they'll be then forced to be on the loosing side with no real options to bring the duels back into balance.
Better to design from the begining knowing what the maxed out versions will be and making them either having a reason to be limited or be unlimited ( in the same way that X1 ships are unlimited ).
Dang! You had to go and compare it to TNG. Now I'm just going to scrap it. Thanks, Mike! 
Actually after I posted my brainstorm (maybe some wouldn't call it a "storm") and got some response it seemed to me that the "phaser-substitute" idea was kind of interesting so I looked into the gatling concept. The result was the "boomer." I'll get to working on an SSD (I'm also using XD7) and post it to my webspace (I don't have much of a webpage so I call it webspace).
Thanks for the offers to host by the way and I make the same offer to others (MJC included). If anyone's interested, please email me your request (rather than posting it here) and give me some time to reply. If I choose not to post I'll explain why.
Here's my thinking on Klingon Disruptors.
Either:-
1) They built four on their cruisers with room to refit to six.
Or
2) They built four on their ships because of some techinical problem that wasn't able to be over-come.
They mounted four and never mounted six because it was never needed...is going to be proven wrong by the first Klingon cruiser to loose a battle, and the Captain writes a report; "I'ld have won if I'd been able to deliver more damage in the early battle passes".
Assuming the Captain survives to file a report. MJC, the end result is (as I understand it) that you believe 6-disruptor suites put the X2 Klingons (at least) on heavy weapon parity with the X2 Feds. This would imply that you believe the new photons will be very powerful. Take another look at my "boomer" proposal. I think you'll find it fits your prescription and (I think) it fits Mike R's prescription. I'm convinced it's a good compromise.
All the same, I designed the "boomer" for the Klingons. I think the Kzinti and Lyrans should have something different (either collectively or individually). Also I think the smaller Klingon ships might not realistically be able to mount the "boomer." Input anyone?
If I know MJC, he is assuming some brand of photon with 24 as max damage, so yes he's assuming a powerful photon.
Quote:If I know MJC, he is assuming some brand of photon with 24 as max damage, so yes he's assuming a powerful photon.
Well, sort of...
Six Disruptors fights quite well against 24 point Photons, but six heavy disruptors actually beats it.
I can see that some lower form of Photon like a 20 pointer might be able to nicely compete with four heavy disruptors, but the instant the Klingons feild six of the things, the Fed can't compete unless they start mounting more Phot-tubes, even if they opt for an advancement to 24 point photons they still fall behind the Klingons.
| Ship | Average Damage R0 | Average Damage R8 | period |
| Fed XCA Four 20 pointers | 80 | 40 | every other turn |
| Fed XCA Four 24 pointers | 96 | 48 | every other turn |
| Klingon 6 X1 Disruptors | 60 | 30 | every turn |
| Klingon 4 Heavy Disruptors | 48 | 26.66 | every turn |
| Klingon 6 Heavy Disruptors | 72 | 40 | every turn |
I can see where the critical ship design ( IIU M.R.'s design correctly ) lets the 20 point photon balance fairly well with four heavy disruptors, but I don't think the effort to hold back the tide of demand for 6 disruptor cruisers will be successful, and since 4-6 is a 50% increase and 20-24 is only a 20% increase the Photons would either need to be mounted as 6 20s or have some truely monsterous photon warheads being fired in order to keep balance.
4x12pt fast-overload photons = 48pts every turn at R0(24pts at R8) which works out to 96pts (48pts) over two turns. Now that's overloads; not everyone's going to want to arm and fire overloads every turn (24 warp/turn can be expensive even for X2). Do the math for fast-prox, etc.
Looking at 5 standard disruptors on overload that's 50pts every turn at R0 (25pts at R8). We're a little more at parity there. 6-bolts-worth give the Klingon more firepower on average than the Fed so perhaps the disruptor needs to be designed around a 5-bolt standard. Even my "boomer" doesn't do that (yet).
Quote:I can see where the critical ship design ( IIU M.R.'s design correctly ) lets the 20 point photon balance fairly well with four heavy disruptors, but I don't think the effort to hold back the tide of demand for 6 disruptor cruisers will be successful
I disagree. What people are going to want from X2 are new and better weapons...not more. I can just about guarentee you that any hard core Klingon fans out there will love the idea of the disruptor I used; it does a bit more damage, has capacitors, great arcs, and built in UIM/DERFACS that can't burn out or be destroyed. Given all of those benefits, they'll be perfectly fine having only four. The issue is not the number of weapons, it's how those weapons balance against another ship.
Try this chart. This shows the maximum possible damage done at range 0, and the maximum average damage done at range 8 by GW ships (CA vs. D7), X1 ships (CX vs. DX) and X2 (my XCA vs. my XD7).
| R0 | | R8 | |
| |
| GW | Max | | Avg | |
| Disr | 40 | 63% | 19.92 | 62% |
| Phot | 64 | | 32 | |
| |
| X1 | Max | | Avg | |
| Disr | 60 | 94% | 29.88 | 93% |
| Phot | 64 | | 32 | |
| |
| X2 | Max | | Avg | |
| Disr | 48 | 60% | 26.6 | 66% |
| Phot | 80 | | 40 |
Note the percenatages, which show the percentage of damage the disruptor does vs. the photon. In the GW and X2 era, they are almost identical; anywhere from 60% to 66%. In the X1 era, it's much, much more...the disruptor can dish out almost the same amount of damage as the photon. IMHO, that just isn't right. The DX can crunch as well as the CX, which ruins there flavor. The stuff I've been doing is a much closer mirror to GW era play, something I think people want a return to. Yes, the chart doesn't include fastloads or UIM burnout...but it doesn't have to to illustrate my point, which is that four of these super disruptors is a very good match to the 10 point photon when mounted in equal numbers. Save for X1, the equal number of heavy weapons has been the standard; it was in EY, and it was in the GW. That's the flavor I want to get back to...not crunchy Klingons. And before you say it, MJC, the problem is with the DX having six disruptors...it is not because the X1 photon somehow sucks and isn't powerful enough.
In anycase, I'm done with this. I have playtested this stuff and it works. Other ideas will doutbless work well, too. But insisting on six disruptors because of some belief that the fans will demand it is just plain wrong. They won't demand more weapons for X2, they'll demand better and different...which is what I and others are trying to give.
MJC: You are assuming that the Klingons have intel on the Feds new weapon too.
Something that is easy to forget is that each race is independantly developing thier X2 technologies. SOme technologies will match as they are logical progressions from previous research and designs. Weapons in long term developement might have been shared or stolen. The Ph-5 really is a next step in phaser developement and I have little doubt that all the races could (and would) develope it independantly (and yes, you couldn't use parts from a Klingon Ph-5 to fix a Kzinti Ph-5).
Torpedoes are different in that the basic technology differs a lot. The Klingons would not know exactly what the Fed would field on their new X2 designs until they fought them and remember the Klingons view the Feds a soft peace lovers. They might be surprised by the power of the Fed XCA. But then the Feds might be surprised by the extreme quality of the Heavy Disruptor too.
If I may interject a comment here, I believe worrying too much about how well the X2 disruptor balances the X2 photon is the wrong approach. What matters is whether the D8 (I still think XD7 is the wrong term because it violates Klingon naming conventions that go all the way back to EY) balances well against the Fed XCA.
It's not even necessary that all 2X cruisers balance against each other. The Tholians have some unique and very powerful capabilities, but they are restricted in their ability to build large hulls. It may be that the 2X web caster will balance out the smaller hulls and the Tholian XCA turns out to be a dead-even match for other 2X cruisers. But if it doesn't, that's fine (and may even be better from a "racial flavor" perspective) as long as the BPVs are right.
The Klingons and Feds are really the pivotal races of Star Fleet Battles, however, and I do think it's important that the D8 (or whatever) and the Fed XCA are a pretty close match. But if the Fed torpedo suite is superior to the Klingon disruptor suite, and the Klingon balances it with better drone capability, or superior power curve, or some other advantage, no problem. That's why there's an Integrated Proposals topic. The individual weapons topics should be more focused on whether the individual weapon proposals seem suitable for 2x.
Alan, that's all very true, and I agree. But balancing the photon and disruptor is key, at least for me, because each the ships will mount them in the same number; four each. This parity in number of heavy weapons has been in the game from the start for those two basic ships, and frankly for many others. Only X1 changes that. So, if you want them to have four each, they have to be balanced somewhat similarly to how they were in the past. Sure, they get different abilities and such, and that does add to their performance. And, they are affected by the overall design of the ship employing them. But I firmly believe that to get it right, the damage output and capacity of the four disruptor ship vs. the four photon ship should be similar to that found in the GW. I've managed that nicely; playtesting shows it. The ships feel very much like the ones of old when played in a duel.
In any case, you are right that the proposal section is where this should be. And, frankly, it is...I've posted there many times about this. But MJC insists that six disruptors on the Klingon X2 cruiser are of paramount importance and that nothing else will do. I don't agree...others don't agree. Explaing just why we don't agree can't help but delve a bit into overall design philosophy because as you said, the issue is the balance of the two ships as a whole. I totally agree and have said so many times.
All that being said, I still haven't come up with a decent approach to the Kzinti disruptor. Tried the disruptor cannon, but it doesn't really feel right...too crunchy. I don't mind a little crunch, but man. So, I thought about something else, and will post the specifics later, but it's basically a wide spread disruptor that can "splash" damage against two shields. Haven't done any testing at all...haven't even done the Kzinti XBC yet.
Quote:Note the percenatages, which show the percentage of damage the disruptor does vs. the photon. In the GW and X2 era, they are almost identical; anywhere from 60% to 66%. In the X1 era, it's much, much more...the disruptor can dish out almost the same amount of damage as the photon. IMHO, that just isn't right. The DX can crunch as well as the CX, which ruins there flavor. The stuff I've been doing is a much closer mirror to GW era play, something I think people want a return to. Yes, the chart doesn't include fastloads or UIM burnout...but it doesn't have to to illustrate my point, which is that four of these super disruptors is a very good match to the 10 point photon when mounted in equal numbers. Save for X1, the equal number of heavy weapons has been the standard; it was in EY, and it was in the GW. That's the flavor I want to get back to...not crunchy Klingons. And before you say it, MJC, the problem is with the DX having six disruptors...it is not because the X1 photon somehow sucks and isn't powerful enough.
The funny thing is I agree with you 100% on all of this.
I just wish you'ld had something solid with which to base the need for four. If you say that the wider arcs required mounts that couldn't mount both trios of disruptors and have the extended arcs, then I think that's cool.
As for quality over quantity for X2 Disruptors, perhaps you're right, perhaps what the fans want is a return to playability over damage generation...I guess it's up to the Steves themselves if they want to; offset the pressure or not/guess that there will be no pressure or not.
Quote:You are assuming that the Klingons have intel on the Feds new weapon too.
Funny I thought I was assuming the opposite, that the Klingons wouldn't want to be tied down to a Disruptor limit; not having any real assurances from the Feds that they won't be fielding super-photons.
Quote:If I may interject a comment here, I believe worrying too much about how well the X2 disruptor balances the X2 photon is the wrong approach. What matters is whether the D8 (I still think XD7 is the wrong term because it violates Klingon naming conventions that go all the way back to EY) balances well against the Fed XCA.
Yes but then balancing heavy weapons will make the balancing of ships easier because a designer won't need to add a forrest of Ph-6s or a couple of extra shuttleboxes to offset the fact that such and such a heavy weapon suite ( whilst builible under Psuedo-engineering ) out guns some other heavy weapon suite.
And it's not really fair to have a six gun XC7 and no XBCJ or XBCG to counter-act it...but then maybe such Fed ships will come to pass.
Quote:But MJC insists that six disruptors on the Klingon X2 cruiser are of paramount importance and that nothing else will do.
Can you please go back and reread all my posts over the last week or so and then stop posting about what I'm insisting, because I'm simply not.
What I am saying is that it would be handy for the Steves to have some kind of technobabble reasons for not having six disruptors on an X2 Klingon cruiser that wont change with the advanecement of the years from Y205 to Y225, rather than simply, they were too expensive or they felt is wasn't going to be needed which will change as the ecconomies pick up over that 20 year period and the galactic powers fall further into war with each other during those same two decades.
Quote:All that being said, I still haven't come up with a decent approach to the Kzinti disruptor. Tried the disruptor cannon, but it doesn't really feel right...too crunchy.
Just out of cruiosity, did the Disruptor Cannon in module Y have a crunchy feel to it?
I don't know, if Kzintis are supossed to have a crunchy feel to them or not, but I suspect so, in turn with putting two turns of drone fire in close proximity for huge quantities of damage is a crunchy taste.
Smoke and flames.
Just FYI, I'm working on that SSD. Any bets on whether or not I actually get it finished?
Integrated Proposals are KEY as Alan pointed out. I personally (right now) am so tired of the 4/6 heavy weapons thing that I am trying to propose/create heavy weapons that try not to fit in that schema.
I'm not sure why there's not more interest in breaking this up. Arguing that "it's the way it was at the beginning of the game..." doesn't mean much for me. I was one of those freaks who played 20 years ago. The D7 and Fed CA were so different in so many other ways that it was truly fun. And the Romulan WE...well..
And yes I DO know X2 needs to 'jive' with X1 and GW.
