Archive through December 27, 2002
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
The "X" Files:
OLD X2 FOLDER:
X2 ph-1:
Archive through December 27, 2002
Take the speed Imp chart discussion to the speed limit topic. Just to help channel the discussions.
On the "Major X2 Tech Changes" thread, there are several different types of phasers.
Choice 1: Standard ph-1, OL to range 8
| Range | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6-8 | 9-15 | 16-25 | 26-50 | 51-75 |
| 9/13 | 8/12 | 7/10 | 6/9 | 5/7 | 5/7 | 4/6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 8/12 | 7/10 | 6/9 | 5/7 | 5/7 | 4/6 | 3/5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 7/10 | 5/7 | 5/7 | 4/6 | 4/6 | 4/6 | 3/5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6/9 | 4/6 | 4/6 | 4/6 | 4/6 | 3/4 | 2/3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 5/7 | 4/6 | 4/6 | 4/6 | 3/4 | 3/4 | 1/2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4/6 | 4/6 | 3/4 | 3/4 | 2/3 | 2/3 | 0/1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Choice 2: ph-5 (Half a ph-4)
| Range | 0-3 | 4-5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11-13 | 14-17 | 18-25 | 26-40 | 41-75 |
| 10 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 10 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 9 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 7 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Choice 3: Type H (roughly 2x ph-1)
| Range | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6-8 | 9-15 | 16-25 | 26-50 | 51-75 |
| 15 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 |
| 13 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| 11 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 |
| 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Choice 4: Standard ph-1, but allow up to an offencive 2-shift with EW points
Ph-1 with a 2-shift
| Range | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6-8 | 9-15 | 16-25 | 26-50 | 51-75 |
| 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 |
| 9 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 7 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Which choice best describes the jump that X2 races would make?
Would they all make the same jump?
I'm totally for the Phaser 5. It is the smoothest and simplest. Not too big with a clean drop off. It has good firing options (down fired as a regular P-1 or as two P-3 for one energy). Normal loading is 1.5 so the Capacitor holds three points per Ph-5. That's three full standard P-1 firings.
My vote: Phaser Five, all the way.
Phaser 5, also. KISS should always be observed with SFB rules because the exception handling will always add complexity.
Also since X1 phasers are allowed to use ECCM shifts, the P-5 should also. I'd prefer to not give weapon-specific EW if I can help it.
whether that shift is -2 or not is up to game conditions.
Sorry but...KISS??
Keep It Simple Stupid. Good axiom for SFB.
Aaah ha. Ok, duh. I guess I should have checked out that internet acronymn sight Jessica told me about.
I could be persuaded to the PH-5 but it seems just a bit much to me. Being never miss all the way to R13. There would need to be serious changes in all other area's to make this palatable IMO.
The other choices seems about as valid.
Here are my objections in order.
1.Ph-1 OL. I really don't think that phasers need to be made into something that can overload. I would like a larger capacitor but not so a ship could OL Ph's.
2.Ph-5. Auto hitting out to R13 and missing only on a "6" at R17. With all the phasers common to an 1X ship. If the Ph-5 was applied to them it would make the ship virtually unbeatable by a std ship. It would be a Phaser Ballet lasting all day and night. And evry enclosed map would be a deathtrap.
3. Ph-H. Never miss to R25! See my comments on Ph-5 and turn them up 10x the power.
4. Ph-1 shift. This is the most acceptable to me (and probably SVC/SPP). Being the closest to the original Ph-1. Except I really don't like sticking in an ew shift on the most basic weapon in the game.
The answer to the bigger chance to hit at range for phasers like the P5 is to reduce the number of phasers on the SSD. X2 shields won't be breached by range 13 battle passes any time soon.
Agreed. The phaser H also has some unique rules associated with it. It isn't part of the capacitor system. It takes two points of power to fire, spread over two turns (i.e., it fires every other turn.) It is also restricted to SC4 or larger targets. It's sort of modeled after the Mega Phaser, but with a few more restrictions.
Nice job with the tables, Jeff! To follow up, here is a chart with the phaser V, and a slightly different one; call it phaser VI for now. It has a somewhat smoother damage curve, and does not autohit past range 10. While the damage for it drops off somewhat more quickly than the V, it does a tiny bit more at the longer ranges. Which do people prefer? I don't have a preference myself, but there are some issues raised about V that this may address.
2X phaser tables
There is a discussion in the Speed Limit topic. Lets first nail down the speeds we are talking about since they will affect everything else.
So go in and put your Opinion/reasoning in and we can nail this sucker down flat pretty quickly. So go put your vote up.
***Sorry multiple post.
P-V or P-VI. The P-VI could be beefed up a little at shorter ranges.
The Hydran Gat replacement should be 4xP2, to cope better with drones going >32.
-2 ECM shift should be possible, given sufficient ECCM; testing required to determine what the threshold should be.
I was just looking on the "Auto-Reject List" topic.
One item is "Any procedure to put a ph-4 on a mobile unit".
If you have a pair of ph-5s, you have a ph-4.
Kenneth,
I was not proposing taking a ph-1 and artificially shifting it 2 spots.
I was proposing X2 ships be allowed to generate 10 EW, just as X1 can generate 8 and X0 can generate 6.
But the "gizmo" would be that X2 EW could cause an offensive shift of up to -2. If you have an SSD very similar to a CX, the shift would give X2 a decisive advantage over X0 stuff. (Not to mention what a 2 shift would do for the heavy weapons.)
I was thinking that whatever "gizmos" we come up with have to be:
• Sufficient for an X2 ship to dominate an X0 ship of the same class
• Not substantially increase the size of the ship
• Create a ship that would still force players to make decisions when flying it (If the ship flew itself, it wouldn't be much of a game.)
Mike,
If your ph-H isn't tied into the capacitor system, then it isn't a phaser; it's a disruptor with a different hit chart.
"I was just looking on the "Auto-Reject List" topic.
One item is "Any procedure to put a ph-4 on a mobile unit".
If you have a pair of ph-5s, you have a ph-4."
Uh, no. By that arguement then if you have four P-1s you have a P-4. No way. The Ph-V is going through changes and simply doubled will no net you a Ph-4s damage.
"If your ph-H isn't tied into the capacitor system, then it isn't a phaser; it's a disruptor with a different hit chart."
No, it's a phaser that's not tied to the capacitor system. What use is it to say that it is not. Clasifying it as a phaser IS important as phasers can do things disruptors can't and disruptors can do things phasers can't.
About this negitive ECM shift idea for phasers. Why couldn't this targeting system be used for all of the ships weapons. If there is something that is able to pin point a target better then it should be usable through out the ship. I don't think messing with EW shifts for one particular type of weapon is advisable.
Ah, but what about the UIM and DERFACS? These are adjustments to the way the disruptor works and is represented not by EW.
People have suggested that ECCM shifts be implemented for all weapons.
Perhaps UIM and DERFACS should be integrated into the disruptor's hit chances and not be a separate thing anymore.
Jeff, the P-H gets some of it's rules from the megaphaser. It, too, is not tied to the ships capacitors. The only difference is that the megaphaser is a great deal stronger at short ranges, and can fire every turn at any size target it wants. It has more restricted firing arcs, and has to be mounted on a wing.
JT: I don't have a problem with counting UIM/DERFACS as the standard modes on a disruptor.
X2 Disruptor chart (same as X0, but assumes the ship has no-burnout UIM and DERFACS):
| Range | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3-4 | 5-8 | 9-15 | 16-30 | 31-40 |
| Std | NA | 1-5 | 1-5 | 1-4 | 1-4 | 1-4 | 1-3 | 1-2 |
| OL | 1-6 | 1-5 | 1-5 | 1-5 | 1-5 | NA | NA | NA |
| Std Damage | 0 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| OL Damage | 10 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
I also propose that the ECM shift be applied to all the weapons, not just phasers. I'll post my explanation in the "X2 EW Rules" thread. It would improve all the direct-fire heavy weapons, but could still be countered by another X2 ship.
Mike,
Is there a reason not to tie the ph-H into the capacitor? It would make the rule and weapon easier to handle if it were.
UIM and DERFACS as standard to the disruptor is the logical approach, I agree. Should we eliminate the UIM burn-out? Or just reduce it's chance.
I'm OK with no UIM burn-out.
If there is to be an extention of OL range to 10 though the result should for range 9-10 a hit on 1-4 for six damage.
By the X2 era, either UIM works without burning out, or it shoudln't be standard equipment on a starship. Let's say they fixed the problem, and it doesn't burn out any more.
I didn't include an extension of the OL range, because it hasn't been finalized yet. 8? 10? 12?
OL @ 12 is out of the question, IMO!
In what I'm developing the disruptor fires multiple times in a turn. A UIM burn out would be flat out unacceptable!
Either way, I agree. The Bloody Klinks fixed the darn thing. Hmmm, unless what they fixed was just it's shutdown effect on the disruptor system but it can still burn out. Burn out enough systems and you no longer get the benefit. Hmmm, I think I like that better. No need to add a special row to the X2 chart though. If you burn out all your UIMs then dig up an old chart. If you can't find an old chart you must forfeit the game. If your opponent has one but wont share he/she forfeits the game instead. 
Loren are you getting sleepy by any chance?
I am now. Good night.
Loren, I would like to see disruptors take divergent technolgy paths. I would like to see the Klingons, Tholians and Lyrans build rapid fire capacitor based standard range disruptors based on PC/WC/ESG tech and the Kzinti/WYN to build a longer ranged heavier once/turn disruptor. Even better would be if the Tholians drop the disruptor all together and build an improved PC (the one their military always had but forgot how to build being more advanced then the lousy one they installed on Selt ships).
Lets have the Disruptor discussion in the appropriate thread. This one is for Phasers.
(Just trying to help keep this mess as orderly as possible.)
