Archive through February 13, 2006
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
The "X" Files:
OLD X2 FOLDER:
X2 disruptors:
Archive through February 13, 2006
The problem is that the X1 fast-loads made the photons un-photon-like.
Early on, I had two proposals that I modified for X2.
One that fired twice a turn (particle disruptor)
and one that fired for double damage (disruptor cannon, but the OL problem had been solved for X2)
I'm still not convinced that players will stand for a Disruptor cruiser that will never-ever have six Disruptors.
Jeff, yeah, I agree. That's one reason I think a bigger warhead is appealing. 20 points is heck of a bang; as much as a TRH. But having to arm it over two turns is the only way to get it. I didn't put limitations on that, because to be honest the limitations are built in; namely, the expense of arming it (the X2 ships I use have marginally less power than X1) and the horrendous feedback damage you can take. The only operational change was that fastloads of any kind could be held, and that you could declare proximity or standard fire at the moment of firing instead of during EA.
MJC, why? With the unique exception of X1 cruisers, no cruiser has six disruptors. Four is the norm. What would you rather have? A cruiser with four disruptors with 180 arcs, capacitors, a modest damage increase and built in UIM/DERFACS that don't burn out, or six X1 disruptors? These four are truly fantastic weapons; I've played them, so I know. Six is too many, unless XBC's come to light.
Well, there in lies a problem. Let's look at R8 overload shots.
8 damage with 83.33% chance to hit from four disruptors is an average of 26.66 damage and a jackpot (48%) of 32. All for 16 power.
6 damage with an 88.33% chance to hit from six disruptors is an average 30 damage and Jackpot (33%) of 36. All for 24 power.
3.33 less damage for 8 less power is well worth it.
Fastloaded 10 pointers and alternate arming 20 pointers will be yeilding an average of 20 at that range and I would argue that the feds would feild a vessel that could keep up with the Klingons if they possibly could and that's in the form of either 13 point Fastloads or 26 point two turners (although the effects of crunch power may reduce that a bit ).
The problem I have is not with the fact that heavy disruptors arn't fantastic ( quite frankly I think they are fantastic ( which makes them too Photon-like )) but rather in the concept of the unique design for/of the X1 cruiser.
It's very hard to justify uninventing something.
Once you have six disruptors in X1 and Four Heavy Disruptors in X2 then it becomes very hard not to have six heavy Disruptors and that'll be just plain hellish.
I'ld rather match Photon loading with nothing greater than 6 power inputted against Four Disruptors with built-in UIM DERFACS (and six impulse double broadside and Disruptors Caps ) and then latter when the Klingons upgrade to six Disruptors have the Feds find away to flood in upto 8 warp power into the Photon ( but making it unstable and thus if not used that turn it must be ejected ), in order to keep pairty than just give the Klingons an uber Disurptor that must always remain as four on a cruiser and never six.
Becuase then we'll get six Heavy Disruptors on a cruiser and (Becuase the X1 did it without shock(even though that was not heavy disruptors) but the Federation XBCJ will suffer from shock from her six Photons ( because the BCJ did ) and that'll be just plain unfair.
Another area I don't like is the R0 damage of heavy disruptors.
48 damage at R0 for 16 power and 8 feedback.
Sure that's exactly what Four X1 Photons will give you but the X1 Photons will cost 24 power and all of it warp.
(Six X1 Disruptors were also pretty bad at R0 generating 60 points of damage but atleast 24 points of power was hard to find and the feedback damage was 50% greater.)
MJC: Try thinking the R0 thing through though. What else will happen and what else is possible that the disruptor cannot do.
I agree with Jeff. The fastloads really make the photons not feel like photons. It encroached on disruptor territory. But I don't think that making the disruptors like particle cannons or photons is the solution.
I've been thinking about my suggestion, and I realized that it amounts to doubling the number of disruptors on a ship. What I mean, is that one would get the same result if one had 4 unlimited range OL DISR as if one had 8 standard DISR. Clearly unbalancing.
I am not adverse to putting more DISR on ships. Maybe a 6 DISR D8 (Klink XCA) with FH-L/FH-R arcs is the way to go. Maybe 4 on the F7 (XDD). It would definitely give the ships a different feel and lead to interesting tactics.
Just increasing shields and damage doesn't seem that interesting to me. Heavy DISR is a logical development, but it doesn't make me want to jump up and fly a ship with them. X2 should be funnier. 
Perhaps monkeying with overload ranges by just a hex would make things more interesting. All overloads being range 8 always seemed artificial to me.
BTW, the 6 impulse delay is brilliant.
Trouble with even a hex change is that it's a big change.
I have a Fed NCA and you have a Klingon XF5 (assume they've got the same BPV).
Your turn mode and surplus power combine to give you the ability to reach R9 and not R8 and fire and leave.
The trick is to sabre dance until I eject my Photons (in an attempt to get you with proxies) and then you swoop and gut me with useless-GW-phot-tubes-in-the-first-turn-of-arming. Not simply capitalise on a range bracket advantage until you've worn out my shields and I yeild the match.
You need to take your cue to flow the path to victory from the flow of the battle and not from simply the form of the weapon table.
R8 is arbitary but sensible as it gives everybody a pretty good shot. There are still a few weapons where R8 doesn't really matter ( Fusions and Photons spring to mind although it's more true of fusions ).
If you like, you should think of X2 as the ultimate extention of the R8 concept in the the Ph-5 peaks at R8 and thus meshes with the Heavy Weapons far better than in the X1, GW or MY periods.
Actually Fusions is one weapon where a removal of the R8 restriction would be unimportant.
L.K.:
Huhh?
MJC: OK... comparing the maximum capability of the disruptor at R0 with the mid-range capability of the photon won't work. The reason is that once internals are gone for the most part they are gone. While the Fed has to spend more power he can pump his OL's to 16 (and perhpas more) scoring more damage in the shot.
The disruptor ship hasn't this option. It's what the term "crunch" is all about.
Then of course you add phasers into the fray...
Which feeds into my first stated goal for my X2 designs. The closest pass X2 ships should make is R4. R0 is just asking for trouble, even if you opponant fired most of his weapons first.
The reasons I chose 12 point Photons was becuase they are the most hard-core way X1 Photons can fire every turn.
Thus it was a conitnuous static state calculation and not a asomotopic curve that one gets when firing 16 pointers are the primary fire point and 12 pointers thereafter.
Feds will visit R4 form time to time. Klingons hardly ever.
R0 will happen.
What will a Kzinti dreadnought do if it catches your XCA???
Drag you closer so your ADDs become less effective and here Ph-3s become more effective.
MJC: Heck, I'd do that with a GW F5.
I think a good analogy can be drawn from the EY ships and MY ships. This is the same sort of technology interface. I remember reading about it in a previous post. MY ships are significantly better than EY ships, and yet the two coexisted for some time. But God help the YCA's when I come hunting in my shiny new D6. Two might make it an even battle. Maybe.
How about double overloads limited to R4? Would even make a Hydran think twice about getting too close. Do I dare get into photon range? I've got this BFG...
Do all that and Fusion ships become ineffective. Reaching range zero is all well and good but you need a ship with some weapons remaining after reaching that range to have an effect.
Making the proposed X-Disruptor out to be too powerful compared to the photon by limiting the photon in warhead strength fails in my view. Yes the disruptor does its thing for less power but the Klingon will not enjoy those advantages because the bottom line is that the Fed will score more internals by spending even more power. The disruptor ship will come out the loser with only a minor condolence for having spent a little less energy.
The Klingons (the wise ones anyway) will not just close to R0 just like that. They must use speed and maneuver to strike at the Feds. In this situation the proposed X-Disruptor will be balanced against continuous fast-load photon tactics. Indeed, it may actually nullify them. The reason is that the Fed will be spending huge amounts of energy to keep up the pace, as such will be maneuvering less at a slower speed. The Klingons will be maneuvering like bats in the night compared. The Feds will need to re-adopt the two turn photon stratigy to save power for maneuver and speed.
Result, pre-GW style and balance is restored.
On a good Early Years and MY battle.
Consider a battle between a Federation FF and a Klingon D4 in the year 128 (75 Vs 71 BPV respectively).
Both ships have advantages and that is something that can be capitalised upon. Indeed in this situation, it is the Federation vessel with better EW and Proxy photons how can sabre dance best but also Klingon falls automatically into a sabre dance because she can not overload.
| Federation FF Advantages | Klingon D4 Advantages |
| More EW | More Shield Boxes |
| Overloadible heavies | SP capable |
| High Max speed | Higher drone control. |
| Ph-1s | More Phasers |
| Proxie Photons | Drones racks |
| R5 Transporters | More Transpoters |
| R3 Tractors | More Power |
| Fewer systems to guard | More BPs |
| Better accelleration | More internal boxes. |
Like a GW Vs X2 battle, no ship in this situation actually has the one winning advantage that will garrenttee victory...so it falls to the players to captain their way to victory; which is where a fun game actually comes from. We want to avoid "Dieus Ex Machina".
L.K.:
Conversely the Klingon has more Disruptors with which to take A3 hits and thus the result is something of a wash. The Feds fire for more damage with the first blast but after a few such balst the Fed has significantly fewer weapons (2Vs4 is a hell of a lot waorse than 4Vs6).
Also forcing out options because one is behind the eightball when fighting a particular race ( particularly when once race is the UFP and the Other Klingons ) is very bad form. You wantr to create tactics by punishing one player for choosing that race of ship.
How long is this BBS going to have this mentality that even though the Klingons are the best race in the game, they need even more really cool stuff to knock the Feds over the head!?!
You should look to create a two turn Federation arming style by having more carrot for the Fed if he arms over two turns, not by giving the Klingon a bigger stick.
Forcing the Feds to frontload and repeat because the Klingons have all the aces if the two ships sit at R0 is will just force a call to be made by Federation fans that either the Feds should get more warp engine power or more AWRs and that'll create an arms race with the Klingons and that'll create an Arms race with Lyrans and appartently everybody hates it when the Lyrans used their extra power that was added to deal with ESGs by not using ESGs!
Richard: I was under the impression the fusion ships were pretty much obsolete in X1. An RNX is a monster against a GW ship, but not too terrible against another CX. This is particularly true of the LNX. An X-ship can keep the distance open and fire heavies at a distance. The fusion ships have plenty of power, but you can only go 32.
MJC: That actually sounds like a lot of fun. I am a big fan of FFs. I'm going to try to scrounge someone up to give that a try. Thanks for the idea!
Yeah.
It's important to have a single advanced ship verses a single low-tech ship or else forces play to move into a game that one has to calculate an offset for and probably can't. Specifically, known in these threads as Force Dynamics.
Yep yep.
MJC;
Huh??? Have you actually fought this battle out? I have played the Tholian PC (59 BPV) against the D4 (75 BPV) and the Tholian absolutely kills the D4 (on an open map - I'm one of those people who dislikes fixed maps). The Tholian has the speed to own range-5, and it has phaser-1s, which dominate the Klingon's weapons at range-5. It's not uncommon (having fought this duel as both Tholian and Klingon) for the PC to win without even taking internals. The speed-plus-phaser-1s advantage is that great, in practice. The Klingon's drones don't matter because they are way too slow.
The unrefitted Fed FF would destroy a D4, even with the D4 getting drones with full strength warheads under YFD2.0. The drones are still to slow to be effective against the tactics available to the Fed in this matchup. And the D4 can't sabre-dance against a ship that is so much faster than it is.
Sorry, but if you think this is a balanced battle, it calls into question your pronouncements about balance of GW versus X2 ships. I can easily beat the D4 using a ship (the Tholian PC) that is clearly less powerful than the Fed FF. Unfortunately, the BPV system really doesn't work well between EY and later technology. And I don't think it can be fixed because the RPS and scaling effects are too severe. (Try playing the following 3 duels on an open map, and then tell me how you adjust the BPV to make the system work; 1) Tholian PC vs. Klingon D4, 2) Tholian PC vs. Klingon E4 (MY ship), 3) Klingon D4 vs. Klingon E4.)
This is not intended as a criticism of EY. I enjoy EY battles. But EY is too different from later technology for the BPV to "play well together".
Alan,
Quote:the BPV system really doesn't work well between EY and later technology.
I think this really is the case for all generations. It would be one thing if the difference between generations is only the number of weapons, but when you throw in, for example the abilities X ships get in X1, then I really doubt one can pursue the goal of "X2 playing nice with X1 and GW".
But I think we should skip that idea for anyway; when X2 get into service they be better thn X1, and will rule vs anyone not X, and thus the flaw in the system might not be very noticeable.
In this case, I think MJC and SVC are on the same page, but they don't realize it.
The BPV system needs to be balanced across tech levels.
That balance was not done for EY with respect to MY, which is what MJC's example shows. If a 75 point FF can mop the floor with a 71 point D4, then the D4 is not a 70ish point ship.
The customers (MJC, for example) are demanding BPV balance of the whole SFU, and SVC is demanding it for X2.
So where do we go from here?
1) We should all agree that the BPV system in EY is balanced ONLY WITHIN ITSELF, and that equal BPVs in EY vs. MY battles simply will not be balanced. So any comparisons of equal BPV EY vs. MY ships are a waste of time, from now on.
2) We need to point to EY as an example of what happens when BPVs don't "play nice".
3) We should recognize that no matter how much we try to balance X2, the ships have to be fun to fly, first.
Yes, I think u are right on point 1; and it doesn't really stop there: Remember the D5 Bpv vs F5W Bpv comparison?
I am satisfied if we can get reasonable close with regards X1 vs X2.
A couple of things to remember.
Fixed map. It's not realistic but it less often has a racial/technologic bias.
The Fed FF is so much more dependant on the Phot-tubes than the Tholian PC. 2 bearing Ph-1s and a bearing Ph-3 in an oblique just wont crack the shields of the D4 if it bricks except at ranges that endanger the FF.
Also the drones don't need to hit, they just need to force the FF to keep her battle speed at 12 or more which cut into her ability to arm Photons (whilst doing everything else she needs to do).
A FF that is doing less than speed 12 in an open space duel is doing one of two things.
Preparing to weasel, or surrender.
If you fly at less than speed 12, you're putting too much power into the photons. They don't have to be fired with 16 points, especially on a frigate, where reducing both photons to 14 points gives you 6 hexes of speed.
If you don't overload your photons then your two photons becomes about as useful as his two Y-era Disruptors.
Plus The D4 is so much better at EW because it can generate it with raw power ( which it has lots of) where as the FF is looking to get a shift ( 4ECCM + 1ECM probably but also 5 ECM ) but that eats into about 15 hexes of movement.
The 12 hexes per turn referance was each and every turn. There will be some turns where the FF is loading Photons ( partularly if frontloading ) performing defensive EW ( 5 points of power!?! ) plus repairing a shield with DamCon plus recharging the Phasers caps (upto 4 points of power). A pair of SS be they 1+3+1 or 3+3+1 will also deeply eat into your power.
All in all, the Fed FF can park for reasons other than surrender or starcastling and limiting those extra reasosn with type V drones is a good thing for the D4.