Everybody is entitled to an opinion of this-it's been said before, but after years (has it been years?) of discussion on this thread we are still mostly talking about 4 or 6 disruptors?
Maybe we need to approach this from a different direction.
Quote:Integrated Proposals are KEY as Alan pointed out. I personally (right now) am so tired of the 4/6 heavy weapons thing that I am trying to propose/create heavy weapons that try not to fit in that schema.
Yes, integrated proposals are key. Many of us have been saying that for a long, long time. The reason that most of us are still sticking with the typical weapons array is that it works. You can change the weapon and do all kinds of nifty things to it, but four is still a good number. Its enough padding so that if you loose one, you aren't suddenly up the creek, like a Rom who can cloak and hide while doing repairs. But four isn't too many, either. Keeping that tradition is not a bad thing.
Quote:I'm not sure why there's not more interest in breaking this up. Arguing that "it's the way it was at the beginning of the game..." doesn't mean much for me. I was one of those freaks who played 20 years ago. The D7 and Fed CA were so different in so many other ways that it was truly fun. And the Romulan WE...well..
There is a lot of interest in breaking things up. Trouble is, it makes it an order of magnitude harder to work out a balanced game. The more changes you make to the weapons, the harder they become to balance. Also - and this is something that came up many, many times in this thread from the people here - people want their SFB of any generation to feel like it always has. They want Feds that play like Feds, and Klingons that play like Klingons.
Quote:Everybody is entitled to an opinion of this-it's been said before, but after years (has it been years?) of discussion on this thread we are still mostly talking about 4 or 6 disruptors?
No. We aren't. What we are talking about is the issue of what players will want. Will they want a lesser number of better weapons, or a greater number of unimproved, or only slightly better ones. Me? Better, all the way. I simply can't believe that more of the same stuff will fly for X2. It has to be different and better, while still retaining the basic feel of the game. There are a LOT of ideas floating around out there; disruptor cannons, splashing disruptors, arced disruptors, rapid fire disruptors, mini disruptors, disruptors unique for each race...you name it, it's been mentioned most likely. The last few days have focused on the four-six thing because my test designs use four. What the focus should be on, and was in the start, was whether or not those improvements were playable, fair, interesting, and worth using.
Roger, you're advocating the "new and different." This is something we're all basically in agreement on, but there's no solid definition of what is "new and different." What did you have in mind?
I think the 4/6 thing is a natural consequence of the nature of the disruptor. We expect disruptors to act a certain way, they have certain basic characteristics, so they fit a certain paradigm. That is: 4/6 (or some variation therein).
If however you advocate something like (for example) an all-disruptor X2 Klingon, then you're breaking the mold and really coming up with the "new and different." Again, what did you have in mind?
Mike, if you have 4 and MJC if you have 6 that's fine.
As for me, I am tired of it.
You speak of tradition. I would like to keep the 'combat styles' more or less intact since I think that's what people want. But how are those fighting styles interpreted? That's the stuff of debate. If there are people advocating 4 heavies or 6 heavies, I think it's harder to justify it on the basis of tradition.
My interpretation of 'new and different' may differ. It's just my opinion that 4 or 6 heavies is not terribly new or different.
It can work well within a particular person's 'integrated proposal'. And I can appreciate that.
Quote:Will they [the players]want a lesser number of better weapons, or a greater number of unimproved, or only slightly better ones. Me? Better, all the way. I simply can't believe that more of the same stuff will fly for X2. It has to be different and better, while still retaining the basic feel of the game.
Mike, your quote above is a misdiagnosis of myself.
I don't think 'more of the same is better'.
Quote:There are a LOT of ideas floating around out there; disruptor cannons, splashing disruptors, arced disruptors, rapid fire disruptors, mini disruptors, disruptors unique for each race...you name it, it's been mentioned most likely. The last few days have focused on the four-six thing because my test designs use four. What the focus should be on, and was in the start, was whether or not those improvements were playable, fair, interesting, and worth using.
I have proposed the 'arced trajectory' disruptors (which can be 4 or 6 depending on the base damage). I proposed the 'LM' half-sized disruptors (which could number from any where from 9 to 12 BUT they replace phasers), and so I am with you...better or different is better.
So, I am being a little unfair, my integrated proposal is not yet out there for public scrutiny to see how these weapons balance out. It's not yet out there for you to see how I keep the 'traditions' intact.
RBN:
Quote:I think the 4/6 thing is a natural consequence of the nature of the disruptor. We expect disruptors to act a certain way, they have certain basic characteristics, so they fit a certain paradigm. That is: 4/6 (or some variation therein).
Can you show me an example?
Quote:If however you advocate something like (for example) an all-disruptor X2 Klingon, then you're breaking the mold and really coming up with the "new and different." Again, what did you have in mind?
Well, the best way is to see my integrated proposal, which is still not yet completed. If you want my general thoughts I will post them real soon-I just got an emergency phone call gotta go
Roger,
An example? I'm not sure I follow you there, but if you mean what I think you mean then just look at the majority of official SFB Klingon starships (notably of cruiser class).
Disruptors spread their firepower out over several turns by firing more often with "less crunch." They're cheap and ubiquitous. Since they don't pack the punch of a lot of other heavies they make up for it by being more accurate.
The end result is in order to be able to bash your opponent you need to either have several disruptors at your disposal or be able to better protect them against damage. A disruptor skipper expects to "have his disruptors" meaning that if one or two gets taken out he still has at least that many left.
By the way, I like your idea of the "all-disruptor" Klingon. It reminds me of John T.'s Phaser Matrix concept, or Mike R.'s Phaser-X, etc., but with disruptors.
I am one of those who isn't as hyped on integrated proposals.
If the disruptor proposal is crap (which is not to demean any of the ideas that have been proposed), making an integrated proposal out of it doesn't make it any less crap and does tend to crap-ify the integrated proposal.
To my way of thinking, there's a stepwise progression.
Step 1: Neat concepts
Step 2: Integrated proposal that tweaks the neat concepts into rough balance.
Step 3: Playtest and further tweaking to fine-tune balance.
But I *start* with concepts evaluated in a vacuum.
I would like at least a sneak peek at the *concepts* Roger is working with.
So he doesn't want to work with the traditional number of disruptors on a cruiser hull. OK, I can accept that as a potential issue. Since Roger has identified the issue, I want to see how he has answered it, even if he is still juggling numbers to make his concepts work with each other.
Actually *especially* if he is still juggling numbers. There's more to discuss when we're filling out a conecept than when we feel it's done.
I'd also like him to expand on what he doesn't like about the traditional SFB heavy weapons setup if there's anything beyond "been there, done that, want something new."
There is nothing about disruptors that requires that there be 4/6 on a cruiser. It's just, as MikeR said, it sets a rate of firepower degradation when the ship takes internal damage.
Even reducing heavy weapons to 3, we see noticable issues. There are two SFB races that you three powerful heavy weapons: Andros and Jindos. Both require stiffer defenses in part to balance loss of offense that even a single torp hit would inflict.
It's also worth noting that the T-R beam and the WRG are two of the most powerful ship-mounted heavy weapons in the game and that both races have at one time in their lives encountered balance issues.
Besides X1-Klingons and X1-Lyrans, Seltorans kinda-sorta have 6 heavy weapons on their cruisers (I am counting the web breaker/shield cracker as heavy weapons). Note how the weapons have to be shallowed-out to compensate.
Does Roger propose doing away entirely with the HW/Phaser manner of filling out ship weapons? (again, this is not necessarily a bad thing but the approach does carry its own set of pitfalls)
Roger, please fill in a few blanks here.
Roger, I for one would like to see more of what you have in mind. I'm intrigued by the all-disruptor idea as I've considered it an alternative approach to X2 Klingons. The trick with replacing phasers with disruptors is to not turn disruptors into phasers in all but name.
Me, too. If nothing else, new ideas often lead to other new ideas. I think Brodie is right, though, that one of the big challenges is going to be figuring out how to keep the disruptor from feeling like a phaser. Power can be a problem, too, if it costs more than a point or two to arm to get any significant damage.
My major misgiving about a Klingon disruptor-only ship is seeking weapon defense. Granted, phasers are not my first choice to defend against enemy plasma. I generally prefer to try to run them out. But that's not always possible or feasible and I would hate to not have any capability to try to shoot down that plasma. And while disruptors can be used against drones, they're not very efficient in that role. Presumably an all-disruptor Klingon would have to have some new technology, not yet in the game, to aid in seeking weapon defense.
John Trauger;
I agree that starting with good concepts is key. I brought up the "Integrated Proposals" because of the discussion about whether the Klingon's disruptor suite would be better or worse than the Fed's photon suite. Frankly, I don't care whether it's better or worse as long as the overall ships are balanced. If the Klingons have better heavy weapon suites but worse phaser suites - or if they have worse heavy weapon suites but better drone capability - that's fine as far as I'm concerned so long as the Fed XCA and the Klingon D8 (see my previous comment about Klingon nomenclature) are balanced overall.