This includes the rapid pulse phasers, and how to divide it up.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 02:41 am: Edit

Current rapid-pulse rules are fine and don't need changing or extending for X2.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 07:15 am: Edit

Well...If we allowed X2 to have Rapid pulse fire ( with full table damage of the original weapon, that is 2Ph-1 shots from a 2XPh-1) then it would in essence be THE double damage overload that I feel might be usable.


I've been think about this for a few days.

Lets say the typical 2X cruiser has 50% more phasers ( 18 ) and has tripple caps ( and 5 times batteries ) and we have overload costs that are simply enormass.

Lets say there are four overload types.

Overload Type	Damage Multiplier	Energy Cost	Range limit
Alpha	x 1.25	3 points	15
Beta	x 1.5	4 points	8
Gamma	x 1.75	5 points	5
Delta	x 2	6 points	3

And our vessel, say the Feds have both Alpha and Gamma Firing Modes, chooses to Fire in Gamma Mode ( In an R5 Oblique ).
It can fire 2/3 of her phasers ( 12 ) and must spend 60 points of power from the Caps and the BTTYs. BTW it generates, 73.5 points of damage.

54 points come from the caps and the remainder will come from using the power in 1.2 of her four batteries.


NOW...after a ship has done this...how will it recharge it's caps?
How will it even move at the Legendary Speed of 31!?!


Now all we have to do is make 73.5 points of damage, neither inconsequential nor overwhelming.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 01:34 pm: Edit

MJC,

WAY too complicated.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 09:20 pm: Edit

Not really although I should have put it into the Ph-1 X thread.

There are only four firing modes.

Each race has 2 of those and that creates 6 phaser overload flavours to choose from.

The old X1 R5 means you pull down the other guies sheild and do a mizia to him doesn't count as much becase the other guy might be able to do the same to you at a shorter range with fewer intact phasers or might be able to do it to from further out. Thus creating racial flavour with out inventing upteen dozen new phaser designs.

By michael wheatley (Mike_Wheatley) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 09:16 pm: Edit

A simple way to improve defence against fast targets, without increasing total damage, would be to widen the second and third range brackets by one hex each.
E.g.

Ph-7 (aka X2 ph-3) to-hit table:

0	1-2	3-4	5	6-10	11-17
...	...	...	...	...	...

Damage at each range bracket would be the same as a ph-3.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 11:01 pm: Edit

I'd like to see some sort of "combo" weapons, similar to the Frax Anti-Fighter Device (a P-G mated with an ADD-12 in one mount.) A phaser 3 or 2, paired up with an ADD or Plasma D would be a neat 2X weapon, as would something similar to the Vudar IPG.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 12:06 am: Edit

Or we could just get the Ph-1 table to be the New Ph-3 table...cool for Ph-Gs too.

And be ready for R1 damage being 5.5 instead of 3.66 points of damage per shot...about right for expect drone toughness of 8 & 10 points over the usual 4 & 6.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 03:37 pm: Edit

MJC,

too, too powerful.

The P2 table would be excessive.b The P1 tble is over the top.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 10:00 pm: Edit

That really depends on the toughness of fighters and drones...but I agree, the Ph-2 table on a Gat would be very able to handle speed 40+ drones.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 10:30 pm: Edit

Unless we're going to build fighters that can take a NSM blast to cripple, a gatling P-1 is over the top.

Remember, we're trying to create things that would be the equal of a similar BPV-weight of in X1 or GP ships.

Something like this woudl require a massive improvement in seeking weapons to game-balance properly.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 11:11 pm: Edit

I think you're not thinking through this carefully.

At R3...the range that Ph-2s start actually being influential and the range where the R3-0 skip might happen:-
The Ph-2 averages 3.5 points of damage and the Ph-1 averages 4.5 points of damage.


It's not much of a problem.
The drones will get a point of two extra boxes.
The Fighter might need a point or two extra boxes or maybe something else, like built-in ECM.

If a Stinger-IV comes in at 30 BPV and has a gatling that shoots 5Ph-1 shots and has 14 boxes and moves at boosted speeds of 36 and unboosted of 24 and doesn't take double damage during stages when the boost is not activated.
How many F-16s with Raillads will detroy it with R8 sniping and R3 RaLADDs will destroy it?
About three, four?
So maybe the BPV will be 24 or maybe 32, but somewhere around there.

Just because it's monsterous doesn't mean it's invincible.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 11:50 pm: Edit

But if it's monstrous, it won't make the module's SSD book.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 12:03 am: Edit

MJC, a 14-pt fighter would require an average of 4 hits with an ADD, which would require an average of at least 6 attempts.

Damage at range-3 isn't the issue. it's damage at range 1 that would be obscene.

and remember, I also suggested that a gatling P-2 would be too much also.

You are assuming trans-32 speeds and that has not been established.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 12:24 am: Edit

Be careful not to build a fighter with more hits than a PF.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 02:18 am: Edit

Okay.

If we don't have 33 and up then the Ph-G remains just as useful as it has always been. Perhaps the X2 Ph-G will be 5 shots to oppose the undoubted slight increase in a drones ability to take hits.

If the speed of incomming drones is not increased about 33 then the need for an extended range point defence weapon is un warrented.


R1 Ph-2 Vs Ph-1 is 5.33 Vs 4.16' which is a 28.125% increase.
The R1 Ph-3 damage is 3.66 so the Ph-1 and Ph-2 are only 45.6% and 13.'63'% respectively.

Considering it's likely that the incomming drones will have a 50% increase in damage, it doesn't seem unreasonable that the defenses shooting down those drones will have a 45% increase in the amount of damage generated to shoot down those drones...it's likely that the drones themselves will get tougher by ( Type X & XI Vs Type VII & VIII ) 33% and 25% respectively simply by following the Jump which was X1 and applying it.


Note I am talking about the Ph-G analog and not granting the Ph-1 analog a rapid pulse 4Ph-2 shot function.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 10:19 am: Edit

If we mount the Ph-V on ships and limit improved Gats to two per Hydran Ships only (LS/RS), no fighters, then I can see going to the P2 table.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 11:36 am: Edit

Before we decide on what an X phaser G looks like, we might want to hammer out exactly what the phaser V can do. Is it 2 P3 shots, 2 P2 shots, or what?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 12:23 pm: Edit

I've proposed:
1PV=1P1=2P2=2P3=1P2+1P3, fire in whichever mode you like but certain combinations will cost more power than other combinations.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 12:24 pm: Edit

I thought we had agreed on P-V as 1.5 power or as a p-1 for 1 power or two p-3s for 1 power. The capacitor would hold three power (double the P-Vs need for 1.5).
If you have it fire two P-2s it would have to be for two points and doesn't fit with the power/damage curve. The two P-2s could do more damage than the P-V.
Of course you could fire just one p-3 if that suites you. So I restate my vote for:
Phaser Five Loading Table

Ph-V	1.5
1xph-1	1.0
2xph-3	1.0

Each option takes up the single firing slot for the Phaser. If it is fired as a singe Ph-3 the option to fire another ph-3 in that same turn remains open but cannot be fired as another type. Both Ph-3 can only be fired within four impulses IF they are fired under Aegis. On the first Ph-3 firing it must be announced if it is fired under Aegis or not other wise it is assumed not. If a ph-3 shot is announced as an Aegis shot and the second shot is not fired it can be fired as non-Aegis AFTER four impulses have passed.

How about that? Does that make sense?

I have to go but I'll check back tonight.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 12:28 pm: Edit

The problem with adding the Ph-2 is that is adds too many combinations and makes it very difficult to keep track. If a ship had only 2 or 4 that would be so bad but a XCC should have ten. You would need a special play aid to be accurate.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 12:37 pm: Edit

"I thought we had agreed on"
Everytime I hear that I shake my head. Everyone should assume nothing is 'decided', and can't be until a full integration/playtest can be done.

PV=1.5
Downfires as:
P1=1
2P2=2
1P2=1
1P2+1P3=1.5
2P3=1
1P3=0.5

Yes this means all four phaser charts will have to be on every SSD.

The double caps, though I don't like it, will probably remain as long as X1 double caps exist. What would be better in my book would be to simply use the same capacitors as in X1, i.e. 2 point caps for a PV.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 12:41 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Yes this means all four phaser charts will have to be on every SSD.

---

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 01:14 pm: Edit

I would limit the rapid pulse/downfire to a max of 3xP3s. Keep the same max power output. I would think the P2 would disappear. Too many options make the weapon hard to use, and thus unpleasant for gameplay.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 01:17 pm: Edit

"If 2xPh-2 is more powerful that 1xPh-5, then the Ph-5 should not be able to fire 2xPh-2."

2xP3 rapid pulsed is better than an X-P1. Why shouldn't the PV work the same way?

http://www.geocities.com/raperm2002/2Xphaserchoice.GIF

Using this chart 2xP2 would only be better than a PV at point blank range, and they cost more power! I don't see any inconsistancies here, particularly if rapid pulse is limited by X-Aegis restrictions.