Bases will be fine. By then most will be X-bases so they will handle the plasma threat.

Plasma Sabot move faster but burn up over the same distance so you will still have to fire from the same distance. Sabots against Bases is a waste of energy. The big X2 Plasma mentioned would still be as rare as the Pl-R is during the GW.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 10:52 am: Edit

That's right - remember, you pay power for Sabot only if you need it. Granted, that extra 3 range could be useful against a base (for a 'range 10' shot), but if you're plasma plinking with r-like torps from range 25, the sabot-like enhancements (that make the plasma a little more dangerous to x-ships) have no effect on base warfare at all.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 12:21 pm: Edit

As I understand it, Plasmas burn out for HEXES traveled, Sabot or not. You don't gain a range advantage because it take less impulses to get there. If you want your Pl-R to hit for fifty the you must still fire it from R10.

Sabot give no advantage against bases. Well, none I've been able to think of. There might be some kind of timing advantage, like getting it to hit a down shield before it turns away. That would take some careful planning.

By Dave Morse (Dcm) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 01:44 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

(FP11.331) Plasma sabots count impulses rather than hexes for purposes of range degradation. Thus, a Plasma Sabot which had been on the map for 9 impulses and had covered 11 hexes would still be in the Range 6-10 bracket rather than in the Range 11-12 bracket.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 02:06 pm: Edit

No kiddin'? I would swear I read that that rule was changed. Oh well. I'm not part of the play testing so I shut up about that.

Thanks Dave.

Sorry all.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 06:56 pm: Edit

Thanks Dave. If thats the current ruling I don't think we need to worry about plasma being strengthend that much for 2X.

(As an aside. I think it would be the most practical/easiest record keeping matter to do it by # of Imp.)

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 07:52 pm: Edit

Tos, the post I responded to stated that bases needed to be balanced against X2 plasma. As it currently stands, X2 ships have bigger plasma torps, are able to regenerate pseudos, and will likely have the sabot option. These are all improvements that do not specefically endanger bases anymore than any other unit.

I was pointing out in particular that faster torps do not make bases deadmeat. For a base, it doesnt really matter how fast the torps move so long as there is enough time for standard seeking weapon precautions.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 08:08 pm: Edit

If a base can deal with a plasma that will go from 2 -> 0 in one jump, it ought to do fine.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 08:10 pm: Edit

Well SVC/SPP apparently think that's not a problem for Sabot.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 08:19 pm: Edit

Remember, these will be X-Bases. They will be very dangerous to take down.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 01:36 pm: Edit

2X Plasma enhancement idea:

Give them either 4 or 9 points of built-in ECM. That should protect them well enough from the new phasers...

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 03:32 pm: Edit

I've sort of stayed out of the plasma discussion, because I'm not a big plasma player. But, it strikes me that a big improvement the plasma races will need will be an improved way of bolting. Better range, accuracy, damage, or something. Again, I'm not the big plasma player, so I don't know what the preference would be, but I do feel like this is something that needs attention. Thoughts?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 04:49 pm: Edit

Bolting is and shold remain a secondary thing with plasma. I'd prefer things that make it easier for a plasma to get to its taret with its warhead intect.

jeff is talking about ECCM shifts a lot, which currently only affect phasers, IIRC. All bolts would need is to be able to use ECCM shifts.

Otherwise, things like shielding (say a torp has an extra 5-10 points of "false warhead" that take damage before the real warhead)

Or something like damage reistance where the plasma ignores the first, say, 5 point of phaser damage per volley.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 06:41 pm: Edit

Two thoughts. I've suggested this before but here it is again. X-Plasma Gatling. Load a Plasma as a Shotgun, allow the resulting Pl-Fs to be bolted, one per impulse at the same of different targets.

John T., here is an idea. A Plasma Buffer: For one extra point of energy during the final allocation you get a plasma buffer that surrounds the torpedo. I does no damage but absorbs the first Ten points of phaser energy that hits it. Reduce the size for smaller torps. Base it on 20% of Torp. size pre-enveloping. Cannot be applied to the resulting plasmas in a shotgun.

