By Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 11:41 am: Edit |
X-ships with lots of phasers and power for EW can deal with plasmas more easily. I wanted to figure out a way to help conventional ships mitigate those X-ship advantages without increasing warhead yield. Hopefully the following gives conventional plasmas more "fear factor," especially the classic R-torpedo. (This is proposed for Y200+ conventional units)
Y2C "Super" Plasma
Non-X units with G/S/R plasma torpedoes have the option of firing as "super" plasma. The plasma is armed like an EPT (arming cost) but the effect is to give plasma warheads longer endurance instead of more damage. Thus, the range 10 warhead strength extends out to range 15, and subsequent strengths shift columns to the right (out to the torpedo's normal range).
When fired as "super," the plasma torpedo acts in all ways as a standard plasma but uses the following modified warhead table:
Type | Range 0-5 | 6-10 | 11-12 | 13-14 | 15 | 16-18 | 19 | 20 | 21-23 | 24 | 25 | 26-28 | 29 | 30 |
R (standard) | 50 | 50 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 1 |
R (super) | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 20 | 10 | 5 |
S (standard) | 30 | 30 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 10 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
S (super) | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 15 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
G (standard) | 20 | 20 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 10 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
G (super) | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 15 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Type | Range 0-15 | 16-18 | 19 | 20 | 21-23 | 24 | 25 | 26-28 | 29 | 30 |
R (super) | 50 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 20 | 10 | 5 |
S (super) | 30 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 15 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
G (super) | 20 | 15 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
By Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 05:19 pm: Edit |
To clarify: "super" plasma has the same arming cost as EPT, but it does not envelop. It hits like a standard plasma.
By Jonathan Biggar (Jonb) on Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 12:56 am: Edit |
How does this compare to sabotted plasma? Speed 40 from sabot behaves similarly.
By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 08:18 am: Edit |
And how about X plasmas like the "L"
By Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 04:29 pm: Edit |
Jonathan, I can't answer the sabot thing at present.
MCG, I wouldn't have a problem with it so long as it was limited to a three-turn arming cycle.
(The point is to give non-X plasma units a chance against X-ships)
By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 06:41 pm: Edit |
Ideally the super plasma would also sabot as an a EPT as well. IIRC, this doubles the sabot cost.
By Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, January 15, 2010 - 09:12 pm: Edit |
Revisiting...
JonB, I can see some similarity. If it is problematic, would a workable solution be to either shift the endurance out further or keep the shift as is but reduce the super arming cost to one less than the sabot cost?
JohnT, you suggest speed 40 super plasma in exchange for high arming cost? (e.g. Plasma-R-super-sabot costs 2+2+5+5+4=18 pts) That would be a scary plasma, which admittedly is the point.
By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, January 15, 2010 - 09:29 pm: Edit |
Between sndurance added by super and speed added by sabot, sabot speed is the more useful because it does add 20% on averge to range and gives plasma the ability to pursue more succesfully. Unlike drones, plasma needs to hit at least some of the time.
A super palsma by itself, merely forces the target to run a little farther.
If a super + sabot is too much, I'd go for the sabot.
By Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, January 15, 2010 - 10:00 pm: Edit |
Not necessarily a bad thing... especially if the target ship chooses to burn a phaser or two to stay in combat range instead of run.
Quote:A super palsma by itself, merely forces the target to run a little farther.
By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, January 15, 2010 - 11:01 pm: Edit |
True, but Sabot forces them to run further and faster.
if one has to chose, sabot gets the nod.
Both is naturally better, albeit power-expensive.
By Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 12:07 am: Edit |
If sabot is the better option, then super should cost less so as to keep it a viable option. (i.e. 1 pt less than sabot cost)
A Plasma-R-super-sabot would cost 2+2+5+3+4=16 points.
By Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 12:12 am: Edit |
(Of course if you really want to scare the crap out of someone you could allow that combo to envelop at an additional cost of 5+2=7 points)
By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 02:09 pm: Edit |
Depends.
You might get a charge on your hands.
A 100-pt plasma I can't outrun that I know is going to sandpaper my sheilds badly might just make me say "he put some much into that torp he's weak enough for me to hit him"
OTOH a super + sabot shotgun is a whole different kind of nasty.
By Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 03:16 pm: Edit |
Oh now you're just being mean.
(I like it)
Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |