Archive through May 30, 2006
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 Phasers / Ph-5 and Ph-6: Archive through May 30, 2006
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 12:40 pm: Edit

The original Ph-5 developement didn't happen in THIS thread. There are many very good reasons why it is the way it is. Ya, sure we wanted to increase the range so that X2 would be a bit more dancing that close-and-hose but there isn't much point to encuraging fighting at those ranges. Those ranges are the realm of heavy weapons. Study the P-5 table and think of the ranges of other weapons.

The established P-5 table is fine. And yes, there are minor differences in a few proposals but the weapon is the same in general concept.

If someone wants to redesign the X2 phaser then please don't try to toss out all our earlier hard work. Call it something else and let the Ph-5 stand as it has for YEARS NOW.

Please.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 01:32 pm: Edit

We're talking four years.

If you want to propose a phaser, call it something else. SVC will sort it out when it's time.

If it ever is.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 06:15 pm: Edit

Dan, if you want to call them Ph-A and Ph-B then go right ahead. The basic point is that there is no convention. For that matter if you wanted to call them Ph-Blipple and Ph-Kondlat that would just as easily fit the bill.

CMC rightly points out that SVC has made no decision so the table really is open. It's just most of the people who've been conributing to the X2 board over the past couple of years have resorted to the Ph-5 and Ph-6 convention mostly out of convenience (that and what Loren said).

I jokingly point out that the G in Ph-G looks like an unfinished 6 so maybe it was supposed to be Ph-6 but the guy writing the report forgot to close the loop. This might imply that the Ph-5 was actually the weaker version of the Ph-4, which we might presume to be the Mega-Phaser (also known as Ph-M).

That would imply the new X2 phasers would start with Ph-7 and go from there.

Meh, whatever.

Lately I've taken to referring to the X1 phaser as Ph-1X. So now I wonder if I should call what we generally refer to as the Ph-5 the Ph-X1. But then that would be confusing since it might imply an X1 phaser instead of an X2 phaser. But then you can't call it a Ph-X2 because someone might mistake it as some kind of advanced Ph-2.

Is anyone still reading this? I for one am chewing on tinfoil.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 12:12 am: Edit

Quote:

Why does this not surprise me?


Do you feel comfortable with a 33% chance of 1 point of damage from a phaser ( look at all the galactic power phasers ) at the most extreme range bracket???
They all end in 1 chance in six of 1 point of damage (Ph-1, Ph-2, Ph-3 & Ph-4...you could say the Ph-G doesn't but I'ld argue that the Ph-3 chart it's based off does and therefore it falls into that same category even if the one point of damage is one chance in 1296).

Therefore having a Ph-5 called a Ph-7 with a better targeting computer that allows it to be better at range 16 and beyond such that it can get out to R100 with a one in six chance of 1 point of damage seems like a cool spot for the Ph-7 slot ( which frees up the Ph-4 analog to be called the Ph-8 which most poeple like the sound of ).


As a side note I for one would like the X2 Phaser-G analog to be called the Phaser-Q (Ph-Q). They would then be the Gattling Phaser and the Quick Phaser. But hardly anybody thinks that would be a cool name.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 12:34 am: Edit

If we take the conventional Ph-5 table (the one I've been using anyway) and look at the ranges from R16 and beyond.

Die Roll R16-25 R26-50 R51-75 R76-100
1 3 2 1 Nil
2 2 1 1 Nil
3 1 1 0 Nil
4 1 0 0 Nil
5 0 0 0 Nil
6 0 0 0 Nil


Can be improved without too much of an increase in firepower but still giving the X2 ships an effective long range sniping ability and a final range where their is a one in six chance of 1 point of damage.
Die Roll R16-25 R26-50 R51-75 R76-100
1 3 3 2 1
2 2 2 1 0
3 2 1 0 0
4 1 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 01:20 am: Edit

R75 limit is good. It's not a function of the beam reaching out its the firing platform. A moving platform just isn't going to be able to pin point that well. Only the Base phasers and planet phasers should be able to reach that far.

AND there is no improvement to the game to make the Ph-5 reach out that far. NO ONE starts at R100.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 09:54 am: Edit

Quote:

Do you feel comfortable with a 33% chance of 1 point of damage from a phaser ( look at all the galactic power phasers ) at the most extreme range bracket???



Yes, because instead of analyzing the charts, I played it out. It works just fine as it is. No ship mounted phaser needs a range of 100. Period.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 10:10 am: Edit

Why is range 100 even an issue?!?

At ranges aproaching 100, you have 1 chance in every 6 phaser 5 shots (using MJC's table) of getting a single hit for 1 point.

Even fleets with many such phaser 5's would have terrible results compared to the energy expended.

I don't understand why this is needed.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 01:30 pm: Edit

Jeff, only an issue because MJC asked if it was needed.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 06:45 pm: Edit

Loren, Thank you for the answer, but I still fail to understand why it is needed.

Looking at MJC proposed phaser 5 table, it appears to me that at ranges greater than 26 hexes, there is a base 50% chance of missing with each shot (and that is assuming no net effect of electronic warfare). and even if a hit is registered, there is only about a 1/6 chance of inflicting 3 points of damage per each phaser 5 fired.

To me, that means that any battle that starts at range 100 between ships with phaser 5's will do little (if any) material damage at all ranges greater than 26 hexes...

Does SFB's really need to go in this direction?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 07:03 pm: Edit

NO.

The tables we developed -WAY back when- are fine. Which ever one they are basically similar, just a point or two here and there difference.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 07:19 pm: Edit

Loren, Thank you.

Enuff said, I think!

By Dan Doulas (Magnum357) on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 07:23 pm: Edit

Thanks for the info guys. I was just curious in why these Advanced Phaser Purposals were called PH-5 and 6. It really doesn't matter too me. I can live with them called PH-5 and 6, and since SVC hasn't decided what to do with X2 yet, its all academic anyways. Actually, I like how it was explained that Ph-5 and 6 where setup that way due to traditon of how a Ph-1 and 3 are setup with Increasing Firepower with Lower numbered Phasers. And I do agree that if there is X2 Base Phasers, I wouldn't mind seeing them listed as Ph-7 or something. Guess it keeps with Tradition I suppose.

I have seen this "Mega Phaser" talked about above on a few Fan created SSD's. I don't have P6 so I don't know what they are all about, but what is a Mega Phaser? From what I have seen of the Damage Tables of Ph-m's, they look too be as powerful as Ph-4. What is the basis of having a Ph-m?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 07:35 pm: Edit

The megaphaser was a fan-produced idea based on the phasers seen on the Reliant roll-bar in ST:II. The phaser mount shown is several times bigger than a normal "ball turret" phaser; so, fans decided to call it a mega-phaser. The SFB version of this requires it to be mounted in a wing assembly, with a battery and APR per phaser. The wing can be added to any ship (one phaser on SC4 ships, two on SC3 and SC2 with the exception of BB's, which can mount two forward and one aft). Said wing reduces your turn mode by one.

They do indeed do 20 points of damage maximum, and require two points to fire. They are not part of the ships capacitor system. They also use the mauler firing arc. The original P5 concept was to cut the PM table in half; then it was tweaked a bit to give it a better damage curve at the ranges we wanted, and voila, there it was. Speaking as someone who has played the mega-phaser rules, they are a boot in the butt to play, but I'm glad they aren't official. It's truly amazing what you can do to someone with four overloaded photons and a pair of megaphasers at close range...

By Ed Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 09:31 pm: Edit

Mike,

Megaphasers are part of the capaciator system, see E107.13. Also the turn mode is not affected. See Captains log 18 Page 39"this rule(E107.21) about megaphasers 'not affecting' turn mode and breakdown is correct and rule (E107.241) is wrong"
Unless something has been printed elsewhere these are the last published notes I have seen.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 10:00 pm: Edit

The short, short version:

Alpha quadrant phasers are already calld ph-1, ph-2, ph-3, ph-4. So, ph-5 and ph-6 seemed like logical names for the new phasers that come out in X2.

As to the chart, there was some playtesting of a ph-5 that mimiced a half-strength mega-phaser, and it proved to be way too powerful for most people's tastes, so a new one was developed on the BBS about 3 years (!?) ago.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 01:15 am: Edit

Here is my old version of the Type-V Phaser.

I based it off a plan for 2X ships to engage in a slightly longer ranges than GW/1X ships. Hereby giving the new ships the ability to beat the old ships w/o becoming combat monsters. By simply pushing the range tables out a bracket. (Note: That wasn't exactly what I did but it's a close enough approximation.)

The Top end of the chart simply had to do more damage than a P-1. Since the P-5 cost 1.5 power to arm. The bottom of the table needed to allow Type-IV and Type-VII drones to "leak" through the range one point defense, to give drone chuckers a chance. While the top end of the chart had to simulate the 33% chance of killing of a Type-VIII drone. So thats why the basic point blank numbers were picked.

Also I wanted the P-5 to be less efficient at close ranges to cut down on the old close and hose tactic which made previous X-Ships less fun to play. At close ranges an equal power IE 12 P-1 compared to 8 P-5 the P-1's will out damage the P-5 by a small but signifigant extent. While at medium to extreme ranges the P-5 is at least (if not more so) equal in power to damage efficiency as a P-1.

(I did a LONG data break down on it and am not going to go dig it up again.)

I know my table is not the favored version. But I still feel that it is the most realistically playable version.

BTW: I based my drone kill decisions on needing a standard (1 space) X2 drones not being impossible for only 2 P-1 to kill. But thats another thread entirely. Since 2X ships will have many more options available to them the need was there to give the point defense against 2X drones as being less effective than compared to "olden" times. Causing the ships to fire downgraded phasers or use the P-6 (which is a P-III equivalent.)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 01:58 am: Edit

Sigh, I was hoping that we wouldn't have to rehash the entire debate by reposting everything we did before. I guess I'll need to dig up the other versions too. Tos can repost his.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 03:08 am: Edit

Loren,

Excuse me....

I posted the table I worked up a good while back and the reasoning behind it. I'm not arguing about if it should be used. But the data points I made do need to be considered for any succesful weapon design.

1. Per SVC orders 2X MUST play nice with GW/X1.

2A. That means that there must be a chance in a duel situation for GW drones to get through the point blank defenses. (Duels will rarely see more than 6-8 drones in flight that are immediate threats at a time, except for DB ships.)

2B. By general concensus I thought that 2X ships weren't going to be combat monsters. With the Xship progression in mind. a XFF should stand a decent chance in a battle with a BCH (Since most FX stand up well agaisnt CC's.) That means that with the no 10pt EW generation from SVC's comments that there has to be some reason for a XFF to stay further out than pure overload range. (Which is why I went with a longer range apptroach sacrificing close in power.)

3A. 2x 1 Space drones will probably be 8/24. (It matches the GW-X1 increase.) That enables a P-1 to have a 16% chance of killing a single drone. While 2 of them are auto kills. And 2P3 have a good shot at killing it. With 3p3 being Auto-Kills.

3B. The 2 space would be 10/30. (Using same progression.) So 2 P-1 should kill a two spacer. It's just not a certainty. 2P3 though would only annoy the drone and would not give you any kills while 3 of them would almost certainly kill it while allowing a small chance for the drone to slip through.

3C. This means that 2P-5 should kill a two space drone dead, and thatthere should be some chance for a single shot to take one out.

4. P-5's should be auto kill for Type-1 GW drones. So they have to do at least 4 damage at R1. But IMO there should be a chance for a Type-IV to slip through.

This is one of the main concerns I have. Should the IV of a a GW ship have the ability to get past the point defense fire of a P-5?

I am NOT trying to re-invent the wheel here. These are very important game balance design points. And I was tryuing to air my concerns.

Basic drones are balanced against the P-1. So if we work the P-5 with that general criteria in mind we should be able to come up with a decent design that would be fairly well balnced. And the drone numbers I posted for X2 should really only be debated in the XDrone thread.

I REALLY don't want a bunch of new tables floating around. But I know there are at least half a dozen P-5 tables running around. So I really have no idea what the "OFFICIAL" P5 even looks like any more.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 03:47 am: Edit

Kenneth, I don't mean to sound like I have a problem with your proposal. Your points are as strong as ever. I know this is a repost. I have a copy of your table saved on my computer.

Its just that reposting it now over shadows the old posts. New readers will just see yours and assume that's the current accepted design. I happen to prefer my own table that was fairly well accepted in its time and with which I spent a great deal of effort utilizing my long experience playing the game. In other words, I put a lot of thought into that table too.

***Naturally ALL proposals are just that and SVC will likely do his own thing (as he has clearly stated is likely).***

So, rather than have people look back into the archives I have the feeling that for my proposal to be even seen, I'll have to repost.

But YOU have the total right to repost you proposal. I just had hoped that the recent revival of discussion wouldn't lead to a rash proposal repeats.

I hope you won't feel that I'm trying to up step you when I do repost the old Ph-5 tables. I don't want to appear to or have a situation of one-upmanship. My concern was that this could happen and there could be bad feelings. I respect you a lot and want to avoid that. But I don't want the other proposals (not just my own)skipped over either.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 06:58 am: Edit

Frankly I don't see any real way to do the P-5 to meet all those criteria without a table looking much like the one I posted. (At least the early ranges.)

The biggest problem is that there isn't as smooth of a transition between one die result and another. (Which is a point you made way back when.) So the table is kind of granular. But with only 6 possible results it kind of gets forced into that result.

Doing a 2d6 table would produce a much steadier die result. But then it simply wouldn't LOOK like a phaser table. (IMO)

But there are a few ranges which you have to build the table around if it's going to be the new P-1.
Range: 0,1,5,8,15

Advocating for longer engagement ranges:
1. There is only so much you can up gun ships in overload range. (Thats what X1 is really, with only a minor extended range improvement.)

2. If X2 is going to be a new design philosophy then the ranges for engagement should be pushed out. But Overload ranges should NOT be extended by any means because that would completely kill any GW engagement.

3. Since all ships have phasers then boosting the effective engagement ranges there will result in the biggest bang for the buck.

The P-5 could be the make or break item for 2X so I want it to be as well balanced as possible. Or we could have another Supplement#2 or F1 on our hands. (And I sure don't want another unsatisfying bandaid approach to fixing the problem.)

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 07:53 am: Edit

I have to disagree with some of that, Ken. I agree with the spirit of your points; that X2 shouldn't be a module of combat hog ships, and should play nicely with GW/X1. I don't agree with your interpretations of how that must be portrayed, though.

Quote:

1. Per SVC orders 2X MUST play nice with GW/X1.



No one disagrees and the P5 chart that's been in use for a couple of years now does not violate this dictum in the least. I have played it, I know. It is a better phaser, but when mounted in limited quantities (say six on a cruiser) it is hardly an unbalancing super weapon.

Quote:

2A. That means that there must be a chance in a duel situation for GW drones to get through the point blank defenses. (Duels will rarely see more than 6-8 drones in flight that are immediate threats at a time, except for DB ships.)



Not so. X1 ships, right now, can easily deal with drones chucked at them in a duel. Take a DX, fight against an equal BPV of GW ships. Watch the drones die, die, die. Part of the reason for this is the rapid-pulse of X1 phasers and the enormous number of them mounted on X1 frames. Most of the proposed X2 ships I've seen on the boards have far less phasers mounted on them...and less chance to nail a horde of drones. Again, the existing P5/P6 works fine as it is if mounted in reasonable numbers. One of the key points in creating it was just that; that it would be mounted in roughly 2/3 the number as X1 phasers would be. So if an X1 Fed has 9 XP1's, a corresponding X2 Fed has six P5's. That's how I did my ships, and others too. It works.

Quote:

4. P-5's should be auto kill for Type-1 GW drones. So they have to do at least 4 damage at R1. But IMO there should be a chance for a Type-IV to slip through.

This is one of the main concerns I have. Should the IV of a a GW ship have the ability to get past the point defense fire of a P-5?



The existing P5 can only autokill a Type IV drone at range 0. A P1 can do the same 66% of the time. If my X2 cruiser has six P5's and the X1 Cruiser has 10 P1's, the math works out; both ships are going to be able to kill an equal number of type IV drones at range 0. The question should not be "can a type IV drone get past the point defense fire of a P5", but should instead be "can a type IV drone get past the point defense fire of an X2 ship". The answer should be yes, and you get that answer, again, by mounting the appropriate number of P5's.

I don't object to new ideas for X2; not at all. But in reading your posts, Ken, it sounds as if you've decided that the P5 the board designed a couple years back is broken. I disagree, and I've shown why. I've played it, against other X2 ships, X1 and GW, and it works fine as it is. Not to say there isn't something better, but dismissing it out of hand? No, I can't agree with that. I know an X2 ship with six P5's cannot handle drones as well as an X1 ship of the same size. As it exists right now, the P5 we've been using will not break X2 unless people try to deploy it like X1, and the tacit agreement behind it's design was that we wouldn't. I certainly haven't, and I don't know anyone else who has proposed a ship that has, either.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 11:25 am: Edit

Since Ph-4s can already reach R100 and base assaults don't start out at further than R100, we wouldn't be forced to have combat at those extreme ranges by having a Ph-7 as I've posted.
However having a Ph-7 that can do considerably better damage in the R26-50 range bracket does help the Feds push up the results of their R26-40 proxy photon vollies ( particularly when reserving phasers for firing the impulse after a photon strike is generated).
The ranges are fairly long and would only really be a useful advantage to fleet sized battles but then setting the weapon for late in the X2 period ( say Y220 ) when full fleets of X2 vessels might not be impossible to imagine (depending on what happens witht he Xorks ) would become workible.

I wasn't saying we need the Ph-7 now, just that we might leave the Ph-7 blank and and use the base mounted phaser as the Ph-8 and we'll be free to have a Ph-7 at some latter time.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 11:51 am: Edit

Quote:

2A. That means that there must be a chance in a duel situation for GW drones to get through the point blank defenses. (Duels will rarely see more than 6-8 drones in flight that are immediate threats at a time, except for DB ships.)


This is not automatically the case.
Since IF & IVF drones can chase down X2 ships, by merely heavily drawing upon the capasitor to slow the ship down to speed where the GW vessel is travelling ( Speed 24???) then the drones have done their work even if none actually hit. GW ships arn't dependant on seeking weapons like EY ship might have been and and so long as you can drain power with phaser use; the non-hitting of drones can still gain victory.
This is even true of the MY period, where a Fed CL fighting a Kzinti CS can deal with; four type V drones using six pairs of Ph-3 shots and a BTTY tractor combo or four type II drones with four Ph-1 shots. Slip-past is NOT a dealbreaker. Although slip-past and X-Aegis does create it's own Power DrainTM.

Quote:

2B. By general concensus I thought that 2X ships weren't going to be combat monsters. With the Xship progression in mind. a XFF should stand a decent chance in a battle with a BCH (Since most FX stand up well agaisnt CC's.) That means that with the no 10pt EW generation from SVC's comments that there has to be some reason for a XFF to stay further out than pure overload range. (Which is why I went with a longer range apptroach sacrificing close in power.)


Being able to better R8 damage is the key. The GW ship gets to fire overloads at you but you don't need to (and should like to avoid) closer ranges where your EW shift (if any) is less advantagious.
Going with longer range strikes like R15 can also help frustraight the GW player into dropping his big hammer but shouldn't be a game breaker...you should need to gamble with the possibility that the GW ship can hammer you in order to beat the GW ship in an X2 vessel.
Where the BPVs fit is anybody's guess and I'ld say BCH was powerful stuff even for my XFF+ design (which I hope is in the realm of a CCH).

Quote:

This is one of the main concerns I have. Should the IV of a a GW ship have the ability to get past the point defense fire of a P-5?


It's probably not an issue. The IVF drone won't be shot down by a Ph-5 shot but rather a rapid pulsed pair of Ph-6 shots using X-Aegis to avoid overkill. Assuming the Ph-5 can rapid pulse (and/or the Ph-6 has some chance of a direct kill against an IVF drones). We can't make the Ph-5 too good or there'll be no reason to rapid pulse.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Quote:

As it exists right now, the P5 we've been using will not break X2 unless people try to deploy it like X1, and the tacit agreement behind it's design was that we wouldn't. I certainly haven't, and I don't know anyone else who has proposed a ship that has, either.


Well actually, I have But it's part of the "refit" program which I'm the only one who likes the idea of.
I also would like to see 3Ph-3 shots able to be generated by a Ph-5 to keep it in line with X1 drone defenses, but S-bridge drone knock-downs or Full-X-Aegis could swing my thinking.


On the Ph-5 as an offensive weapon.
The key is to be good enough out to R8 that you must "DARE" to go into overload range.
If we take a fully maxed out Fed XFF+ with five Ph-5s and two 24 point Photons and type X (24/8/40) drones and all round 30 box shields and five point BTTYs (Yes this is going WAY overboard on purpose) and compair against a Fed BCG.
Even if it does get a -1 shift and a +1 shift in it's favour, her drones have some chance of being shot down by the G-racks and B-racks of the BCG and her direct fire weapons can generate (66% x 2 x 24 + 3 x 4.0 (as per K.J.'s table)) 44 points of damage.
The BCG's direct fire back is (4 x 33% x 16 + 8 x 1.5) 33.3 points of damage. And the BCG probably has drones free to fire especially if she uses her Ph-3s to shot down drones (although that's not so good if type X drones really are being slung around so they should just shunt power into capital phasers and then die as needed).
The XFF looks like it's generating more damage but about the time of the third attack run when the Phaser caps are empty and BTTY are flat, the XFF captain realises that the handful of A collum hits has stripped him of 75% of his firepower whilst the BCG has still got two thirds of his. And there's no saying the shift will always be in favour of X2 vessel. If the BCG can somehow make that +1 shift to shoot at the XFF into no shift, the BCG suddenly finds herself firing a collossal 49.33 points of damage which will really really hurt for the XFF.

Getting the Ph-5 to be such a weapon that the X2 vessel must dare to go into overload range is the key to getting the Ph-5 to work. An R8 sweetspot gives us the ability to play well with GW ships and what looks like a technological advancement.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation