---

Quote:

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

---

---

Quote:

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

---

---

Quote:

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

---

---

Quote:

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?

---

---

Quote:

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?

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 12:18 pm: Edit

Why why why???

Why relate the P-5 to a P-4 and why would you want it to be a know technology? The P-5 is a new X2 weapon. That's the ENTIRE point!

OMG!

Relating it to a P-4 that is probably the size of a shuttle bay is a sure fire way to get it rejected.

I will never consider relating the Ph-5 to a Ph-4 in any way EVER. The Ph-5 is a advancement of the Ph-1 but more accurately it is basic Phaser technology advancement.

The Ph-4 is a monster phaser so big only a base can handle it.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 12:59 pm: Edit

I don't think SVC will allow PH-4s even on X2 ships. I submitted a ship with a phaser array. Each array phaser box was a P3 so four could combine and fire as a P4. The array table had the charts for P3, P1, and P4 stacked. SVC sent a polite response back that not even X2 ships can have Phaser 4s. This might work for an X2 BATS.

As a suggestion for an X2 defensive phaser use an advanced version of the P2 (PH-2M), which can fire twice using X-Aegis; each shot cost 1/2 point of energy.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 02:20 pm: Edit

Besides the max damage output of the Ph-5 is only one point higher than a ph-1. The advancement is a bit more energy in the beam but better targeting and a beam that retains its damage potential a bit further producing a smother damage curve over range. The Ph-5 is a higher quality Ph-1.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 09:05 am: Edit

A Ph-4 cost 2 power to fire. A Ph-1 costs 1.
If a Ph-5 costs 1.5 then one could say the Ph-4 is the mother and the Ph-1 is the father of the Ph-5...but as weapons go, it has more in common with father.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 11:57 am: Edit

Loren, don't be so sure. Consider (G29.26), which states that a P4 without an active positional stabilizer can only be fired as a P1. It goes on to say that a P1 and a P4 are completely different weapons and that a P4 can never be mounted on a ship.

Sure the P5 is an entirely new technology, everyone believes that, but what if everyone is wrong? I'm just brainstorming here, not advocating, but go reread the second archive in this topic, three years ago today, and you will see that the P5 evolved from a ½ strength P4 table that was later detuned to put the sweet spot at R8. You assert that the P5 is an upgrade of the P1 but I’ve never thought of it that way. The P5 in my mind has always been a detuned P4, not an upgrade of the P1. The reason only X2 ships can field the P5 is that only X2 ships can handle the micro-stabilization required to gain the improved accuracy. Put a P5 on a non-X2 ship and all you get is an expensive P1; exactly like a base without positional stabilizers.

Phasers have been around for a long time. The P5 can’t be a fire control improvement to the P1 or players will ask for a K-Refit style upgrade for their X1 cruisers. We know that the P2 is the same as a P1 with an inferior fire control. Why can’t the P5 be a P4 with an inferior fire control? Makes just as much sense as improving the fire control of a P1 and it has the advantage of explaining why so few are mounted without resorting to Deus Ex Machine ala Treaty. Fewer are mounted because they take up more space. SVC hasn’t rejected P4 technology on ships, he has rejected the P4 damage chart on ships.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 03:57 am: Edit

Look.
Take some key concepts out of the Ph-1 and some key concepts out of Ph-4s and you get thus odd little have damage megaphaser with a cost of 1.5 power.


Whether this took 80 years to develop or 8 doesn't bother me, although I like the idea of the Feds feilding a testbed DDX with Four Ph-4s ( non rapid pulsing and linked to 2 point caps ) with her AWRs turned back to labs...so having a little history would be good.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 09:17 am: Edit

Yeah, that would've been good.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 12:26 pm: Edit

Tos: I don't need to reread those archives I was there, you know that. We were original developers of the idea. The Ph-5 did begin, for sake of table developement, as a 1/2 Ph-4. That was WAY too powerful and long ranged. Everyone agreed and that table was quickly scrapped. The Ph-5 was then based in a half Mega-Phaser from Module P-6. That was closer but still a bit too powerful and a bit weak in some other areas.

As far as I know the generally accepted table in the end was one I developed (which was a teaking of the previous P-5 table). To do that I put the old table next to the Ph-1 table and smoothed the curve, taking into account other weapons ranges and such.

I don't recall anyone wanting to relate the ph-5 to the ph-4. I can tell you with ALL confidence that relating the ph-5 to a ph-4 to Cole will get it rejected. We have a beautiful weapon developed, lets not get it canned. There is not practical reason to relate it to the Ph-4. If we do so there is a pile of stuff we have to write explaining why it can be on ships. Why do that. If the Ph-5 is an advancement of the Ph-1 everything falls into place with no convincing needed, no explaining why THIS weapon can be on ships. It all falls into place.

I and most other (I believe) have never thought of the Ph-5 in relation to the Ph-4 except when we were first developing the Ph-5 table out of the blue. The final table ended up unique but bears closer resemblance to the Ph-1.

And it was elegance from the beginning. The prime example of a community developement and calm practical thinking of that community. We didn't develope a super weapon, we didn't go munchkin, we went consevative and designed a weapon that was clearly advanced in all the right ways. God, I think even CFant liked it. It was and still it this boards (all the SFU BBS) finest developement, IMO.

To be honest, if everything from the X-Files gets canned I will be highly disapponted that the Ph-5 didn't make it. I can leave behind pretty much every concept but the Ph-5 is th one thing that this community developed and did a really good job at. If SVC writes everything on his own but uses the Ph-5 I will be very proud and all this (the whole X-files thing) will have been worth it.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 08:01 pm: Edit

What I like about the Ph-5 is it's extended range and reliability. Pushing that "sweet spot" out to range 8 I think was a good idea. It redefines tactics relative to X2 ships. Frankly, I don't care what designer modulation was done to reach the table, I just like the result and I like how the table presents it as a more advanced Ph-1.

A question I have is: do we want all X2 weapons to orient around the Ph-5's sweet spot or is the Ph-5 kind of in a class of its own? My personal opinion is some weapons should be reoriented but most others wouldn't necessarily need to.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 08:48 pm: Edit

The Ph-5 orients to heavy weapons as an improvement to the ph-1. The goal I had personally was to have X2 opperate at what in normally mid-range. I'm hoping to see X2 played more at 8 to 15 that 8 to 0. But to do that you have to keep the battle at a good pitch. The Ph-5 does that.

So X2 ships would saber dance for a while then dive in for a knife fight. Point blank would be a rarity, I hope. In this way we work to produce the exact opposite of what plagued Supp.2 and avoid Close and Hose as a core tactic. But we can't eliminate it eather, it has to remain an option but we can keep things interesting by making it a poor tactic (the ASIF serves to lessen the value of the close and hose by strengthening the ship from larger blows such as what you get from a point blank Alpha strike).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 05:11 am: Edit

Just a point of accuracy, we actually pushed the sweetspot of the half damage mega-phaser back to R8 from R10.


On Orientation.
We want an R8 limit so that GW ships still have the overload threat.
If a Fed NCLa+ is in the same ballpark as a Fed XFF (about 124-130 BPV ) then even with the "Monsterous" firepower of 24 point photons, the 48 point jackpot the frigate can develop falls short of the jackpot of the NCLa+ ( 64 points ). And that is as it should be.
The XFF needs to take risks. It might have EW but that costs power. It can use BTTYs but that is limited. It can go to R12 with Fast Loaded 12 point standards...but that'll cost 12 warp power ever turn ( plus EW expendatures to get `em to hit (even at 7+12+2.5 it's going to be a very slow XFF (7 hexes per turn if she doesn't use BTTY) and phaser caps won't last forever. And by generating about 16 (2Ph-5s @ R12 and one of both photons striking) points of damage every turn at that range, it has to keep making such an attack run repeated to hurt the NCLa+ internally which is a risk as holding photons is a lot cheaper than arming them.

By keeping the overload limit at R8 and the Ph-5s restricted to R8, we generate risk for the X2 vessel when engaging in X2-GW battles, hence it still plays fair with GW ships.


Sabre dancing will be good for some ships but shouldn't be best for all X2 ships. The Klingons should lose out on sabre dancing by not having Ph-5s (although the boom refit will help). X2 ships should have different racial flavours. But shouldn't have a method for killing GW ships without risk, hence no X2 ship should have an ability to sabre dance equal BPVed GW ships to horrendously (unless doing so puts them at horrendous risk of an over run).
I think Repeated R8 volleys will be where X2 ships fight, using EW to make the other guy not want to "prematurely fire" but using the offensive firepower of over-loads to actually get past the enemy shielding (whilst simaltainiously trying not to get killed by an over run because you're plugging so much power into weapons and EW).

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 06:33 pm: Edit

The more I think about Alan's suggestion that the P5 not have the capacity to rapid pulse the more I like it. Consider, if a P5 could rapid pulse, why would you mount anything but P5s? The question is answered in X1: You wouldn't.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 08:28 pm: Edit

It would give a sound reason for mounting P1's as secondary armament. (Much like P3's are in GW.)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 09:49 pm: Edit

Wow, went went through this a long time ago. As I recall it was settled that the Ph-5 would be the primary phaser mounted but some races would mount the XPh-1 as a cost saving messure. Additionally the PH-6 would be mounted where the Ph-5 wasn't practical (due to hull design)or as a refit. The Fed XCA would have only Ph-5's and that's fine. But a later refit would give it a couple Ph-6's. Kzinti would mount Ph-6's the same way because of the design of the small rear pontoons. Frigates would mount them as well since you need good coverage but haven't the room to mount Ph-5's everywhere.

I had also wanted the Ph-5 to rapid pulse at a higher cost of the stand alone Ph-6 but that wasn't too popular. It addressed the very reason to mount the Ph-6 when the Ph-5 can rapid pulse (Ph-5 as P-6 cost 0.75 where as the stand alone Ph-6 only cost 0.5).

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 09:54 pm: Edit

I don't particularly like the idea of a non-pulsing P5. Mostly because the X2 drone is likely to be a bit tougher than the earlier models. Besides, it feels like a step back, especially if you're talking about mounting them in low numbers anyway (like six on a CA). Now, what you could do is make the P5 rapid pulse as a P3, just like the XP1 does. That gives you a good reason to mount P6's, which are much better for defense.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 01:26 am: Edit

Heck, even if the drones aren't tougher they will be X1 drones at least (there might be a mixed bag in a fleet but you have to consider the more powerful of the exsisting drones).

Also, I've always held that the PhX-1 (X1) is a mid-step developement of the Ph-5 project. So since rapid pulse was really the Ph-5 project developement fit onto a Ph-1 for early introduction, the ph-5 would naturally pulse.

I could be turned to having the Ph-5 pulse as Ph-3's but it would still have to have the option of firing as (at least) a single Ph-6 as a down fire option. In this case I would eliminate the Ph-1 as a down fire option (too many options), although you could still repair it as a Ph-1 for less repair points.


Hmmm...


So you would have the Ph-5 which fires for a cost of one power with two points in the capacitor.
Alternative firing options are:
One Ph-6 (1/2 point)
or
Two Ph-3's in rapid pulse mode using x-Aegis. (1/2 point each)

Can be repaired as a Ph-1X in which it would retain the Ph-3 rapid pulse capability. (But not the Ph-6 option.)

OR

Can be repaired as a Ph-2 in which it is only a ph-2 with no special capabilities.

CANNOT be repaired as a standard Ph-1 or a Ph-3. This is due to it's inner workings and make its dynamics more interesting. If you don't fix the X-aegis tie in and the other targeting systems (which are more integrated than before) then you end up with a phaser that must be targeted by the ships main computer. Esentually you end up with a Ph-2. Since the Ph-5 is so much of a "bigger gun" down repairing it to a ph-3 is just too small.

Gee, that's the simplest version EVER.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 01:32 am: Edit

Here's another goofy idea that probably will be struck down (and perhaps should be) but I'll put it out there just for the heck of it.

What if the thing that makes a ph-5 more powerful and better able to retain strength over range (besides improved targeting) is Warp power. What if in order to fire your phasers as Ph-5's you had to spen a little bit of warp power to do so. Say one point per four phasers (1/4 each) as a general surcharge. You could pay during EA or with reserve warp. Otherwise you fire as X-Ph-1's.

This warp energy is NOT held in the capacitor.

The reason I throw this out there is that we are getting a superior weapon for no extra energy cost. Now that is exactly what happens with the Ph-2 vs. Ph-1 so maybe BPV is the only thing needed to balance it. Still, better to toss it out there and see what happens. It's an interesting idea and uses a little more of that extra power X2 has.

2 points to augment Phasers to P5s and four to an ASIF and two to a S-Bridge you have 8 energy that X2 ships must spend to take full advantage of being X2 in combat. Any of which it can forego at the cost of being a little less combat effective.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 09:48 am: Edit

Stand alone Ph-6s have a place if a pair of them can rapid pulse more Ph-3 shots than the single Ph-5 they are replacing.
My thinking is a Ph-5 can fire off 3Ph-3s (or 2Ph-6 shots) whilst a Ph-6 fires off 2Ph-3 shots which yeilds 4Ph-3s if you go with the 2Ph-6 option. That's in addition to padding the primary phasers which is also a good thing.

Ph-5s need to rapid pulse in some form.
Rapid pulsing Ph-6 shot is only to catch speed 40 X2 drone jumping range, so might not be needed, but we do need to rapid pulse.
What happens when a Kzinti BCX meets someone's XCA. 6Ph-5s (bearing) which can't rapid pulse as anything are looking at an 83% chance of killing the type VII drones and the BCX can launch 8 type VII drones per turn, so it'll expect to take tqwo shits and 36 damage (less S-bridge knock downs and your own drones/ESGs/Heavy-weapons-fire) before a two turn wave is even set up!
Ships like the Kzinti BCX and the Klingon DXD already exhist and not having our X2 cruisers being able to repulse the simplest drone wave such ships can generate is a going to be something of an autokill for the X2 designs.


On Warp Powered Ph-5s.
I'ld be willing to drop the power to fire from 1.5 each to 1 if you had this warp surcharge. Particually if you can't hold said warp.
I'm not sure where the Ph-6 fits in here.
I'm still fine with X2Ph-1s having three point caps and Ph-5s having three point caps and cost 1.5 to fire.
Also I still think an X1Ph-5 which can't rapid pulse with a two point cap would be fun.
But the surcharge thing would mean X1 caps become X2 caps, period.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 09:57 am: Edit

If Ph-5s can't rapid pulse then we get stuck with a rather ecclectic ( but uniiversal (yick)) mix of Ph-5s and Ph-1s used for offence and defence (respectively) on all ships of all races.
Lets go to Ph-5s for some races and Ph-1s for others by not having a critical drawback in the Ph-5 design.


If we want non-rapid-pulsing Ph-5s then lets move to X1R and call for it to a be a new heavy weapon for the X1 period.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 12:16 pm: Edit

What's wrong with having a mix of offensive and defensive phasers? With a P1, PG and P6 as possible defensive phasers that a race might choose to deploy there is nothing 'universal' about it. 'Universal' is when the P5 rapid pulses so well that there is never a reason for the races to put anything else on their hulls.

When fighting the above mentioned Kzinti BCX it would be a good idea to factor in the ADD or ESG or TB its likely opponents are going to field defensively. Even an X2 ship should expect to have troubles against 8 drones a turn if only using phasers in its defense.

Consider, to do 8 damage each to 8 drones using phasers only would require a GW ship equal to a Fed DNH. Do we really want phaser firepower to equal a DNH? I don't.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 03:22 pm: Edit

To me, the issue is whether X2 ships are more interesting if they all have essentially the same phaser suite (other than differences in firing arcs) or if different races pursue different philosophies in designing their X2 phaser suites.

Personally I find having different phaser suites the more interesting alternative. You then have to ask the question; Why would any race carry anything other than a pure phaser-5 suite?

The idea that you wouldn't use phaser-5s due to the expense doesn't hold up well in my opinion. X2 ships will already be very expensive and the difference in cost between a phaser-5 and a phaser-1 is likely to be negligible compared to the total ship cost. Given how much you're already spending on the ship, not using the best available phasers would be like buying a high performance racing car and then rather than using specially formulated gasoline, just buying the cheapest available grade down at the corner gas station. It makes no sense.

A race might not deploy phaser-5s because it couldn't produce them. Every race, even the mighty Federation, has a finite R&D budget and different races might have made different choices concerning their weapons-related R&D expenditures. So (hypothetically) the Feds put a lot of money into phaser research and came up with the phaser-5, but their drones and photon torpedos are still at X1 levels. The Klingons put their R&D quatloos into maximizing their disruptor capabilities, and have super advanced disruptors at X2, but X1 phasers and drones. And the Kzinti have some incredibly advanced drone capabilities but their phasers and disruptors are X1. This approach has a certain appeal, at least to me. But it also has some problems. One of these is increased difficulty in balancing the ships, both across races and against X1 or GW-tech opponents. There is also the difficulty in "holding the line". As soon as a Fed ship gets mauled by the really good drones on that Kzinti X2 ship, or the Kzinti gets hammered by Klingon X2 disruptors, there will be complaints that "my race got cheated in X2 because opponent's race got this super new capability that I didn't get". This will create pressure to give everyone phaser and torpedo and drone upgrades, weakening the racial differentiation that I at least find desirable.

Another possibility, if racial differences in phaser suites is desirable, is to have some limitation in the phaser-5 such that races would tend to choose mixed suites over phaser-5 pure suites. A phaser suite mixing (non-rapid pulse) phaser-5s with either rapid pulse-capable phaser-1s or pairs of phaser-6s would provide both offensive firepower and seeking weapon defense. Phaser-5s and phaser-1s would give more long range offensive firepower but phaser-5s and pairs of phaser-6s would give better seeking weapon defense and also better anti-ship firepower at close range. Different races might make different choices from among these options depending on whom they saw as their primary threat, and how well the different suites complimented their other systems.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 03:25 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

The idea that you wouldn't use phaser-5s due to the expense doesn't hold up well in my opinion. X2 ships will already be very expensive and the difference in cost between a phaser-5 and a phaser-1 is likely to be negligible compared to the total ship cost.

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 03:43 pm: Edit

Mike,

As I see it, the problem with your argument is that during the Middle Years the Klingons built enormous numbers of ships while during the time period under consideration we are assuming (I think...) that X2 ships will still be built only in small numbers.

If X2 ships were built in anything like the numbers that the Klingons built F5s, D6s, and D7s I could see your point. But the argument breaks down if they are only building a handful of X2 ships (during the time period under consideration).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 04:03 pm: Edit

But the Klingons never went to an all Ph-1 suite until X1.

That is on ships that were a combo of Ph-1 and Ph-2. The D5 is an exception in that it foregos the rear Ph-2 suite altogether.