Do you use OL phasers, or more standard phasers?
Which would work better?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 02:40 am: Edit

More phasers sounds cool but really isn't.

My vote would be for OL phasers if it wouldn't spark the problems for which they were removed (OL phasers encouraged one-dimensional X-tactics)

One other possibility is shifting to a new and better phaser, a phaser-5 which would replace the P-1 as the standard ship's phaser.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 07:20 am: Edit

Here's an idea for racial flavour.

Once race can mount Ph-4s on ships ( not many mind you...maybe replace all ISCs PPDs with Ph-4s ) and has found a way to fire them without positional stabalisers.

There's a drawback, the vessel can't use them when flying at 2 or higher.

Now...who's game to use these?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 09:47 am: Edit

Hell, just use the megaphaser rules from P6, limited to 2X ships. Same damage potential as Ph-4, with no sticky rules about being limited to bases.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 01:31 pm: Edit

Agreed.

The P-M doesn't quite yield the damage of the P-4 but it's close and it uses a mauler arc, another limitation.

I think putting P-4s on starship would break the game.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 03:26 pm: Edit

In the Middle and GW years, we have a mix of ph-1 and ph-2 as the primary phaser.

What if for X2, we see a mix of ph-5 and ph-1?
The ph-5 would have a chart similar to the megaphaser, but without the arc limitations.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 03:29 pm: Edit

One phaser rule I thought up years ago was that grouped phaser batterys would fire in a seeking succesion mode (SSM). Take a group of four Ph-1s (very common on X-ships). The four are announced as firing is SS mode. Impulse one the first phaser fires. Rolls a four. The next impulse the next phaser fires. The computer have tracked the results of the first phaser homes in so the die roll for this shot is an automatic 3. The third impulse and third phaser is an automatic die roll of 2. The fourth, an automatic one. Changes is EW would be applied as the changes occure. The actual group is firing one continuous beam. You could break the group up into groups of two or more but only one SSM beam can be fired from the entire group at one time. SO if you break them up you will have to wait until the first SSM group is done firing before you can fire the next. Example: The Fed CCX could fire three SSM Groups from the saucer section at one time.

If this were to fly, special attention would have to be given on SSD design for those races that have phasers peppered across their hulls.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 10:13 pm: Edit

Loren it sounds interesting but somewhat unlikely IMO.

I think SVC/SPP will want to stay away from mucking with the phaser rules that much. The only Real change I would like to see in the Phasers.

Larger Ph-capacitors. Enabling a ship to fight longer harder without running into the wall of recharging all those phasers. ( I have no idea how practical this would be. Might be to advantageous with other changes.)

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 11:49 pm: Edit

I don't have the megaphaser rules, I've only seen them a few times.

What about this:

In both versions of X1, a non-OL ph-1 can be split into 2 ph-3 beams, as long as both are fired at small targets (SC5 or smaller).

I propose a new phaser type, with firepower between a ph-1 and a ph-4, to be the standard phaser on X2 ships.

New proposed phaser type - The ph-5
To replace the ph-1 on a CX on a 1 for 1 basis

Energy cost: 1 1/2
Can be downfired as a ph-1, ph-2, ph-3.
No overload function.

Can be used in rapid pulse mode as 3 ph-3 at 1/2 energy each (to shoot small drones) or 2 ph-2 pulses at 3/4 energy each (to shoot big drones).

could someone be kind enough to post the ph-M damage chart, to see if that's what I want to use for this proposal?

range	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9-15
3 ph-3 max	12	12	12	12	3	3	3	3	3	3
3 ph-3 avg	11.5	11	9	3	1	1	1	1	1	0.5
3 ph-3 min	9	9	3	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
---
2 ph-2 max	12	10	10	8	6	6	6	6	6	4
2 ph-2 avg	11	8.33	7.66	7	2.33	2.33	2.33	2.33	2.33	0.66
2 ph-2 min	10	6	6	6	0	0	0	0	0	0
---
1 1/2 ph-1 max	13.5	12	10.5	9	7.5	7.5	6	6	6	4.5
1 1/2 ph-1 avg	9.75	8	7.66	6.5	5.75	5.25	3.25	3.25	3.25	1.5
1 1/2 ph-1 min	4	4	3	3	2	2	0	0	0	0
---
range	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9-15
1 ph-5 max	13	12	11	10	8	8	6	6	5	4
1 ph-5 avg	11.5	11	9	8	6	5.5	4	3.5	2.83	1.66
1 ph-5 min	10	9	7	6	3	3	2	1	0	0

Proposed Ph-5 Dice Table:

Range	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9-15	16-25	26-50	51-75	76-100
1	13	12	11	10	8	8	6	6	5	4	3	2	1	1
2	13	12	10	9	7	6	5	5	4	3	2	1	1	0
3	12	11	9	8	7	6	4	4	3	2	1	0	0	0
4	11	11	8	8	6	4	4	3	3	1	0	0	0	0
5	10	10	7	7	5	4	3	2	2	0	0	0	0	0
6	10	9	7	6	3	3	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	0

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 11:50 pm: Edit

What I would like to see in a new phaser is a longer curve. Current phasers spike dramatically at very close ranges and adding more phasers tends to result in dead ships. For example the P4 has a much more gradual damage drop off and can successfully engage targets out to range 17.

We all know the P4 can’t be allowed on ships. How about a phaser with the same range as a P4 but half the damage (round down)? For those without a P4 chart handy that’s a max/min of 10/7 damage at range 0-3 and a 3/3/2/2/1/1 damage curve at range 13. Effective phasers at range 13 would encourage maneuver tactics beyond a simple close and hose approach.

Radical change to how ships fly without increasing point blank damage.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 02:23 am: Edit

Kenneth J. I think it is unlikely too. But it's really just an option. Most likely it would tend to only be used for long range shuttle sniping, base attacks and monsters. Some time use in a ship to ship battle would be done but probably only on the approach run where it is most likely to have all phaser shots hit the same shield. Normal use would have your phasers spread out across two and maybe three shields. Not usually a good thing.

Maybe it could be a refit. Something you buy like a UIM (no burn out but is destroyed with the group). The SSM refit for 5% or 1 BPV per phaser. A good choice for some ships and not so good for others. Maybe just buy it for specific groups of phasers. That way ships that don't have big groupings could just buy it for their one big group or what ever.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 11:07 am: Edit

Cross Post from 2X Main Thread:

2X Phaser Tables

How about that sort of thing? Is that a better damage curve? If mounted in smaller quantities, say similar to what a 0X ship has, it would do better damage at longer ranges and still be a threat up close. Figure it can down-fire as 3 phaser 3's, so you can have good close in defense.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 12:23 pm: Edit

I like the idea of X2 phasers being useful at longer ranges. You get some of this effect with the -1 shift available to X1 ships, so it makes sense to extend it.

The half-P4 for 1.5 power sounds rather good.

I would not want capacitors to get any bigger. That just leads to the 'tactic' of getting to effective phaser range and blasting away for N turns until the caps are empty. At least with the current rules you have to pull back a bit to catch your breath every now and again.

In terms of versatility and damage-for-energy, phasers are by far the best weapon in SFB. You have to be rather careful about making them even better.

By Andrew C. Cowling (Andrew) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 05:00 pm: Edit

On nomenclature: shouldn't the Phaser-H be the improved gatling ('Phaser-Hydran'), with Phaser-5 (the next unused phaser number) for the main ship phaser?

Then, in terms of power, require the ph-5 and ph-H to use 2 points of power (ph-H 0.5 points per pulse), with non-Hydran ships mounting ph-1s as their secondary defensive weapons. [If justification is required, consider that fighters could not support ph-1s, but could mount the equal power-cost ph-2 - this leads to the possibility of mounting a ph-4 sized weapon that lacks the stability and fire-control gyro capabilities of the ph-4, but still requires as much power to arm.] Allow the ph-5 to downfire as ph1, ph2 or ph-3; allow the ph-H to downfire as a ph-G. The number of weapon mounts should then not need to exceed the number of mountings on late-war ships.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 05:13 pm: Edit

Here's an idea for the Hydrans: The P-G2. A 4-shot gatling P2 costing 2-power.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 05:58 pm: Edit

Tos, I agree. The power curve is good and no new chart is needed. The only thing I would add to the description is that max range is 30. So ignore the 31-50 column.

Still the range 8 damage potential is scarry!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 08:08 pm: Edit

Tos that would be a bad idea.

You want the Gatlings to become effective at the same range as the ESGs so you're limiting the ESGs to R3 like they've always been.

Now a Ph that fires Four ( or five ) Ph-1 shots would have an effective range equal to the ESG and thus be usuable.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 08:18 pm: Edit

I would like to see a reclaiming of Racial Flavour though the use of PHASERS.


This could be done with the overload rules I already present or could be developed with a new set of phasers.


The Ph-5:- an analog of the Ph-3, it'll be used by those races that normally use Ph-3s, such as the Lyran and Kzinti rear phasers.

The Ph-6:- an analog of the Ph-2, it'll be used by those races that normally use Ph-2s, such as Hydrans and Klingons.

The Ph-7:- an analog of the Ph-1, it'll be used by those races that normally use Ph-1s such as the Gorn, Romulan and Federation.


Races with the Ph-5 shall have quite a few more of their weapons and races with thge Ph-7 shall have a couple fewer.


The ranges for all these weapons will be greatly magnified and the damages shall be slightly increased with a less intense DAMAGE SPIKE for all these weapons.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 10:39 pm: Edit

mjc,

You might have something there.
One thing about X1 is that everyone got the same ph-1X.

What would you set for effective (no zeros for rolling a 6), marginal (decent damage), and long (a 1 and 5 zeros) ranges for each of the phasers?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 10:53 pm: Edit

"You want the Gatlings to become effective at the same range as the ESGs so you're limiting the ESGs to R3 like they've always been."

We haven't even started talking about ESGs let alone their interaction with gatlings. But since you brought it up a PG is effective at range 2. A P2 is effective at range 3, and not too shabby at range 8 (4-5 damage average). If you want to retain parity then an ESG of either range 4 or range 5 would be perfectly reasonable.

On a side note, I'm not sure I'd want to deal with a range 5 ESG. It would be like flying a gas giant for a ship.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 11:07 pm: Edit

I don't like to cross post, but the EW discussion might lend some ideas to this one.

On that board, I proposed X2 ships be allowed to buy up to 10 EW points, instead of the 6 for X0 and 8 for X1. I also proposed that an offensive shift of 3-5 give a 1-shift, and 6+ give a 2-shift for the offence.

Would the ph-1 be strong enough to be the standard X2 phaser if it could have an offensive 2-shift if the EW levels were high enough?

For example, a ph-1 at range 4 has 5-5-4-4-3-2. If a 2-shift were applied, and the shift were allowed to move to the left once getting better than "1", the effective bracket would be 7-6-5-5-4-4.

The rapid pulse (2 ph-3 shots) at range 3 is 3-2-1-0-0-0. With a 2-shift, it becomes 4-4-3-2-1-0. At range 1, the ph-3 is a guaranteed 4 points per phaser.

Would this work? If so, there wouldn't be a need to invent a new phaser type, just apply the bonus to EW levels.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 03:06 am: Edit

If you are going to offset the effects of Jumping range generated by faster than Speed 32 movement then you can do ( my prefered way ) by simply putting the sweetspot out to a longer distance.

A simple few shifts with EW won't stop a Ph-2 analog Klingon from Jumping down from R6 of a Ph-1 analogy Fed through to R3 of that fed ( assuming the Fed is moving forward at some speed and the Klingon times it right), once the ships are moving through speeds higher than 32, you'll need longer range sweetspots.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 04:00 pm: Edit

If we allow faster than 32, then the phasers would have to be adjusted.

If we don't allow faster than 32, then what we have might be balanced.

There's a separate "X2 speed limit" thread for that discussion.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 06:24 pm: Edit

The alternative would be to add impulses to the chart so ships only move 1 hex/impulse

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 06:36 pm: Edit

If the X2 impulse chart doesn't have 32 impulses, then it's probably a DOA proposal.