| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 04:17 pm: Edit |
I see Feds and Gorns going all Ph-5.
Klingons a split similar to the D7 (5 ph-5 + 4 Ph-1)
Romulans going with many Ph-1s (be behind in the tech loop. They refit main units with forward Ph-5's and have a mix like the Klingons.)
Kzinti would have Ph-5 on the main hull but not in the wings. These would be Ph-1 and Ph-6 in the rear wing.
Lyran would go all Ph-5 with Ph-6 in the sides.
Hydrans would go with Ph-1 with Fusion gats, Hellbores and PhGX. A later refit to Ph-5 might happen.
ISC: Ph-1's. They are withdrawn and not pouring everything into advanced weapons but ARE building bigger ships and using X2 tech to achieve that goal. The Heavy PPD is scarry and is mounted on the largest unit that is designed(with battle escorts) to face up to a Dominator.
Tholians go with the Ph-5 but don't use the rapid pulse capability. It's just a heavier phaser. They mount many Ph-6 like they do Ph-3's now. This is a unique rule for Tholians.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 04:22 pm: Edit |
Another direction perhaps would be that the Ph-6 is a rapid pulse P-3 weapon. No special chart but normally fires two Ph-3. Like a half gatling. No aegis restriction either except you can't fire both on the same impulse. Arm cost is still 1/2 point.
That would make the new defense phaser a cut down Ph-1X with some power savings systems added.
| By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 04:41 pm: Edit |
Personally (as someone who has paid precious little attention to the X2 boards, but would like to see some variety in an eventual X2 product), I'd like to see divergent evolution take hold. That is, have the X2 phaser of choice for the Federation be something rather different than the X2 phaser of choice for the Klingons.
Perhaps the Klingon's phaser is optimized for the mid-range sabre-dance, whereas the Fed's is geared for overload range.
Maybe the Rom's is a comparatively weak phaser that has one heck of a passive targetting rig, to enable it to fire at full effect the second they turn off the cloak (or even during!).
Could be the Hydrans followed the logical extension of the gatling, deciding that volume of fire was a better bet than a single massive beam.
Perhaps the ISC's X2 phaser has a limited pulse ability, as sort of a mini-PPD (i.e., two pulses, only on consecutive impulses).
Maybe the Kzinti never go past the Ph-1...but stick them on their ships in large numbers, much like the Ph-3s were.
You get the idea.
One of the nicest things about the Omega setting is the variety of phaser-equivalent weapons. Something similar would kick some much-needed spice into the X2 Alpha setting.
But then, that's just my opinion.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 05:15 pm: Edit |
As I think about it, I find I really like Jessica's suggestion about a Romulan phaser that is weaker than other races' but can fire while cloaked. My concern is that this will be very hard to balance across the different tech levels. But if a good balance could be devised it would really give some unique flavor to the Romulans, especially if (insert technobabble here) X2 Orions don't have this type of phaser as an option.
This might work such that firing the phaser voids the cloak and allows lock-on for one impulse, like a T-bomb "flashcube" effect. But then the enemy would have to roll next impulse to retain lock-on. Since the T-bomb "flashcube" occurs at a different point in the impulse than does phaser fire, the rules would have to state how DF fire against the cloaked Romulan is affected, during the impulse the Romulan fires. Another option would be to change the rules such that Romulan ships firing while cloaked fire at a different point in the impulse, as some weapons already do.
Difficult to make work, but if it could be made to work it would make cloaking/cloak hunting a very different game than it currently is.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 05:18 pm: Edit |
Alan,
Yes, the Klingons did build huge fleets in the middle years. But, in the X2 years we know that X2 ships are only part of the total production...they still build GW type ships, and will probably build a fair number of them because that's just what Klingons do. We also know that the Klingons have less territory to work with, and hence less resources. Like before, they have a reason they can't build all P5 fleets; the details may differ, but the principle is the same.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 06:02 pm: Edit |
Mike,
I don't understand your argument. If the Klingons build, say 20 warships in a year (which is a much lower production rate than during the GW, even after economic exhaustion) and only two of them are X2 ships, the cost of upgrading the small number of phaser-1s on those two ships to phaser-5s would be negligible relative to their overall ship building budget. If necessary, cut one of the smallest of the 18 non-X ships out of your production schedule, or build an F5W instead of a D5, to afford the better phasers for your two X2 ships. At the strategic level you would probably (almost certainly, in my opinion) be better off. 18 ships plus two X2 ships with phaser-1s might mass more aggregate combat power than 17 ships plus two X2s with phaser-5s, but that's not the relevant consideration. You don't have the command rating to form 20-ship fleets, the strategic situation doesn't require them, and those X2 ships will be sent on missions that other ships simply can't do. I don't want to see the X2 ships as pure combat monsters because I believe a lot of those special missions will not be combat missions and will require things like cargo capability, labs, NWO, etc. But whatever portion of the x2 hull is devoted to weapons, that portion should be used as efficiently as possible.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 06:32 pm: Edit |
The Klingons P1 technology was (CL13-p10:R3.941):
1) Physically larger then their P2 technology
2) A new technology that was hard to maintain
3) Limited production
This continued to be true until a breakthrough during the GW allowed smaller designs.
Its not just a matter of cost for the Klingons.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 07:32 pm: Edit |
Tos,
Yeah. Part of the point of my 3:22 pm post was that if you want to justify phaser suites that aren't pure phaser-5, it can't be "just a matter of cost" for anyone. There has to be some other reason besides cost that races would choose to use something other than a pure phaser-5 suite, and a limitation on the phaser-5, such as the inability to rapid pulse, seemed to me to be one way to get there from here. There are other ways one might justify it, but "cost" in and of itself seems insufficient to me.
One might simply say that the Klingons had comparable difficulties producing phaser-5s in quantity, but the Federation did not. But that seems "gimmicky" to me. Why did they have these difficulties this time? Did they fail to learn from the past?
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 08:26 pm: Edit |
One issue the Klingons had was that Ph-1 production was limited.
I dare say that the Ph-5 production would be also limited. Perhaps just one high security plant that employed only ethnic Klingons. But Ph-1X units are numorous. The X1 ships are full of them so they must have considerable production capabilities. Therefore the cost and availability is much better.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 09:15 pm: Edit |
But why would the Klingons set up only one such plant in the first place? Surely there must be sufficient ethnic Klingon manpower available to support multiple plants, particularly given that much of the work is probably automated. And does this limited production effect only the Klingons, or does it effect other races too, and why?
It's not that I'm specifically opposed to phaser-5s rapid pulsing per se. But I would like to see racial differentiation in the phaser suites and I am having problems coming to terms with the various suggested solutions why any race would not go with a pure phaser-5 (assuming it pulses as two phaser-6s) suite. I can almost accept that some races would choose a phaser-1 suite if they got 50% more phasers (pulse as two phaser-3s) and a phaser-5 cost 50% more power to arm. But when I try to think if I would make that choice if I were playing a given race in an X2 campaign, I keep ending up with "No" for an answer. Moreover, MJC (and I think others as well, though I can't remember who) have been arguing for a later refit that would allow 12 phaser-5s on a cruiser sized hull. At that point your choices are basically to upgrade the phaser-1s to phaser-5s for the formerly phaser-1 races, destroying phaser differentiation, or allowing the phaser-1 races to suddenly mount 18 phaser-1s on their X2 cruisers. I don't think anyone wants to see that.
To say that the Klingons were limited in phaser-1 production decades ago, therefore they are limited in phaser-5 production now (in Y205) seems insufficient to me. I have no inherent problem with a D8 Klingon cruiser that has phaser-5s in the boom and phaser-1s elsewhere, mirroring the pattern of earlier Klingon ships. But the explanations that have been advanced as to how such a state of affairs would come about... now there I've got a problem.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 09:44 pm: Edit |
Just thinking (if you could call it that) off the top of my head here, but if phaser-5s couldn't be tied into a capacitor system because (insert technobabble here) and had to be armed individually like heavy weapons, that would impose a limitation relative to phasers-1s from a power management standpoint. That power management problem could be one factor in inducing some races to go with a larger phaser-1 battery rather than a smaller phaser-5 battery. I'm not suggesting that phaser-5s couldn't be held, only that they couldn't draw power from a shared capacitor.
I'm not terribly happy with this idea. For one thing, it seems to me easier to come up with plausible technobabble for why a phaser-5 couldn't rapid pulse than for why it couldn't use the phaser capacitor system. A similar but less radical suggestion would be that phaser-5s only contributed 1x their power requirements to the capacitor, rather than 2x power. This would mean that a ship with 12 phaser-1s would have a 24 point capacitor, one with 8 phaser-5s would only have a 12 point capacitor, and a ship with a "mixed" suite of 4 phaser-5s and 6 phaser-1s would have an 18 point (4x1.5)+(6x2) capacitor; again, a power management advantage for the phaser-1s.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 11:15 pm: Edit |
Option for the P5 is a P1 with better targeting crowed:
A P5 only rolls on the P5 damage chart if powered with warp power.
