Archive through March 15, 2005
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 disruptors: Archive through March 15, 2005
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 11:43 pm: Edit

Quote:

60 points of disruptor damage is not a scratch.


Against 48 shield boxes and 25 ( five 5 point BTTYs ), yeah it actually is a scrtach.

I dare say 72 points of Disruptor damage is not going to count as a scratch either.


Quote:

Right...way too much for a weapon that should "scratch". The six disruptors on the DX were there to help get past the heavier shields of other X ships and to overload Andro PA panels. They are, in effect, a way to give crunch to the DX. There is no reason to repeat that for later.


Actually there are several reasons.
1) What kind of government/admiralty are going to build XCAs that can't go toe to toe with CXs!?! If there is a neutral zone world that once belonged the Kilingon empire and I ( the UFP ) send a CX to make sure your XCA won't "unliberate" it then you'll either have to send a DX or an XCA that is built to be able to fight at least a CX.
2) The Xorks will come along at some time.
3) An Old DN might be bought by the aforementioned Nuetral world and used to defend it and with 45 shield boxes; six disruptors is needed.
4) Andro remanants may still be opperating the X2 era.
5) Orion CX are bloody tough and you don't want to give the Orions control of your space because you're too poor to build ships of their equal. Better to have fewer XCA and put Orion CX crews in chains on the rare occassions you encounter them than to have more XCA and loose their crews (frequently) to Orion BPs and their disruptor pistols. It might cost 50% more credits to put the XCA in the same league as the Orion CX but it'll cost you 100% every time you loose an XCA. For cruisers I think the design would be equal to or better than the Orion CX to either defeat it or hold it at bay long enough for other ships to come and help.


On Disruptors.
I think the problem isn't that six disruptor is too crunchy, but rather that UIM is not problematic enough.
Six fire at R8 for four hits, 24 Damage.
Six fire at R8 with UIM for five hits, 30 Damage.
Four Fastloaded 12 Point Photons fire for 2 hit, 24 damage.


At any rate the size of the target shield and the availible BTTY for Reinforcement will have a directly proportional relationship to the "crunchiness" of the heavy weapons, and as things stand there is even less agreement about those two defensive items than about heavies.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 11:48 pm: Edit

Vorlon,

For the Lyrans, I guess they can hold OLs. If they can hold 5 in an ESG capacitor, they can hold 4 in a disruptor cap.

For the Klingons, you're right, the PC is 12 impulses. For playability, I think 8 impulses is better, otherwise it may not be seen as much of an improvement. After all, everyone knows that 25 is the Impulse of Decision. With a 12 impulse PD, it would be impulse 21.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 02:18 am: Edit

Jeff,

Actually ESG caps hold 7...

A 21 Impulse of decision might be the price for firing twice per round at full strength.

Especially if both chots can be OL.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 08:33 am: Edit

Quote:

Against 48 shield boxes and 25 ( five 5 point BTTYs ), yeah it actually is a scrtach.



LOL, you must be the only player in the history of the game to really beleive that. If my ship drains every one of my batteries and I end up being left with only 13 points of shield left after getting hit by ONLY disruptors, that isn't a scratch. That's a club in the face. I repeat...disruptors should not act like photons, and six disruptors do exactly that.

Quote:

Actually there are several reasons.
1) What kind of government/admiralty are going to build XCAs that can't go toe to toe with CXs!?! If there is a neutral zone world that once belonged the Kilingon empire and I ( the UFP ) send a CX to make sure your XCA won't "unliberate" it then you'll either have to send a DX or an XCA that is built to be able to fight at least a CX.
2) The Xorks will come along at some time.
3) An Old DN might be bought by the aforementioned Nuetral world and used to defend it and with 45 shield boxes; six disruptors is needed.
4) Andro remanants may still be opperating the X2 era.
5) Orion CX are bloody tough and you don't want to give the Orions control of your space because you're too poor to build ships of their equal.



Crap. Let's look at this, shall we?

1: Building XCA's that can't go toe-to-toe with CX's. First, the number of heavy weapons is only a tiny part of the equation that creates a ships BPV. If an XCA has four very good disruptors with wide firing arcs, a higher battle speed, has better shields, movement precedence, better phasers, better drones, and any other X2 goodies that have been proposed, it will be just fine against a CX. Saying it has to have six because without it it won't be able to fight a CX is silly.
2: As has been said by SVC many times, you CANNOT plan X2 around the Xorks. In Y205, the Xorks are completely unknown. This argument does not work. In Y215, after the Xorks arrive, there will be plenty of room for the six disruptor uber-cruiser.
3: There is no requirement anywhere that says an XCA must be able to fight a DN single-handedly. None. Most of the ones posted, however, can easily whip any plain DN if played intelligently. Six disruptors are NOT necessary for that job.
4: Andros may indeed still be operating. What of it? There are CX's still remaining, and as has been stated before countless times, most XCA's are already the equal of a CX. You don't need six for that, either.
5: Orion CX's are extremely rare. You have your own old CX's still, plus your new ships...you won't be giving up a thing to the Orions just because you didn't put six disruptors on your new cruiser.

I'm not arguing this any more with you, MJC. You make no valid point to back up your personal desire for six disruptors, gigantic photons, 5 point batteries, 500 point BPV's, or whatever. If that's what you want, then make a full proposal for it. It might work; it might not. But you seem to spend all your time simply arguing with everyone else's proposals based on some partially cobled together agenda you have. Your note above of five point batteries is a perfect example; no one else, and I mean NO ONE else, has accepted five point batteries. Only you. Yet you chose to use them in your little scenario to illustrate that 60 points of disruptor damage is "a scratch", knowing that no one is planning to use them. In other words, you make your arguments based on your own vague desires and intentions for X2 rather than looking at the whole of a person's proposal and seeing if it works. You go ahead, though, and argue away. I'm done with this.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 07:52 pm: Edit

On 5 point BTTYs.
I was pulling some legs...to illustraite the point that the term SCRATCH is relative to the target vessel and not a wholly objective term.

We can ask what the definition of is is, at a latter point.


Quote:

If my ship drains every one of my batteries and I end up being left with only 13 points of shield left after getting hit by ONLY disruptors, that isn't a scratch. That's a club in the face. I repeat...disruptors should not act like photons, and six disruptors do exactly that.


Well maybe disruptors should be a club to the face then!?!
If a D7B fires only Disruptors with UIM at R8, the average damage will be 20. If it hits a Fed CAR+ on that ship's shield #2 and it uses all of her BTTY the Federation vessel will have just 8 shield boxes not 13.
This is using just disruptors.
A closer range shot ( say R3 where the Ph-2s become effective, to match where the Ph-5s become effective ) and the damage is increased considerably and the shield goes down even with every BTTY being used...still without phaser fire.

I propose that the only reason why X1 Disruptors act like photons is because X1 Photons act like disruptors. And therefore by making X2 Photons more Photon-like the X2 Disruptors will feel like disruptors ( by default ).


Since four Disruptors is like photons to an FF I would say again, that six or four does not matter without the target being understood.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 09:00 pm: Edit

Quote:

If an XCA has four very good disruptors with wide firing arcs, a higher battle speed, has better shields, movement precedence, better phasers, better drones, and any other X2 goodies that have been proposed, it will be just fine against a CX. Saying it has to have six because without it it won't be able to fight a CX is silly.


Just a couple of things on this.
• Phasers are pegged ( as far as I can tell ) to retain parity with with X1 levels.
• Drones are probably going to take a step backways ( the Klingons probably wont feild any DXD drone array ships (in the early X2 period anyway )).
• A movement precidence over X1 is news to me.

It seems to me that with improved X2 goodies and better shields it might be a good idea to keep heavies at X1 total output. Particularly if we want to use heavies as a way of generating more racial flavour.


It's funny how I am said to be saying things.
I am not for six disruptors, I'm for four followed years latter by six.
What I'm against is six heavy disruptors.
In fact heavy disruptors even if only 20% more damaging than regular disruptors is IMO a move to make disruptors more photon-like and I think that is a bad thing.


I wonder what would be wrong with X1 Disruptors being mounted in GW numbers (with room for a refit to X1 levels ) on X2 vessels with a massively reduced access to UIM modules???
That way players can have a cheap ship by not buying UIM modules or an expensive one by buying quite a few of them.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 09:34 pm: Edit

MJC,

I've seen the XCA that you posted. For those who haven't, take the standard Fed CX, and replace ph-1 with ph-5, on a one-for-one basis.

The rest of us are working on Y205, while your ships seem to be designed for Y225.

Perhaps there would be less confusion if you simply do not mention (for now) what you want for the post-Xork ships.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 11:01 pm: Edit

That's not entirely fair. Four of those Ph-5s are marked as being applied only after the Refit ( the Alpha Refit ) and so the vessel in Y205 only has 8Ph-5s...a 2:3 trade not 1:1.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 01:36 am: Edit

Here's a teaser of my XD7 with the boom disruptor. I need to finish the tables, including the boomer's "cool down" table (can't fire more than 4 bolts within 32 impulses).

The phasers are X1-Ph-1. The engine-mounted disruptors are standard X1 types. The CIWS is my latest version of an X2-ADD (which fires more than just ADDs/DFDs). The batteries are a little special (I'll go into that some other time) and the reactors are 2pt'ers. It uses Loren K.'s S-Bridge. The "XOB" boxes are "X-Ship Option Bays" (like NWOs).

To recap the boomer, it can fire up to four bolts in one turn but during only one impulse. The boomer can't fire overload bolts, can't be held, and doesn't use a capacitor. It's been brought to my attention that the boomer might need to be limited in range. I'd appreciate input on that.

My thinking on the early-X2 Klingons is they're broke. They can't make all the toys they want so their X2 ships tend to be hybrid-X1/X2. They put their cash into new disruptors (the boomer) and better power in order to maintain a maneuvering edge in combat. There's a few other toys but I'll go into them elsewhere.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 07:31 am: Edit

Quote:

It's funny how I am said to be saying things.
I am not for six disruptors, I'm for four followed years latter by six.



"Said" to be saying things? Hmmm...do any of these comments ring a bell?

"Seriously, six disruptors with built in UIM is a hellweapon ( keeping pace well with four 16 point fastloaded photons, actually breaking even with 15 pointers ).
Just chuck in a 6 impulse double braodside penalty and a disruptor capasitor and you've got a great weapon for X2."

"I see a huge push ( X2R???) for six dusruptor vessels and disruptors with touched up damage would then kill other races with the move to six heavy disruptors."

"1) The Klingon DX mounted 6 Disruptors.
2) The game follows basic and fundimental engineering philosophies.
3) One basic engineering principle ( because it is a key concept in science:- repeatable experiments ) is that if you've done it once, then you can do it again."

"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."

"Six Disruptors fights quite well against 24 point Photons, but six heavy disruptors actually beats it."

"Specifically that six disruptors without increased damage does have a more disruptor "feel" to than four Disruptors with somewhat improved damage output dispite the fact that four is a much more managable number from a playability stand point."

Sounds pretty much like you want six disruptors to me. Then again, looking at the XCA of yours Jeff showed us, I can see why. 52 points of warp power? 24 point super photons? An ASIF? All this with a paltry BPV of 330. You must be joking. That damned thing can go top speed while arming overloads using a six/six break. That's just...I don't even know what to call it. But it's enlightening. Oh, yes. It shows what some of us have said for a long time now...you're vision for X2 is \i{waaaaaay} more powerfull than the rest of ours. That's why there is so much disagreement. With a friggin' monster like that as an XCA, you'd NEED six disruptors just to survive.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 07:44 am: Edit

There's an SSD link in my previous post . . .

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 08:19 am: Edit

Quote:

Sounds pretty much like you want six disruptors to me.


Reread your post and see if you really are following the posts I have made.
Rereading what I wrote as you have posted them I see that what I said has remained consistant.

I am for four disruptors followed years latter by six.

What part of "six X1 disruptors ( or six X1 Disruptors with slight improvements in all bar damage and to-hit ) is more than enough" violates that "I am four four followed a years latter by six"???

What part of "six X1 Disruptors are quite enough ( and work very nicely whilst still retaining their disruptor feel )" is violated by "I think six heavy disruptors is a bad idea and quite simply too much" even for my monster cruisers.


BTW, having seen that MONSTER in playtest ( fully refitted whilst I and my brother had a CX and a DDX ) I can say; "yeah, it'll move at speed 31 and arm full overloads...committing some BTTY to house keeping, but running up against X1 vessels and paying EW and paying for the ASIF if you want it, she suddenly starts to slow down." And Gawd help you if you want to recharge her BTTYs.
That monster lost BTW.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 01:06 pm: Edit

Wow, so much has gone on...

John, yes modularity in 2 forms for all races: 1) the utilization of the Any Box (can be either a lab, trans, trac which is determined in EA)and 2)ship design that uses 'economy of scale'. Specific examples for the latter so far include a uniform warp engines for the Feds (a la Mike R. )and for the Klingons a single boom design for all classes.

Next..

Quote:

If it walks like a phaser, quacks like a phaser, it's a phaser. Why let these disruptors over here bet hit on phaser hits and those over there on torp hits? It blurs what a "disruptor" is. Maybe that's what you want but the image it gives me is a player hunting over his SSD for a phaser-hit disruptor and having to pass by other boxes marked "Disr" because they're torp-hit and arguments about whether a player can take his P-3 disr for a torp hit.


"C'mon...that's what I think make the Klingon ship look and feel better"


Some people don't want an 'all-disr' boat. Drone and plasma defense are the big issues. I argree, but they are not impossible to overcome. I'm willing and still open to the ideas of an all-disr boat, some or not.

My ideas come from the premise that the Klingons did not develop a Phaser-5-they couldn't.

All I did was suggest a half-sized disr (see LM Disr chart below) to be a Klingon X2 weapon that can function like a phaser. Why do it this way? I didn't want Klingons and Feds developing similarlly. The Klingons developed their disruptors more in X2.

Actually, and I've said this before, I would like to see a mix of disruptors. RBN's boomer is interesting. I'm open to the ship having a pair of X1 Phasers along with the rest. I'm with RBN that they never developed the Phaser-5.

So here is context of a ship with a nearly all disr boat concept. I the BPV I am shooting for is 130

I pulled the to hit/damage chart from the LM Disruptor proposal:

R0123-89-1516-2223-3536-40
Hit55444321
Dam43322111
Ovld D6543----


Here's the sneak peak at the armament X2 Klingon Interdiction Cruiser *beware* It's small

SC:4
MC:0.25
five LM Disruptors: (1 FX, 1 RF+R+LR, 1 LF+L+RR, 1 RR+R+LF, 1 LR+L+RF)

two X1 Phaser-1 (1 RS, 1 LS)
The FX LM Disr. and the 2 X1 Ph-1's are located in the boom.

Warp 14 total
Impulse 3
Apr 3
Btty 3 (3pt. capacity)
21 total power

I have an SSD too but could somebody suggest a free 'SSD friendly' web hosting site where I could sign up an post it

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 01:08 pm: Edit

Quote:

Did I miss a memo???
Disruptor holding yes, Caps no.



Sorry for the mistake, thanks for the correction MJC.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 01:13 pm: Edit

First place to check is you ISP.

They often give you free webspace with your account.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 07:03 pm: Edit

An all-disruptor boat would certainly have a different feel to it. I can see that ship as a fleet-support heavy-combat varient, but not as a mainline cruiser.

Can disruptors reduce asteroid damage, like phasers can?

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 09:50 pm: Edit

Roger, until you get your webspace up and running, email your SSD to me. I'll post it. I prefer GIF format, but JPEG works too.

I suppose someone could come up with a "phase-disruptor." It's a phaser that hits like a disruptor (hit/miss), but the story would be it's a disruptor that bolts a phaser charge. The question again would be, is it hit on Phaser or Torp? Basically it becomes a Phaser Cannon, but really it's a cheat.

By the way, I posted something in the Ph-1 thread on Klingon phasers.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 09:53 pm: Edit

[duplicate]

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 02:40 am: Edit

On heavy disruptors.

Okay; they do 12 points of damage each at R0.
That's not unlike X1 Photons.

They 2.66 points of damage every turn at R15.
X1 Photons do the same with fastloaded proxies for an average of 4 ( or 2.66 as standards ) but can't fire beyond that R15 whilst the heavy disruptors can.

At R8 the Heavy Disruptor does 8 damage, 83.3% of the time, every turn. The X1 Photon comes close in doing 8 points of damage every turn but only has a 50% chance to hit. Perhaps their is an X2 Photon setting of proximity fuse 16 point overloads as that would generate an 8 point warhead with an 83.3% chance of hitting, but such a weapon would not be able to fire at closer ranges and would require a massive 8 points of warp.
Technically fastloaded Photons 12 point Photons would at R8 generate an average of 6 points of damage which comes close to the average of 6.66 that the heavy photon is generating at that range.

In summing up.
The Heavy Disruptor does in effect the same performance as the X1 Photons except that at R5-8 it has some very measurable advantage.
BUT:-
The Standard Fastload Photons can not fire beyond R15 unlike the Heavy Disruptor.
The Standard Fastload Photons costs 4 points ( all of it warp ) whilst the heavy Disruptor ( IIUC ) costs just 3 points ( on ships with three point BTTYs ) and has a four point capasitor.
The 12 point overloaded Photon cost 6 points of warp whilst the heavy disruptor ( a better performer ) costs just 5 and has access to a 4 point cap'.

SO...I think the heavy disruptor feels too much like the X1 Photon which is probably a bad idea if we are looking to make the Photon and the disruptor feel dis-similar again.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 08:01 am: Edit

First: You can't compare weapons of other generations. You might as well say that X1 photons feel to disruptor-ish compared to GW.

Second: So 48 points of disruptor damage is "too much like a photon" but 60 is not? Care to explain that? See, you're trying to hard to look at the individual weapon, and not the ship as a whole. Bottom line: DX can dish out 60 points. XD7 (or whatever you choose to call it) can do 48. End of story.

Third: Similar to point the first, you should compare the heavy disruptor not against the X1 photon, but against the X2 one. It, too, has a base damage increase of 20%. Turn-for-turn, the X2 photon and X1 disruptor do equal damage, or at least have the capacity to. But, the disruptor is far more accurate and not so expensive to arm. This is supposed to encourage two turn arming, and put fast-loading in it's place as an emergency measure. In playtesting, no one cared to fast load unless we had to. We wanted the two turn 80 point salvo when we could get it.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 01:17 pm: Edit

Thanks John, and RBN, I found one.

Here's the SSD link for the 'X2 Klingon Interdiction Cruiser'

I put tables of different disruptors on it, don't freak, it was originally planned to have LM disruptors. I didn't put an Overload Value for the LM, if you want you can just double the damage of the LM for ranges 0-8.


http://www.angelfire.com/folk/sfb/ssdlib/

Thanks

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 01:50 pm: Edit

RBN, your phased-disruptor idea seems like a 'micro phaser in the Omega Sector. A hit or miss phaser.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 02:42 pm: Edit

Roger,

I don't see any disruptors besides LM on this SSD.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 03:29 pm: Edit

John, AT Disr...

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 05:06 pm: Edit

Roger,

Maybe I'm just dense but I can't find it on your SSD.

Given that you have LMs labelled A,B,C,E,F, I assume it's D, but I can't find it anywhere.

You do realize that sabre-dancing in this ship is going to be a pain in the butt, right?

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation