| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 07:55 am: Edit |
Quote: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.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 06:31 pm: Edit |
To some extent it depends one were you want to take disruptors.
A ratio of 3:2 between Disruptors (that arn't much better than X1 Disruptors) and photons ( 24 point Photons ) holds together quite well.
Probably a ratio of 1:1 between Heavy Disruptors and (20 point) photons holds together quite well too.
Personnally I like the big stick of six disruptors (that are only more flexible over X1 disruptors) for the same reason I like 24 point Photons; a return to real racial flavour. And my reasoning is heavily weighted by the fact that 12Ph-1s or 8Ph-5s are worth about 12Ph-1s which means if X2 ships do do more damage, it'll all be comming from heavy weapons which in turn is a good thing if we are looking to increase racial flavour.
Also four Heavy Disruptors are pumping out 26.66 points of damage at R8 which is so close to the 30 points of damage being pushed out by six X1 Disruptors ( for 8 more power such that one could argue that it's only a net output of 22) that the heavy disruptors keep their photon-like ability to just pull down GW-cruiser-shields at will.
Six X1 Disruptors might seem like they can do a lot of damage but the jackpot is so uncommon that one can say that four heavy disruptors is photon-like because it has a much higher rate of jackpotting (1.44 times more likely).
Six X1 Disruptors is actually disruptor-like. If a good likelihood of hitting generating a jackpot that's not much higher than average damage is disruptor-like then six X1 Disruptors is more disruptor-like than four heavy disruptors.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 09:12 pm: Edit |
If you have an increase in damage of X1 Photons to X2 Photons because you're trading in four R15 fastloaded Proxies followed up by four R8 12 point fastloads ( 50% x four x 4 plus 50% x four x 12 = 32 damage ) for 20 point two turn photons (50% x four x 20 = 40 damage ) then allowing the X2 disruptors to keep the "Disruptor Tsunami" of six X1 Disruptors isn't going to kill the feel of the Disruptor and make it too photon like; it'll cause the Disruptor to feel disruptor like.
In my opinion, the more we exsentuate the Photon Jackpot-wiff dynamic and the Disruptor generating damage-that-is-consistantly-close-to-the-average; the more we return racial flavour.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 08:29 pm: Edit |
The only thing any comparison to EY illustrates in this context is how easy it is for advanced tech to mess up BPV equality.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 05:11 am: Edit |
Or perhaps it shows that BPV is built on a special set of criteria, thus squardon Vs single ships engagements and people who onlky ever play on a floating map can cause the whole BPV system to be messed up.
| By Allan MacKenzie-Graham (Amg) on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 11:05 pm: Edit |
Yep. The FF vs. D4 was pretty one sided, but it was the Ph-1's that were the real difference. I can see how a PC would mop the floor with a D4. F5 vs. YCA was more fun. OL DISR made a difference.
Anyways, my point was that GW vs. X2 is going to be inherently unbalanced. The Ph-V is going to be the death of GW ships. I don't think that heavies will have as great an impact. Sure you have to enter OL range to get a good Ph-V shot, but I don't think it will be enough. It will be quick and merciful!
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 01:33 am: Edit |
Was the map fixed or floating?
| By Allan MacKenzie-Graham (Amg) on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 09:55 am: Edit |
Fixed map. No EW (my friend doesn't like using the EW rules.) FF kept speed up by not loading PHOT. The damage/power ratio of the Ph-1 made it possible to fire every turn without slowing. Speed allowed the FF to dictate the range (5). D4 fired DISR and Ph-2, but the damage per turn was almost always in favor of the FF. Basically I saber-danced with the FF. My friend conceeded after several turns. Perhaps things would have been different if he had starcastled, but that particular strategy takes the fun out of the game.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 12:30 pm: Edit |
...and you end up running outside his effective range, loadig up OL photons and blowing him apart.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 01:18 pm: Edit |
I think the Ph-5 will not mop the floor with GW because the X2 ships will be nearly twice the BPV of GW ships. GW will have roughly twice the Ph-1's which will do about 80% more damage.