A P5 armed from a non-warp source, including a capacitor, fires as a P1.
A P5 can rapid pulse in the same manor as an X-P1, regardless of the energy source.
At no time can the power in the capacitor and the warp power allocated to fire P5 exceed the maximum capacity of the capacitor. Unused warp power allocated (EA only?) to fire a P5 would flow into the caps at the end of the turn as non-warp power if not used.
What this doesn’t solve for is why anyone would bother with anything but a pure P5 solution. I prefer a mixed phaser solution as it provides needed differentiations between the races.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 11:38 pm: Edit |
On mixed offensive and defensive phasers.
More phasers yeilds better mizia protection, consider how much better the Fed CLa+ is after those two little Ph-3s are added.
On all 12Ph-5 ships.
Firstly some races ( the Kzintis and Lyrans spring to mid ) just won't go that way (if we keep pairs of Ph-6s being better than a single Ph-5 ) and secondly, you still get racial differentiation.
On phaser 5s cost.
If the cost of the all Ph-5 design is so great that you either have a pair of all Ph-1 X2 ships and you don't have to sell off that D5K or you can go with 2 all Ph-5 ships, the three ships are better for the purposses of; pirate control, monster duty, plague outbreaks, Induie local sqwabble quashing, etc.
Also you could argue that Ph-5s needed larger heat exchanger units that caused the vessels to be limited to 8Ph-5s or 12Ph-5s but not until the advent of a better cooling fluide did they move to 12Ph-5s so the 12Ph-1 Vs 8Ph-8 debate was a doctrinal issue forced upon races by Engineering concerns and not monitary concerns.
Thjeoretically the advance coolant might never materialise.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 12:02 am: Edit |
Alan said: "But why would the Klingons set up only one such plant in the first place? Surely there must be sufficient ethnic Klingon manpower available to support multiple plants, particularly given that much of the work is probably automated. And does this limited production effect only the Klingons, or does it effect other races too, and why?"
Well, Klingon society is a weird thing sometimes. The Ph-5 project is probably top secret (Klingons can be that way sometimes). Why didn't the Ph-1 go into massive production? Well, the Empire suffers from deficiencies that hinder production. Perhaps there was a political issue that caused the Ph-5 from greater production. It's not hard to explain many ways the Ph-5 would be a limited production item. The main point is that a mix of Ph-5 and Ph-1 in the old style would make an interesting ship to play and to play against.
One of the goals we've long been dancing around for X2 is to bring back a bit of the pre-GW feel to combat but also a new way of fighting.
| By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 12:41 am: Edit |
Loren: The Klingons did build the Phaser-1 in mass quantities late in the GW: C7, E7, D5K, F5WK are all designs using phaser-1s backed by limited numbers of phaser-3s and no phaser-2s. Going for a retro style of play should not require a race to toss aside all the lessons learned.
Lyrans and Klingons swapped phaser allocation philosophies. Maybe the usage of midsize phasers should remain a Lyran design precept in X2.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 12:46 am: Edit |
Loren,
I understand and agree with the goal. It's the method of achieving it that I have doubts about.
MJC,
I'm still not following your argument. You imply that the Kzinti and Lyrans would keep pairs of ph-6s in preference to an all phaser-5 suite, even if the phaser-5 can rapid pulse. But you never say why they would do so. If I were playing the Lyrans or Kzinti in a campaign, I wouldn't make that choice. Can you explain why you would reduce your ph-5 suite for paired ph-6s as either of those races?
You're correct of course that pairs of phaser-6s are better at absorbing damage to the phaser suite (as are 50% more phaser-1s). I just don't see that as being enough of an advantage overall. And if it were that crucial an advantage, it would tend to make everyone go with mixed ph-5/ph-6 suites, probably in similarly optimized proportions. Look at how similar everyone's late war BCHs and DNHs are in their phaser suites. That's what you'ld have here.
I think you're using the wrong numbers in your cost comparison. Let's assume for the sake of argument that upgrading the phaser-1s on two ships to ph-5s really costs as much as a D5 (a supposition that strikes me as very improbable; I think it's more likely to be closer to the difference between the costs of a D5 and an F5W than the cost of a new ship). If the Klingons can produce, let's say, 20 ships a year with two of them being X2 ships, and even if the phaser upgrade costs as much as a brand new warship, the best comparison isn't two ph-1 X2 ships plus one non-X ship versus two ph-5 X2 ships. The more illuminating comparison is between two ph-1 X2 ships and 18 non-X ships versus two ph-5 X2 ships and 17 non-X ships. And on those terms I still come back to the phaser-5. Those X2 ships will be sent on the most crucial and difficult missions and I want them to be the best they can be for that role. Since the role in question includes investigating the previously unknown radiation source near Tholian space, or rushing emergency medical supplies to halt the plague on Krancep, the ships can't be pure combat monsters. They will need lab and cargo capabilities. But whatever weapons they do carry should be the best available, even if the cost involved reduces slightly (i.e., from 18 to 17) the ability of the rest of the fleet to perform its more mundane missions.
I continue to believe that justifying a phaser suite other than pure phaser-5 requires either that there be some operational limitation on phaser-5s, or some production limitation that isn't simply a matter of expense.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 01:09 am: Edit |
Sorry, said it yester day and thought you'ld read it.
If the Ph-6 can rapid pulse as a pair of Ph-3s and the Ph-5 rapid pulses as 2Ph-3s or even 3Ph-3s then you rapid pulse more shots by keeping the pair of Ph-6s ( specifically 4Ph-3 shots from said pair ).
Lyrans will find that better against Kzintis ( leaving room for the big hammer to do its real work ) and the Kzintis will probably be constrained by engineering constraints ( outrigger-stress ) but also rapid pulsing against Lyran PFs and Klingon drones ( the DXD is hellish ) will protect the Kzintis and thus they'll opt for the less offense more defense option.
I'ld also like to reitterate that I didn't say the 12Ph-5s on two ships (over 12 Ph-1s on two ships ) would cost as much as a D5, just enough to make the differance between farming out a D5 that you already own or keeping it.
Note we could also opt for the Treaty method.
I would also like to point out to some degree the Ph-5 Vs Ph-1 debate doesn't opperate in a vacuum. The Klingons already have Disruptors that work awfully well at R15, so backing them up at R15 with 8Ph-5s (heat exchanger bulk keeping numbers that low or the treaty does) has a huge drawback; low clout at R0!
The Klingons might well have debated long and hard that having one of the best longer range weapons in existance; they don't need to back it up with Ph-5s.
Also remember that the luxury to pick and choose which ships handle which events is something the "joint cheifs" may consider to be beyond their current grasp. Two great ships and 17 okay ships might not (read won't) create the level of strategic control that 2 really good ships and 18 okay ships is going to generate and that's a serious consideration. The enviroment has changed from high threat and low frequency to higher frequence ( although lower because there is a peace ) and much lower threat...and that dynamic will influence shipbuilding.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 01:17 am: Edit |
Oops.
I should have said this.
The combination of 4Ph-3 shots being better than 3Ph-3 shots and the added padding the Ph-6s provide to the Ph-5s couple together to make some races choose that option (although the Kzintis probably have outrigger-stress).
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 01:39 am: Edit |
MJC,
Okay, now I see your rationale. Part of the problem is that we're making different assumptions about what the various phasers can do. I thought the ph-6 was essentially an upgraded phaser-3, but that it couldn'r rapid pulse. It would only give one phaser-6 shot per turn. So a single phaser-5 beats two phaser-6s at long range and is equivalent for seeking weapon/attrition unit combat. The pair of ph-6s absorbs damage better and is a bit better against enemy ships at very close ranges (assuming X2 ships still can't rapid pulse against anythng larger than SC5). On those terms I would always take the phaser-5. But if the two phaser-6s can rapid pulse as four phaser-3s that could change things. I would have to look at it a bit more.
I'm dubious about "outrigger-stress" as an explanation, however. Since these are not refits of older designs, but are designed from the ground up to handle the new technology, I think the Kzinti would design the outriggers to be capable of handling the phaser-5. Or if that were impossible for some reason they could make the outriggers pure drone platforms and place all phasers on the main hull.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 03:59 am: Edit |
In general these are the X2 phaser basics accepted by most people.
Ph-5 uses the Ph-5 table which is better than the Ph-1 table, take at least one point to arm. It can rapid pulse as two defense phasers under X-aegis restrictions. It can down fire as a Ph-1 or Ph-6.
The Ph-6 is a heavier defense phaser, single shot, takes at least 1/2 point to arm.
The Capacitor system will be at least double the power requirements of each phaser.
Beyond this are some details in flux. The stuff I mentioned above such as a Ph-6 being a P3 rapid pulse phaser are just new ideas and are not the assumed type when normally refering to a Ph-5 or Ph-6.
I'm just saying this to recenter the discussion about what a Ph-5 and a Ph-6 are. For the sake of all understanding any other type should be defined when discussing an alternative.
| By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 03:59 am: Edit |
Jessica, I like your opinion and think it should be further developed. I'm not sure about all the details, but I like the general concepts.
| By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 09:37 am: Edit |
Thanks, Radiocyborg. Glad to see that someone noticed it (OK, you too, Alan).
As for how to develop it out, this is my "shot in the dark" rough sketch:
Fed: Ph-5.
Klingon: Ph-K. Targetting system optimized for mid-range. Close-in damage similar to (perhaps a smidgen better than) a Ph-1, but mid-range damage slightly better than a Ph-5.
Rom: Ph-R. Very advanced passive targetting rig that can only handle modest power. Damage curve like a Ph-1 (or maybe even Ph-2), but can fire without penalty on passive fire control. Perhaps can even fire from cloak with a modest penalty and a very short flashcube effect.
Kzinti: Ph-5, but expensive as all heck and used only as offensive phasers; a veritable forest of smaller phasers in the "tradition" Ph-3 positions on the booms and such.
Gorn: Ph-5.
Tholian: Ph-T. Very slightly degraded Ph-5 (drop the damage by a point for die results "1" and "2"), but is tuned to fire through web without penalty.
Orion: Standard mounts are whatever is standard for their home territory, with those available for option mounts determined within the normal percentages for operating territory.
Hydran: Ph-H. Essentially, a gatlinged Ph-2 (or perhaps something between a Ph-2 and Ph-1). Perhaps supplemented with Ph-1s to give a bit of reach.
Lyran: Would love to have the Ph-5, but as "poor cousin" to the Klingons, got saddled with the Ph-K. Tend to use quite a few Ph-1s in secondary positions, as the Ph-K isn't all that great a deal for Lyran tactics.
WYN: If they're still around, standardize them on the Ph-5 -- they've got the resources to build the best for their limited fleet, and given the WYN situation, the best for them (that would be available to them) is probably the Ph-5.
ISC: Ph-P. A Ph-1 with two pulses, which can only be used in consecutive impulses (basically, a mini-PPD). Has a wavelock; successful hit on the first pulse will produce identical damage on the second pulse (so long as the lock is maintained). Another alternative would be to have the ISC Ph-P be a hit-or-miss affair (with two pulses, wavelock, etc).
Like I said, the above is a very, very rough sketch, and would no doubt require a great deal of revision and fine-tuning.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 10:28 am: Edit |
Interesting outline, but where the damage differs only by 1 point in certain range brakets I'm not sure its worth the bother. I'm not opposed to adding flavor, but we aught to make sure we got the basics right before adding salt.
| By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 11:34 am: Edit |
Thing is, Tos, I think that a little bit of difference can go a long way when one is dealing with phaser damage, simply because there’s quite a few of them involved in any given battle.
As for the basics, I think that deciding whether or not everyone standardizes on a particular phaser or whether they pursue different lines of development would be pretty basic. The Ph-5 seems to be pretty well settled from what I can tell, so if there’s a time to start fleshing out a “divergent phaser evolution”, this strikes me as it.
I wasn’t planning on charting this whole mess out, but here we go….
Phaser-1. The old standard.
| Ph-1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6-8 | 9-15 | 16-25 | 26-50 | 51-75 |
| 1 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 3 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ph-5 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6-8 | 9-15 | 16-25 | 26-50 | 51-75 |
| 1 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 2 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 3 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 4 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ph-K | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6-8 | 9-15 | 16-25 | 26-50 | 51-75 |
| 1 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 2 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 3 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| 4 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ph-R | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6-8 | 9-15 | 16-30 | 31-50 |
| 1 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 3 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ph-T | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6-8 | 9-15 | 16-25 | 26-50 | 51-75 |
| 1 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 3 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 4 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ph-H | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6-8 | 9-15 | 16-30 | 31-50 |
| 1 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 3 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ph-P | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6-8 | 9-15 | 16-25 | 26-50 | 51-75 |
| 1 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 3 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 01:56 pm: Edit |
Jessica,
I'm afraid I don't much like the ISC phaser. The ISC are one of several races that developed DF weapons that can fire multiple times in a turn, but only the Hydrans developed this capability with phaser weapons. (The Feds later copied it using salvaged technology from the Expedition.) My personal preference would be that only the Hydran have an X2 phaser that can fire multiple times per turn (not counting the Aegis-restricted rapid pulse capability against small targets). If it were up to me, I would just give the ISC phaser-5s.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |