Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through December 23, 2002	25		12/23 12:53am
	Archive through December 27, 2002	25		12/27 07:21pm
	Archive through January 15, 2003	25		01/15 11:39pm
	Archive through January 22, 2003	25		01/22 06:32pm
	Archive through January 23, 2003	25		01/23 11:23am
	Archive through February 21, 2003	25		02/21 05:31pm
	Archive through March 05, 2003	25		03/05 05:46pm
	Archive through March 28, 2003	25		03/28 10:58pm
	Archive through March 31, 2003	25		03/31 09:11pm
	Archive through April 11, 2003	25		04/11 08:25am
	Archive through April 12, 2003	25		04/12 10:57pm
	Archive through April 14, 2003	25		04/14 08:28pm
	Archive through April 23, 2003	25		04/23 02:17pm
	Archive through May 20, 2003	25		05/20 12:21pm
	Archive through May 22, 2003	25		05/22 02:35pm
	Archive through August 11, 2003	25		08/11 12:01am
	Archive through February 17, 2004	25		02/17 02:43pm
	Archive through February 21, 2004	25		02/21 12:24pm
	Archive through April 16, 2004	25		04/16 12:04pm
	Archive through April 17, 2004	25		04/17 12:25am
	Archive through April 19, 2004	25		04/19 12:23pm
	Archive through May 18, 2004	25		05/18 07:41pm
	Archive through August 29, 2004	25		08/29 01:43am
	Archive through September 02, 2004	25		09/02 05:38pm
	Archive through October 03, 2004	25		10/03 03:55am
	Archive through December 19, 2004	25		12/19 04:48pm
	Archive through March 10, 2005	25		03/10 06:39am

FA arc is 120 degrees, not 90.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 01:02 pm: Edit

Wherever there's a war eagle, soeone's going to make a king eagle.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 04:07 pm: Edit

Jonathan, yes. Always make that mistake. Duly noted.

John, darn skippy! Just too cool a ship and too much a part of history, both game and franchise, to let it go. In any case, the "new" one is built from scratch in the old shipyards, and has some differences; most notably, it has no armor. It does have a few other systems instead, though, particularly control.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 06:09 pm: Edit

Got an SSD?

Want one?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 07:48 pm: Edit

I have SSD's for the eagle cruiser, destroyer and frigate. Just haven't posted them yet.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 04:35 pm: Edit

cool.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 03:04 am: Edit

Thinking about the races, the Klingons get more flexible disruptors ( Disruptor Caps and Built in UIM and a six impulse double broadside penalty ) and the Feds get a bigger bang (24 point Photons); why should we automatically think of a bigger bang for the Plasma boys. What if plasma got more flexible.


Psuedo Enveloping Torpedo
By Combining both PPTs provided with an X Plasma Tube, X2 plasma vessels can launch an Enveloping Psuedo Plasma Torpedo.

One point of impulse power is needed and is applied in addition to any power for arming the torpedo in that tube. The power is applied during the turn of launch ( during EA only, it can not be armed with reserve power ) and if the PEPT is not launched on the turn of arming then both the PPTs are ruined. Both PPTs must be availible ( in the same tube ) to form a PEPT.

Once launched the PEPT will act in all ways as a PPT except that it shall rejester a warhead strength as though it were an EPT.


In this way the Plasma Boys get a more flexible weapon because the enemy is no longer garrentteed to see an Enveloper and "know" that it must be "real".

By Troy J. Latta (Saaur) on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 09:30 am: Edit

How about a straight overload function? Does EPT damage to one shield. :D

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 10:39 am: Edit

Could work.

Splash damage:-
1/2 Warhead + Warhead Strength + 1/2 Warhead;
would also be an optional firing mode.
And in a lot of ways better.

Remember making plasma more powerful is probably going to be a bad idea because of the power that already exists in them. Launching 40 point PT-Ms instead of PT-Ss is what most people think of being the progression of plasma from GW to X1 but it's actually 40 point Plasma-Ms every second turn ( so 60 points in the regular 3 turn cycle ) and few weapon systems got an effective doubling between GW and X1.
If the enemy has a 48 box #1 then an 80 point hit will be hellish.
We only realy want uber plasma so that a select number of Romulan ships cause players to poop in their pants.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 01:38 pm: Edit

Not no but eff-no.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 07:32 am: Edit

To which?
Splash Damage, Full EPT single warheads or the PEPT!?!

If you're trying to dis' 24 point photons then yer in da wrong thread.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 08:33 am: Edit

On the Plasma-M being a hell weapon.
Against a stationary target like a base.
100% chance to it.
40 points of damage (more if enveloping) out to R10.
Firing every other turn.

Even if a cruiser can only mount two of the things, they each make a pair of 20 point photons look really weak...and they're already part of the game.
We don't actually need deadlier Plasma. Better; to survive in the X2 universe;- yes but not more destructive.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 01:40 pm: Edit

MJC,

Yes.

But especially "overloaded plasma"

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 07:31 pm: Edit

Yeah, I'm against upping the full frontal damage too.