The Ph-5 will be what lets the X2 ship survive by juditious use of maneuver and range control. It's tactics aimed at X2 strengths that will make or break the battle.
Remember, the Ph-5 does only moderately more damage and has a more predictable output curve but isn't twice what a Ph-1 is. X2 ships will have about the same number of weapons mounts as GW as well.
I think the more difficult to balance with the X1 vs. X2. It should be fairly easy to put two GW against any one X2. That will be harder with X1.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 01:51 pm: Edit |
Absolutely. A Fed XCA with six to eight P5's will do less damage up close than a CX, and has less phaser padding to boot. The P5 is a great phaser, but not a game breaker if deployed judiciously on the SSD's. The flavor for X2 should come from heavy weapons, not phasers.
| By Allan MacKenzie-Graham (Amg) on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 06:38 pm: Edit |
I think that the speed 31 limit is crucial to the GW/X1/X2 dynamic. The problem with my FF/D4 battle was that the D4 couldn't go fast enough to control the range. It's only hope was to close to where it's weapons were more effective than the FFs, but it couldn't. The FF could always go a little faster. GW ships will be able to run at speed 31 as well as X1 and X2, just firing less weapons. I imagine that BPV would function better in this scenario than in EY/MY. BTW, I would be interested in a strategy for beating the FF with a D4. Short of terrible luck with the dice, I can't see how the D4 can win.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 07:36 pm: Edit |
Quote:Fixed map. No EW (my friend doesn't like using the EW rules.) FF kept speed up by not loading PHOT. The damage/power ratio of the Ph-1 made it possible to fire every turn without slowing. Speed allowed the FF to dictate the range (5). D4 fired DISR and Ph-2, but the damage per turn was almost always in favor of the FF. Basically I saber-danced with the FF. My friend conceeded after several turns. Perhaps things would have been different if he had starcastled, but that particular strategy takes the fun out of the game.
Quote:I think the Ph-5 will not mop the floor with GW because the X2 ships will be nearly twice the BPV of GW ships. GW will have roughly twice the Ph-1's which will do about 80% more damage.
| By Allan MacKenzie-Graham (Amg) on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 01:09 am: Edit |
"Mop the floor" wasn't my phrase, but your point is well taken. I love the F5, so I was eager to try a new battle. Maybe we'll revisit the FF/D4 in the not too distant future, tho.
What I mean by Ph-V killing GW ships was that if X2 has the benefit of speed and maneuver, it will set the range. In this case 8, where its Ph-Vs are much better than 1.5 Ph-1s and the exchange of heavies will be a wash.
Also, 6 OL DISR at range 0 have a great crunch, but so do 4 OL PHOT and the DX would be foolish to wander that close to a ship that could do that, no matter how many batteries you have to burn on shield reinforcement. Yeah, you can dish out a bunch, but you better be ready to receive, and the DX suffers greatly once the shields come down. With 6 disruptors I'm going to pound your shields down at range 15 and then come in for the kill, just like the old days. I'm not going to close and hose because its too much of a crap shoot, or if too close, certain death (or at least crippling.) I rather the higher percentage win.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 04:23 am: Edit |
I applogise for wrongly attributing the quote to you.
I don't think the Klingon will have Ph-5s so let's pretent a Lyran XCA has six disruptors and 6Ph-5s ( with two pairs of Ph-6s to the rear ).
Yeah it can Sabre Dance with six Standard Disruptors at R15 for about 12 points of damage and a further 8 points of damage from 4 bearing Ph-5s in an oblique at that range.
But 20 points of damage will be something of a wash against the target which will be a DNH or a CCX which can either raw-power/iron-jaw or BTTY/IRON-JAWTM its way through that kind of damage and the shields are quite extensive so the ability to sabre dance against a ship will be about equal to what the Original D7 Vs CA battle was...sabre dance doesn't win the battle; the sabre dance causes the other guy to eject hit photons and then the O.L.-pass-through-against-empty-phottubes wins the battle.
If a Fed XFF has 2 X2 Photons (24 pointers ) and two GX drone race and three Ph-5s and comes in at around 130 BPV, it'll square off against a Fed NCLa+ in BPV.
2 x 24 Photons seems like a lot until you realise that the NCLa+ has 4 by 16.
2 bearing Ph-5s generating 2 points of damage each seems productive until you realise that the NCLa+ can bear some 4 Ph-1s for 1 points of damage ( no shift ) each right back at you.
2 GX-racks seem handy until you remeber that a G-rack can be an ADD-8.
It'll then fall back down to the old equation of technical advantage against superior numbers; some tactics lend a hand to one side more than they do the other and those tactics that lend a hand to your side should be employed by you.
Even if there was a shift going against the NCLa+. The XFF will generate at R8 some 24 points of photon damage and 7 points of Ph-5 damage against 6 points of phaser damage and 21.66 points of photon damage.
50% x 2 x 24 + 2 x 3.5 Vs 33% x 4 x 16 + 4 x 1.5
If you talking about R12 sabre danacing with anegative shift against the NCLa+:-
The XFF fires off 12 pointers ( every turn, fastloaded standards ) for an average of 16 points of damage plus phaser damage of 5.33 points whilst the NCLa+ ( if she chooses to fire her photons) will generate 10.33 points of damage and add to it a further 4 points of phaser damage.
66% x 2 x 12 + 2 x 2.66 Vs 4 x 33% x 8 + 4 x 1
So in the end, massed numbers of Ph-1s can beat the long range abilities of Ph-5s but careful use of the Ph-5 can scratch the surface of the GW vessel long enough to make the GW vessel make a critical mistake. Which in the end is what the sabre dance is all about.
The trouble with keeping the initative by having the faster speed is that it costs a hell of a lot of your surplus power. To then perform EW and recharge your weapons (you'll note you chose to forgo the photons) really does eat into your surplus power.
How long did it take to actually breach a shield or did your opponant surrender when he calculated forward and found that eventually you'ld win?
Being able to take away seven or so shield boxes per turn would have ment hitting that same shield three times before there would be trouble.
Heck with a ship that could generate about 12 points of general shield reinforcement, maybe he should have starcastled!
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 04:31 am: Edit |
Actually X1 probably had the biggest change on the Photon-must-hold-until-he-gets-a-clear-shot dogma.
If your X1 Photons are overloaded and you can't hit the other guy because he refusses to get into overload range. Eject 'em! Sometime between Impulse 25 and the end of the turn and the other guy has got 8 impulses ( rather than 32+ ) to come in for the kill and with huge quantities of reserve warp power, the Fed X1 vessel can make some pretty nice little fastloaded overloads.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 01:30 am: Edit |
You know, I'm begining to really like the Fully Intergrated UIM + DERFACs Concept as it leaves the table with just three lines; To Hit, Standard Damage and Overload damage.
It just looks so clean.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 10:08 am: Edit |
I was talking to my brother about X2 and came to a bit of a calculation.
A Fed CX generating 12 point fastloads generates 24 damage at R8 and 48 damage at R0 for 24 power.
If the Klingons were to mount FOUR X2 Disruptors that had; a disruptor Cap, built in UIM/DERFACs and a six impulse double broad side penalty.
It would generate 20 damage at R8 and 40 damage at R0 and do it for 8 fewer point of power (or less due to the cap').
These abilitys are in fact extentions of X1 abilities.
Disruptor Caps are an extention of disruptor holding.
Built in UIM/DERFACs is and extention of the UIM BURNOUT changes of X1.
6 Impulse Double Broadside penalty is a responce to the Feds two turn arming followed with Fastloads.
Taking this into account. I think the Klingons might not go for four heavy disruptors. I think they might just go for four disruptors that are only more flexible than X1 Disruptors.
I'm begining to think that match the Klingon refit of Four to Six disruptors matchs in time with the Fed Developing the ability to add more than 6 point of power in a turn ( but lossing the ability to hold or complete such photons on latter turns.
In this way 20 damage from four disruptors matches alternately fired 24 point photons (for 24 damage) at R8 and also 30 points of damage from Six disruptors matches Four Fastloaded 16 point photons (for 32 damage).
The Klingons in both such situations would be running around with 8 more power up their sleeves to offset their lower damage outputs.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |