Well, I agree that the Tholians wouldn't have much use for the phaser-5 if it couldn't fire through web. I just don't see tham as being uniquely unable to develope the technology. Once they were well established here (which took a few decades), they proved capable of doing R&D work in this galaxy. They didn't get PF technology from the Feds. And no one in this galaxy could have helped them with the Y160 and Y175 improvements to the web (which admittedly simply brought the web capability back to what it had been in the Home Galaxy).

I agree that it seems implausible for the Orions to be able to support X2 technology. But as a business decision, denying it to them is probably a non-starter. The Orions, like all the races, have their partisans, who would go through the roof if everyone except the Orions got X2 technology.

(As you have no doubt realized long ago, I'm a partisan of the Tholians (also the Romulans, though that's probably less obvious). I really dislike the Orions, but can't see any way that ADB could not give them X2 technology.)

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 03:08 am: Edit

I would like to say that I do not see the Klingons have never having Ph-5s.

Basically 12Ph-1s and 8Ph-5s are about the same.
Some XCAs mount 12Ph-1 and others mount 8Ph-5s, most based on their rescpective historical use of the Ph-2 and the Ph-1.
Latter when the refits start up, the 8Ph-5s become 12Ph-5s whilst the 12Ph-1s become 12Ph-5s.
* The Klingons should probably have two refits, one for the boom phasers and one for all the rest.


On similarity.
12Ph-1s at R5 yeilds 42 points of damage.
8Ph-5s at R5 yeilds 40 points of damage.
12Ph-1s at R8 yeilds 26 points of damage.
8Ph-5s at R8 yeilds 28 points of damage.

At close ranges the Ph-1s will have the advantage ( as well they should ) whilst at longer ranges the Ph-5s have the advantage.


On Rapid Pulsing Ph-5s.
If it can't then you can't have an ALL Ph-5 design and the Gorns and the Feds would lose some flavour. Without Rapid Pulsing the Ph-5 becomes something of a heavy weapon and ADB just doesn't publish all-heavy-weapon designs.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 03:14 am: Edit

I would also like to say that to lose out on racial flavour with an all 12Ph-5 boat isn't that much more of a loss than X1 phaser suites and they still retain some racial flavour. Indeed with the increase in the flavour of X2 heavies the sameness of the Phaser Suites will be less pronounced.


I wonder how many people are opposed to providing Orion X2 vessels but listing them all as Conjectual?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 09:28 am: Edit

MJC, I don't think I understood everything you attempted to convey. Are you proposing that some races, like the Gorns, will go with a 100% P5 design? Are you proposing that the Klingons might initially go with a 100% P1 design with 50% more phasers then an equivalent Gorn? Is there anyone here to second these ideas?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 10:33 am: Edit

Sure. Why not? At one point in time, the P1 was the new big gun on the block, and not everyone had it. Later, you start seeing mixes of P1's and P2's, and then end up with lots of all P1 ships (who might have some P3's for defense). They still retain distinct racial flavor; a Fed CX and Klingon DX, for example, have all P1's and play very differntly. Don't put too much of the racial flavor weight on the type of phasers used...how they are used (number and arcs), combined with different heavy weapons and turn modes, gives a better indication of flavor and play style.

For what it's worth, I picture the Feds as being mostly P5's, with some P6's for defense...just like their P1/P3 model. The Klingons I can see getting P5's in the boom, and the rest P1's. Same sort of mix as you had in the early years of GW, but with better weapons.

A caveat; I do not support X2 ships with scads of phasers. The XCA I have used/tested the most has only six P5's, and a pair of P6's for defense. That's it. A dozen P5's seems way too much for my taste.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 10:56 am: Edit

Mike, what I head you say is you see mixed phaser arrangements as likely and common. Do you see any races going 100% P1 or 100% P5?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 01:45 pm: Edit

MJC,

I think your assessment regarding 12 phaser-1s being about equal to 8 phaser-5s is incorrect because I think your analysis is based on the wrong ranges. The ph-5 has a significant superiority over the ph-1 in the 9-15 range bracket. This advantage will become particularly important in battles against GW-tech ships, which the background information suggests will still be the most common warship type in the X2 era. Presumably, the X2 ship will have a practical speed/manueverability advantage over most GW-tech opponents and can control the range. This range 15 game might not work against X1 or other X2 ships. There are even a few GW-tech ships it won't work well against. But by and large, a phaser-5 battery gives an X2 ship advantages over a GW-tech ship that a larger phaser-1 battery doesn't have.

It's also worth noting that the ph-5 is less susceptible to EW. With no DRM, 8 phaser-5s are about 8% better than 12 ph-1s at range 8. But against a +1 DRM the advantage increases to about 18% and against a +2 DRM the advantage is about 22%.

The larger phaser-1 battery also has its own advantages, of course. But the phaser-5 battery allows an X2 ship a sort of trump card over a GW opponent (probably the most common battle an X2 ship is likely to engage in, given the relative numbers of GW versus X-ships) that the phaser-1 battery simply doesn't possess.

Part of this may be a difference in playing styles. In the groups I have played with, significant portions of the battle occur outside overload range, exactly the range bracket where the ph-5 starts to dominate the phaser-1. If most of your battles quickly resolve to close range slugfests with a minimum of longer range engagement, the large phaser-1 battery starts looking better and better. This is why the (presumed) X2 ship's ability to control the range against at least a GW opponent has to be taken into account in any analysis. For my part, other factors (including BPV and firing arcs) being equal, I would always go with 8 phaser-5s over 12 phaser-1s.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 08:18 pm: Edit

Tos:

Having racently finished my XD7 SSD I email it to youso you can see diagramatically what I mean.
Could you forward it on to the Website that's holding it all.


A.T.:

You could back through the Ph-5 thread and look up the Phaser damages of 12Ph-1s Vs 8Ph-5s for all ranges and you'll find the comparison for all ranges.

For what it's worth your fears that Ph-5s inflict double the damage of a Ph-1 at R15 are offset by the fact that the Ph-1s are 50% more common and Ph-5s is suppossed to be the better weapon at longer ranges.
The respective damages are 12 and 16 (12Ph-1s & 8Ph-5s @ R8).


Also I'ld commend you consider equal BPV Battles rather than taking an XCA against some phantom vessel.
A Fed XFF with three Ph-5s (two 24 point Photons and 2 GX-racks) and a BPV of around 130 is going to be going up against ( in the most common battles ) a vessel like the Fed NCLa+ at 124 BPV (6Ph-1s, 2Ph-3s, Four 16 point Phot-tubes and a G-rack most likely formiong an ADD-8).
Now in such a case the XFF is not facing 80% more phaser, he's facing over double, the Ph-3s being used to padd out the Phaser array.
In an R12 exchange, the quailty of the Ph-5s ( in an oblique ) yeilds (with the -1 shift) 2.66 points of damage per phaser for 5.33 points of phaser damage, the Photons 12 pointers hit 50% of the tinme (thanks to the shift) and inflict 12 points of damage for a grand total of 17.33 points of damage.
Meanwhile the Fed NCLa+ firing through a +1 shift ( man this XFF captain must be good at EW ) fires four bearing Ph-1s for 2 points of phaser damage and four Proxy Photons for a 50% chance to hit ( •••• that shift ) and thus scores 8 points of damage for a total of 10 points of direct fire damage.
Here's the thing to remember. The XFF is supossed to go for R12 tactics, where it'll be advantaged. Also a +1 & -1 situation with 8 EW against 6 is very hard to keep ( the NCLa+ has BTTYs ). ALso with that G-rack the GW ship could have had an ECM dronbe and changed the EW situation.
And one must also remeber that the XFF is paying out of her 25 point of power availible (20 warp, 3 impulse, 2 AWR) some 8 points for EW, 6 points for her proxies (on average) and house keeping 2.5 so she's got 8.5 points of power to spend on ASIF, S-Bridge, recharging Phasers if she needs to and movement. Sure, you can expect to see the XFF zooming around at speed 25, but look at the NCLa+. 24 Warp + 4 Impulse + 4 AWR, paying 4 house keeping, 8 Proxies and 6 EW leaves 14 for movement ( and recharging phaasers but none of the other things ) and that's a battle speed of 21.
So basically a 130 BPV XFF can beat a 124 point NCLa+ via R12 exchanges but she has to be so specific all the time. Any little mistakes could cost her dearly. Fastload the R12 Proxies and you loose 18 hexes of battle speed per turn. Fly with your S-Bridge turned on ( maybe you want to attract the NCL's ECM drone away from him ) and you loose 3 hexes of movement or fly with your ASIF on low power and lose 6 hexes of battle speed or on full power to lose 24 hexes of battle speed. And what ever you do, don't try to recharge your BTTYs.

The trick for the NCLa+ captain is to use other tricks, like ECM drones and front loaded photons and mid turn speed changes to take that R12 shot and then claw down the range to get some 14 pointers into the rear shield of the XFF with no shift ( and dumping large amounts of EW into defeating the 9 ECM the NCLa+ can generate with the ECM drone ) no shift is quite possible.
The trick for the XFF is to keep going to R12 and only R12 and to avoid getting suckered into using any system that could consume his power battlespeed.

For what it's worth I'ld take 8Ph-1s over 12PH-1s too but I'ld still have a health fear of getting too "friendly" with a ship that takes 12Ph-1s.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 10:44 pm: Edit

MJC,

Yes, I'm fully aware that the phaser damage (assuming no DRM) would be 16 to 12 at range 15. Where in my post did I say that the phaser-5s would do double the damage?

And you take me to task for using a "phantom vessel", and then set up a specific hypothetical scenario using a totally phantom XFF. You assume that the XFF will be what you want it to be (24 point photons, 25 points generated power, etc.) and use that for your example. But your example is useless unless the person it is directed toward accepts that that is what the XFF will actually look like, and also accepts that your tactics in the scenario are good tactics. Since I have problems on both counts, your specificity is meaningless to me. Or more accurately, it is an illusion. It is a specificity based on assumptions not widely shared, let alone accepted by SVC.

I used a "phantom vessel" and am aware of the fact. You use one and seemingly believe in your own illusion.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 10:45 pm: Edit

I think I should probably drop out of the X2 discussion for a while. I seem to be antagonizing people needlessly, which is not my intent.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 10:55 pm: Edit

Alan, don't worry about antagonizing MJC or Me; we are used to it. Worry if you start to upset Mike or Loren.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 11:03 pm: Edit

Alan,

Don't drop out of the discussion. You have good comments to offer. Since it is a discussion the various views and issues need to be posted.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 11:08 pm: Edit

Alan, don't worry about it at all. SVC will let you know in no uncertain terms if you've gone too far.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 11:48 pm: Edit

No kidding. Don't drop out, Alan. You aren't going to upset anyone. You post thoughtful and well-reasoned ideas and opinions, which is definately a benefit. By all means, don't worry about antagonizing anyone.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 12:27 am: Edit

A.T.:

---

Quote:

I think your assessment regarding 12 phaser-1s being about equal to 8 phaser-5s is incorrect...
And.
The ph-5 has a significant superiority over the ph-1 in the 9-15 range bracket.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 12:41 am: Edit

I should also say that I wasn't trying to get you to accept my XFF design, rather trying to get you to accept that in situations where the X2 vessel fights a GW vessel, the same BPV of ships yeilds far more phasers to the GW vessel to counterbalance both facts (that X2 vessels have 8 EW and that the Ph-5 is hellish compaired to the Ph-1).

I guess this can be something of a problem like the talk of the Xorks.
I say an X2 vessel with 12Ph-1s equals the same class of X2 vessel with 8Ph-5s, but as soon as we start talking about GW vessels then we get into problems (or atleast far more difficult calculations).

At any rate, Playtest be the Judge.


P.S. Tos: Would you mind throwing up a link...I should see for myself if the XFF is still there.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 01:08 am: Edit

http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/x2/mjc/mjc-x2-ships.htm

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 02:12 am: Edit

T'anks Tos.


You know I really ought touch up that XFF as it still reads Ph-1s where Ph-5s are required.
Also my battle speeds for the XFF need to be drop to compensate that the XFF only has one AWR...I spent so much time doubling saucer warp on XCAs that I assumed the XFF had double AWRs. I should really learn to check things.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 10:24 am: Edit

Hmmm... Thanks, guys. It's always difficult to tell how you're coming across on the internet (not a very original observation) and I was worried that I was being a jerk. I'm glad to know that I wasn't, or at least that my jerkiness was constrained within acceptable bounds.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 11:56 am: Edit

Arguing with MJC does not make one a jerk. It makes one normal.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 06:14 pm: Edit

Merry Christmas, MJC!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 04:26 am: Edit

T'anks Brodie.


For what it's worth I think it's perfectly okay to butt heads when debating, so long as one doesn't deliberately try to fracture someone's skull...or butt below the belt.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 04:43 am: Edit

Isn't the butt usually below the belt??

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 04:56 am: Edit

Stop kidding around.


.


.


Yes, it's a goat joke!


The other responce would have been;
"Not after you've read the Karma Sutra."

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 09:28 am: Edit

How do people feel about the option of the OpU races sharing P5 technology during the late Andro War?

How do people feel about the P5 being mechanically the same as a P4 but less accurate due to the lack of positional stabilizers?

How do people feel about the P5 being around for years but would only function if placed on a unit with positional stabilizers?

Basically, how do people feel about allowing P5 technology to being a known technology (insert technobabble), but one that could not be placed on a mobile unit until the breakthrough that allowed the X2 hull?

While I’m at it, how do people feel about an X2 ship being allowed to activate positional stabilizers, something like a pinwheel or a beached Yamato, turning all those P5s into P4s?