Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through July 10, 2002	25		07/10 04:42am

See, I want to see the F&E mauler reduced to not being able to get 1:1 damage against anything but bases.

By Jonathan Perry (Jonathan_Perry) on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 08:08 am: Edit

Cfant - exactly. The F&E mauler needs to be based off of the SFB mauler, not the other way around. The F&E mauler is an unholy monster.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 08:47 am: Edit

Preach on brother, preach on

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 09:08 am: Edit

Sounds like the F&E Mauler is busted.

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 09:17 am: Edit

I'm not suggesting the SFB mauler should be upgraded as much as it is for F&E. But I would like to see it upgraded enough so that I might actually want to have it in some situations.

The psedo-exception to this is that I might just choose to play some of the moderm Rom maulers as they have more phasers and can possibly cloak while recharging.

But then again - probably not.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 09:27 am: Edit

The Rom FHF still carries two Type S torps yes?

By John Trauger (Vorlon) on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 11:36 am: Edit

Oh Yes.

Makes it one of the best maulers in the game because of it.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 12:08 pm: Edit

It is also one of the best cruisers in the game because of it.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 12:11 pm: Edit

Is it also the best kitchen sink because of it?

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 12:21 pm: Edit

Yeah, a kitchen sink with racing stripes.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 12:23 pm: Edit

hehe...whoo hoo!!

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 02:17 pm: Edit

David a Slatter,
In F&E, a Mauler costs the same as a BC, not 30% more. If you convert a cruiser into a mauler you pay more than if you build a mauler. Same is true for some of the other conversions.

By John Trauger (Vorlon) on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 09:01 am: Edit

Jeremy,

Perhaps your mileage was different but as a lone cruiser, I found the FHF tends to suck if it can't break off from combat to recharge the mauler batteries.

EA is easy though, once the initial battery charge is used up. You only need to worry about the stuff that has to be allocated. You can simply throw the rest into reserve power and use as needed.

By Steven Edward Ehrbar (See) on Monday, August 05, 2002 - 08:04 am: Edit

You don't need improvments to mauler tech itself. You just need X batteries. For example, take a FHFX (a FHX with F modules instead of Ks). 84 points worth of energy in the mauler batteries, on hull that also carries two plasma-Ms.

By Jonathan Perry (Jonathan_Perry) on Monday, August 05, 2002 - 11:23 am: Edit

That's disgusting.

By John Trauger (Vorlon) on Monday, August 05, 2002 - 12:58 pm: Edit

and scary.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 06:55 am: Edit

No, a KHXF would be scary. A Killer Hawk with X tech and F modules.

7xPH-1
2xPL-M-FP
1xPL-R-FA
2xMaul (about 24 X-btty)

Of course it only fires once, then drifts off, a burning reck from the shock.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 01:36 pm: Edit

...or as long as we're being silly, a KHXK.

By Robert Eddy (Tar_Zhay) on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 03:40 pm: Edit

For improvements of X-Maulers you should
1) Decrease the shock effect
2) Mildly increase the range for damage
3) Remove the engine blowout.
4) Only give it to Romulans (the creator of the mauler)

By Robert Eddy (Tar_Zhay) on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 03:44 pm: Edit

...or as long as we're being silly, a MegaHalk-X mauler...

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 05:32 pm: Edit

Nah. STLX. Just so you can take a full alpha from a Fed CX without marking off a shield box.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 09:53 pm: Edit

Forget the STLX. Give the WYN "Nancy" Mauler X Batts. That'll let you one shot a SB.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 12:46 am: Edit

I was thinking about a new kind of mauler firing mode.

Rather than firing a traditional beam of energy at the target, the mauler would in fact simply allow the electricity store in her BTTYs to jump ( in a directed a superluminally assisted manner ) to the target ship where upon the massive electrical jolt would short out curcuitry and fry componants, whilst having no a greatly reduced chance of harming the crew aboard that vessel.

• The damage would be one point of damage per point of electrical power ( fractions result in no damage but are consumed ) but the damage would be directed to target systems via the NVC DAC with miss results being counted as rolls on the conventional DAC.
• The damage to the systems are in the form of blown fuses and thus can be repaired with one point of CDR each as per Inactive Systems (G30).
• Electrical Discharges and smoldering control pannels are unlikely to harm the crew and thus damage scored via this mechanism detroys one Crew Unit every 40 damage points ( instead of every tenth ).
• Any Fire against a shield boxes ( or reinforcement acting as a sheild box ) will absorb 2 points of damage that is generated this way.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 11:27 am: Edit

MJC;

This seems to me to violate the spirit (though not quite the letter) of "D-Combat:" section of the "Auto Reject List". Among the specifc prohibitons:

"Any weapon that only affects crew or disables warp engines (would result in too many captured ships)."

"Any weapon that only affects sensors (or only scanners or only special sensors). These are rejected because they would provide a "cheap mission kill" capability that dis-rupted the tempo of battle."

and

"Improvements in non-violent combat."

Granted, your proposal doesn't explicitly violate the first two. But the only argument you could make for it not violating the third is that the capability is restricted to a weapon which itself has severe limitations in range and firing arc. I'm not sure that's sufficient to avoid regarding this as a violation of the "Improvements in non-violent combat" prohibition. But even if I grant that it isn't a violation, the proposal still seems to me to violate the "spirit" as illustrated by all three of the above examples.

By Steve Cain (Stevecain) on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 04:29 am: Edit

The only improvement I want out of a mauler is it to be mounted on an x-tech KB-10.
Step 1. Fly under mine field.
Step 2. Decloak at Range 2 and fry the SB in one blast.


***IF*** a mauler were to fire range 15+ it needs to have a BIG penalty. I suggest .25 damage:1 Power. The idea of the mauler was a massive shortrange blast. Give it range and it becomes an uberweapon

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 10:57 am: Edit

A.T.:

Yeah, it could also violate the spirit of the non-directed damage restriction.

I was just looking for a space lightening bolt, but I suspect you are right in the final outworking.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Sunday, April 01, 2007 - 06:17 am: Edit

To make the SFB version reflect its F&E performance, only 2 changes need be made.

First, any battery group hooked up to the Mauler Cannon can't be used for ANY purpose except to power the Mauler.

Second, when a Mauler is fired against an immobile unit (like, say, bases) it does double damage all the way out to max range.