This is a "spin off" idea of the Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: First Generation X-ships: XP - Partial X Upgrades: Archive through May 28, 2005. It is offered as a Stellar Shadows Journal Proposal for the "Mad Scientists Work shop.

the idea, simply phrased, uses the same minaturization of components that resulted in XP power reactors. the relevent post from the archive repeated here:"(XR1.4) X-REACTORS
(XR1.41) The additional power requirements of X-technology were considerable, and without any other way to increase power on a partial-X-conversion ship, the engineers turned to the new more powerful and more compact reactors. In fact, the reactors on X-ships were of this type (which was roughly half the size of those on a non-X ship), but given the power production of the X-warp engines, designers did not install additional reactors, using the surplus space for other functions. For non-X ships, however, it was possible to replace an existing reactor (APR) with two of the new X-reactors.
(XR1.42) Replacing one APR or AWR with two XPRs costs two points. The owner of the ship can change as many or as few of them as his design requires, up to a maximum of four on a size-3 ship (two on a size-4 ship or on a size-5 base, six on a size-1 base or size-2 ship). The box on the SSD produces two points of warp power but is still destroyed by a single damage point."

In this context, the "spin off" idea is that one or more races attempted to "double" the number of phaser 1's that each SSD phaser 1 box contains by minaturizing the components of a conventional Phaser 1 so that instead of 1 phaser 1 in a SSD box, it contains 2 phaser 1's.

The problem was, that the heat generated by the phasers degraded the targeting systems and thus reduced the efficiency of the phasers the equal that of a phaser 2. (thus using phaser 2 tables instead of phaser 1 tables.)

The other problem that happened, is that no matter how hard the "various" races tried, no one was able to reduce the systems of a phaser 1 (or indeed a phaser 2 which is arguably the same thing as a phaser 1 on the SSD) by the required 50% of original volume.

The proposal offered here, assumes that heavy weapons (such as Photons, Disrupters and certain Plasma Torpedos) could be replaced by such "Twin Phaser 2's" which have the following characteristics:

For non-X ships, it was possible to replace an existing Heavy Weapon (Photon, Disrupter or Plasma Torpedo) with two of the new twin Phaser 2's.

Replacing one heavy Weapon with a twin Phaser 2, costs two points. The owner of the ship can change as many or as few of them as his design requires, up to a maximum of four on a size-3 ship (two on a size-4 ship or on a size-5 base, six on a size-1 base or size-2 ship). The box on the SSD requires two points of power to fill the associated phaser capaciter of the twin phaser 2's, but is still destroyed by a single damage point."}

The proposal thus restricts the number of twin phaser 2's that may be added to any ship (and further limited by the Size class).

Several illustrations that might assist with understanding this proposal are:

1. (assume a vanilla Fed CA as the base example) means that up to 4 photons could be replaced with 4 "twin phaser 2's".

2. the 4 photons would have used up to 8 points of power to arm (presume non overloaded) that if all 4 torpedos hit would inflict up to 32 points of damage at range 2(ranges 0-1 only available for overloaded photons). 8 phaser 2's (4 groups of twin phaser 2's) would use the same power (2 points for each twin phaser 2, 4 twin mountings, total 8 points of power) could result in 40 points of damage at range 2 (assumes all 8 phaser 2's roll 1's on the phaser 2 table) down to a low of 24 if all roll 6's on same table.

Comparing Overloaded Photons to 8 phaser 2's at ranges 0 to 1, has 64 points of O.l. photons (with feed back damage of 16 points)(and requires 32 points of energy to arm full OL's) verses 48 points of damage down to 24 points (resulting roll of a '6' for all 8 phaser 2's at range 1).

(Note, Photons are a 2 turn arming cycle, so 2 points of energy per turn for 2 turns to get the standard load photon per tube, 8 points over 2 turns to result in full overloads (16 point O.l.'s) so for a full comparision, contrast 1 set of photons over a 2 turn 64 impulse cycle of arming to 2 volly's of phaser 2's. The result is Photons max damage potential is the 64 points of damage related earlier compared to 2 volley's of 8 phaser 2's (potentially delivered over a turn break, with in 1/4 turn of 8 impulses for a Max of between (48+24=72 points) to (40+24=64)(and at a 2 turn arming cost of 8 phaser 2 total 16 points of energy to arm 2 successive volly's).

The twin phaser 2 mountings thus cost the same or less energy (depending on if the photons were overloaded or not), cause the same or slightly more damage at ranges 0 to 2 hexes(72 points down to 64 points for the same ranges) plus allow up to twice as many targets able to be hit (8 separate targets per volley of phaser 2's instead of 4 separate targets allowed to the photons) and no chance of feed back damage.

3. The twin phaser 2 mounts will not allow the use of proximity photons for "long range sniping" attacks, but improves fleet defense verses drones and plasma torpedo's.

4. if Systems are damaged, it is presumed that the effects of such damage are proportional, (each photon damaged reduces the phtons by 25% and each pair of twin phaser 2's lost also reduce the number of phaser 2's by 25%.)

5. if other races than the Federation are chosen, the use of disrupters are statistically similar to photons, and yeild a similar result: compare 4 disrupters (and overloaded disrupter fire at ranges 0 to 2 hexes) Oakdisc, Derfacs and UIB alters the numbers to hit and damage slightly. disrupters at longer ranges of 3 hexes are still comparable to phaser 2's, and disrupters benefit from the ability to fire every turn. at ranges 4 to 15 hexes, the disrupters are markedly superior to the twin phaser 2's (which still have some use out to 8 hex range, and markedly lose effectiveness at ranges 9 to 15 hexes, and occassionally usefull at ranges 16+.

6. Plasma Torpedos still have significantly greater potential to cause more damage over a single turn than the twin phaser 2 mounts do. the phaser 2's, if able to fire at close range every turn for 3 turns will cause more damage cumulatively than the plasma torpedos do. Unfortunately, getting to close range, staying there, and not receiving damage that destroys the twin phaser 2 mounts may be quite difficult.

7. This allows certain races (particularly thos races that have both Photon/Disrupter/Plasma heavy weapons) to convert to a pure "plasma boat" platform, and to do it in a manner that ranks the single turn damage potential into Disrupters (the lowest damage potential per turn), then the twin phaser 2 ships, followed by the photons and lastly the plasmas. the subsequent turns represent the ability of the phaser 2's to continue causing damage to an enemy on those turns the plasma's and photons are being reloaded.

The bottomline is that the use of twin phaser 2's in place of various heavy weapons is a very close range tactical system. It requires that the ship close with the enemy as quickly as possible, and stay with in range fro as long as possible using the "glory zone" of the phaser 2 table ranges of 8 hexes or less. (ideally ranges 1 to 2).

Particular information:
YIS would equate to the availability of the original XP refits.

The Twin Phaser 2 refit would be limited by all races, no more than 1 ship of each size class could be so refited during any F&E turn, or 6 months for campaign game.

BPV cost adjustment would be 2 BPV's for each heavy weapon converted per ship.

This is Proposal is offered in the hope that it will encourage discussion. It is (Again repeated for those few individual(s) incapable of reading with an average level of competency) a Stellar Shadows suggestion, and not a change to "real history".

Comments are welcome.

By Troy J. Latta (Saaur) on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 10:42 pm: Edit

I think the BPV cost would depend on which weapon was being replaced. A plasma-S is larger than a plasma-F, yet it can turn into the same number of phasers for the same cost? Something seems fishy here.

By John Erwin Hacker (Godzillaking) on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 11:53 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

Do you know what kind of Pandora's Box this could open?

If you're going to allow one system to be miniaturized then why not allow ALL SYSTEMS in the game to be done the same way?

Could you see an argument formed about allowing a Plasma using race to miniaturize the size of say - a Plasma-R - so that you could fit some other weapon system (or anyother system for that matter) in the empty space made?

I don't know about anybody else but I loved the day when the powers to be at ADB took out the rules allowing people to modify their starships with pretty much everything else in the game.

AND FOR THE RECORD I HOPE AND PRAY TO GOD THAT ( S7.0 SHIP MODIFICATIONS ), NEVER COMES OUT BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL JUST WANT TO DO THE WHOLE THING OVER AGAIN.

SFB has come to be known as a thinking persons game, NOT ONE OF MUNCHINISM LIKE ALMOST EVERY OTHER GAME ON THE GAMING MARKET so everybody LISTEN TO YOUR SENSES ON THIS ONE AND "JUST SAY NO".

These are only my own personal viewpoints on the matter but ones that I concider VERY SERIOUS.

Until next time from GLORIOUS GHDAR PRIME..........

"THE GODZILLAKING".

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 02:07 am: Edit

I can't see this being used. At the ranges X-ships tend to fight (as the tactics are currently presented), the phaser-2 (even paired) is a weapon of very limited utility.

And in most rules, phasers are close to the same size as photons and disruptors. Fed phaser escorts don't get a whole bunch of extra systems after trading photons for phasers; not sure it makes sense that suddenly there is enough extra room as postulated in the backstory.

"For non-X ships, it was possible to replace an existing Heavy Weapon (Photon, Disrupter or Plasma Torpedo) with two of the new twin Phaser 2's."

Note the two which doubles the number of phaser mounts compared to some of the other rules proposal.


John: All (S7) will do is provide a close to reasonable BPV for designs with modest alterations. (Unless S7 goes through a substantial redesign from earlier drafts and loses most of its limits on changes.) Extreme designs will still happen as now with a similar lack of BPV guidance.

Some races, in certain years, have a very limited effective pool of available designs; the Gorn might benefit from having as many distinct possible squadrons for given BPV as the Klingons (who have many more ship classes and increased flexibility thanks to drone buying) and one way to provide the Gorn with that would be ship modifications.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 03:26 am: Edit

I would have to ask, if an XP ship can have these as a heavy weapon replacements, why are their no X ships that are built from the ground up with these phasers (particularly Klingon waist phasers) being mounted in Phaser "slots" and in X1 numbers.
This could make an interesting mix as we'ld have an X1 phaser based racial flavour.


If it were kept as a purelly SSJ idea then it could work but it pretty much cancelles out the whole idea of having rapid pulsed Phaser-3 shots for X ships as 2Ph-2s are just so much better at drone defense than 2Ph-3s and don't give up much ( if anything ) over the single Ph-1 shot in conventional ship to ship combat.
\iI'ld also like to note some things about the relative ability of the 2Ph-2 mechanism over the 1Ph-1 mechanism.}

Range	2Ph-2	1Ph-1	Disruptor w/ O.L.s UIM & DERDACs
0	11	6.5	10
1	8.33	5.33	8.33
2	7.66	4.83	6.66
3	7	4.33	6.66
4	2.33	3.83	6.66
5	2.33	3.5	6
6-8	2.33	2.16	6
9-15	1.33	1	2
16-22	0.66	0.5	1.33
23-25	0.66	0.5	1
26-30	0.66	0.33	1
31-50	0.33	0.33	0

All in all, I don't think anyone would want to swap out heavy weapons for these phasers as they arn't enough better than heavies to employ (and in a lot of cases are worse ) and no one would replace them with heavies for drone defence as they can replace Ph-1s and Ph-2s with X1Ph-1s if my understanding is correct.

By Reid Hupach (Gwbison) on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 01:52 pm: Edit

But what about..... A Ph2 gatling.replaces a heavy weapon mount. Costs 2 points to power up.


Okay I know I'm sick and evil and have been off my meds for tooooo long.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 03:57 pm: Edit

Just say "no".

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 07:54 pm: Edit

Reid:

Check out this discussion for Phaser 2 Gatlings.

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: New Rules: Offensive/Defensive Gatling Phaser 2