The plasma buffer is detectable and must be announced at launch.

Hey, I like that one. That's going in my notes.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 07:13 pm: Edit

Loren, consider adding one thing to it:

The plasma ship fires its pseudo simultaneously with the real torp. The idea is that the pseudo forms a shroud around the real torp.

This would be contingent on being able reload pseudoes and be a cute alternate use for one.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 07:23 pm: Edit

Well, I don't know but you made me consider this. For one point of power you should be able to add a shroud to a pseudo plasma. Otherwise if you launch a plasma with a shroud every one will know it is real.

BTW: I like the word "Shroud" better than "Buffer". Hence forthe it will be called the Plasma Shroud.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 08:02 pm: Edit

Cool.

Maybe 2 pts for a 10-point shroud. or a 1 + 1, so 1-turn torps can't use it. (or 1 + 1 + 1?)

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 08:31 pm: Edit

I know that bolting is secondary, but I still think it ought to get some sort of improvement. I totally agree that the major emphasis should be on getting the main plasma warhead to a target...but given how well bolting works, I'd think a modest improvement would be in order. Just my opinion, of course.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 10:31 pm: Edit

John, ya perhaps. Playtesting would refine that process. I'll bet it could be tested using X1 ships and get fairly acurate results.

Mike, in X2 era the Bolt might become less secondary. Especially with fast loaded plasmas. I can see the Plasma races moving a little towards a more direct fire approach. With X2 conditions this might be unavoidable. I'm sure they would never give up the seeking torpedo though. It has advantages of range and "Fire and Forget". Those are big pluses. Not to mention it's utility against fixed possitions.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Wednesday, December 25, 2002 - 04:25 pm: Edit

Um guys if the size of plasma warheads carried by X2 ships all go up, then that should match the increased phaser armaments of opposing ships.

Nothing else should be needed if these two match each other properly. (I would much rather have 10 more points of plasma warhead than this 'plasma shroud' thingie myself)

As for bolts, the only thing I could think of is allowing them to keep the plasmas built in ECCM as bolts. But is increasing the bolts in any way really necesary?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, December 25, 2002 - 10:10 pm: Edit

GW War Cruisers generally move at high speeds. X1 ships frequently move at 31. Many of the phaser and HW proposals have increased range and the galaxy is at peace. Ships are well defended but a bit eggshellish. Very expensive to fix eggshells.

Battles are more likely to be skirmishes. Skirmishes fought at long range. Maneuver. Dance. Jab. Evade. Run.

There hasn’t been a consensus about what X2 looks like but if this vision comes to pass seeking plasma won’t cut it.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 06:09 pm: Edit

If you simply make bolting much better, seeking plasma becomes obsolete and you might as well have photons instead. Bolts should be competent, but not routinely better than seekers.

Extending the X1 rules, bolting improves through ECCM shifts and bigger warheads. I can see extending the range bands a little (say 0-6, 7-12, 13-20, 21+) but only if there are corresponding improvements to other DF weapons.

Assuming ships routinely HETting at 31, the plasma has to do something like (pick one or more):
* turn mode 0
* Speed 48+
* Overdrive launch
* humungous endurance
* many, many PPTs simulating anything
* big resistance to phasers (through shroud, taking 1/3 damage, big warhead, ECM)
* big fastloads (1-turn G, 2-turn S/M/R)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 09:16 pm: Edit

I don't think plasma is that outmatched, but we may have to look at making sabot-speed standard and building a newer, higher sabot speed.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Friday, December 27, 2002 - 04:53 am: Edit

Not a bad idea John, at least in the speed 40 being standard for 2x torps.

By Darin Smith (Dsmith) on Friday, December 27, 2002 - 07:21 pm: Edit

One thing I've been posting around is that for the most part X2 tech is similar to GW tech just that advances have made GW tech less effective against X2 tech.......such as advanced electronics on X2 ships can force a plasma weapon to lose lock on after 10 impulses or something similar....in order to make X2 powerful you don't necessarily have to push up all the numbers, you can simply make the old tech less effective. X2 plasmas of course would not be affected by the ability.