Archive through January 14, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 ph-3 and other small defensive weapons: Archive through January 14, 2003
By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 01:18 pm: Edit

"so if a Ph-5 can fire 2xPh-2, then it can fire 2xPh-1"

It can't because 2P1 would be too powerful.

"I would think the P2 would disappear."

The P2 has a really sweet chart for dealing with sabot speed seeking weapons.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 02:08 pm: Edit

Yes, but then we start running into issues that a 12 phaser CXX now has 24 P2s. No seeing weapon will EVER hit it.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 02:10 pm: Edit

I like Loren's idea the best.

P-V or a P-I or 2xP-III. Quick, easy, not complicated at all. No overloads, no wierd damage multipliers. KISS.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 02:14 pm: Edit

The CXX wouldn't have 12 P-V, it would have closer to 8. The X1 ships got 50% more phasers, the XR ships will put the phasers back to standard counts but use more powerful, longer range phasers. Do you really want to tie up your offensive P-V to stop a drone that you could stop with a tractor beam?

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 02:27 pm: Edit

Hmm, I would see a CXX having the phaser compliment of a BCH/X1 CX. So, 12.

Why would they drop back down to 8?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 02:59 pm: Edit

Because the phasers are more powerful.

Let me back up a step:
X0=X0
X1=X0*1.5
XP=X0
XR=X0 (but with PV in place of P1 and P3 upgraded to P1)
X2=XR*1.5

If you make XR=X1 then you end up with an X2 cruiser with 12*1.5 = 18 heavy phasers + light phasers. So we may actually be saying the same thing but I was referring to XR.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 03:48 pm: Edit

I am so confused by all the X-whatever going around that I think my head just might implode.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 05:00 pm: Edit

Chris, you have to ask yourself would you rather have 1 module of X2 and the end of SFB history or would you rather have module X1B, XP, XR, C5 (Xorks & XR2), X2. The nomenclature is tricky I freely admit but the evolutionary technology approach allows everyone to have a time period they can call their own. Even I get confused about what period we are talking about from one discussion to the next. The good news is we don't exactly have any deadlines.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 05:06 pm: Edit

I think a X2 cruiser will have 10 Ph-V mounts. This is from a lesson learned about full coverage. A Fed XCC would have 4-FH, 2-LS, 2-RS and 2-360` in the aft hull. A Klingon would have 4-FX (boom), 2 in the left wing and 2 in the right wing. The waist phasers could be 1+1 but I think it would be cooler to have four XPh-1s in the waist. Similarly I think the Kzinti might mount XPh-1s like they mounted Ph-3s.
(by Xph-1 I mean the same phaser that is mounted on X1 ships).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 09:34 pm: Edit

Quote:

"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.



Nobody listens to me but.

We actually need two new phasers to regain RACIAL FLAVOUR. They'll be the Ph-1 analog and the Ph-2 analog.

SO here's a nidea.

We have the Ph-5 which is the Ph-4 Jr and has her sweetspot at R17.

We build a Ph-6 which should be basically a Ph-1 with all the range brackets doubled ( or there abouts ) to put the sweetspot at about R10.

Ships with Ph-6 will have a few more ( or better arcs ) to ragain parity.

Then we can have multi-layered rapid pulse based on what kind of parent phaser we are using. So:-

Ph-5 options Ph-6 options
Standard Fire 1 Ph-5 shot 1 Ph-6 shot
Defensive rapid fire 2Ph-1 shots 2 Ph-2 shots.
Point Blank Rapid Pulse 4 Ph-3 shots 4 Ph-3 shots

* The 2Ph-1s of the Ph-5 could fire as a pair of Ph-2s but why would you!?!

In this way we regain racial flavour.


Quote:

Yes, but then we start running into issues that a 12 phaser CXX now has 24 P2s. No seeking weapon will EVER hit it.



I launch an MRX SP at you.
8 Type X drones are headed your way.
AT 8 points of damage each, you need to fire 4 Ph-2 shots at R3.
You destroy 6...now what were you saying about being unable to get the drones to hit?

And I still have my racks...maybe you should be looking into 4 Ph-3s and careful manouver.


Quote:

The CXX wouldn't have 12 P-V, it would have closer to 8. The X1 ships got 50% more phasers, the XR ships will put the phasers back to standard counts but use more powerful, longer range phasers. Do you really want to tie up your offensive P-V to stop a drone that you could stop with a tractor beam?



Coupled with the 8 Phasers with the strengthening Hull Box S.I.F; the CAXX is going to feel like a Y ship as soon as Walter Mizia sits down at the table.

Quote:

If you make XR=X1 then you end up with an X2 cruiser with 12*1.5 = 18 heavy phasers + light phasers. So we may actually be saying the same thing but I was referring to XR.



We're all convinced that the CCH (CB) is the designed basis of the CX.
I suspect the 50% increase in the number of the Ph-1s over the original vessel may be a little over stated.

Now a Klingon C7X with 5 Boom, and 3 on each Wing as her Phaser increase would be pretty nice and not unplayable...For an X1R vessel.

Quote:

I think a X2 cruiser will have 10 Ph-V mounts.



I'ld rather integrate the racial flavour Phasers.
So an X2 cruiser should have:-

10 Ph-5s.
15 Ph-6.
Or 4 Ph-5s and 8 Ph-6

This way the Gorns and Feds can be Type 1 and the Lyrans and Kzintis can be Type 3 and Klingons and Hydrans can be Type 2...although the Hydrans will proably get a Gat of some kind.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 10:00 pm: Edit

There is another alternative.

We do a P-VI that replaces the P-3.

Something that goes halfway between the P-3 and the P-2.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 10:57 pm: Edit

In truth we should aim for a Ph-5, Ph-6 and a Ph-7 so that we can have:-

Ph-5; the Ph-1 analog.
Ph-6; the Ph-2 analog.
Ph-7; the Ph-3 and Ph-G analog table.
A Ph-F might be five Ph-7 shots, or some such.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 11:05 pm: Edit

We can dump a P-2 analogue. The P2 is a holover from EY.

The holdover in X2 will be the P-1.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 11:15 pm: Edit

I created some thing like that already.

Pulse Phaser-3 (PP3)
No a pulsed gatling like phaser. It fires one shot. But that shot is a rapid secesion of pulses (about 20) fired in a narrow arc. This pulsing effect increases the damage causes by rapid hits and averages the damage out at range. At long range it makes it easier to get at least a few pulses to hit.

PP3
Die Roll 0-1 --2 --3 4-6 7-8 9-15
1 6 6 4 3 2 1
2 6 4 4 3 2 1
3 6 4 3 2 1 0
4 4 3 3 2 1 0
5 4 3 2 1 0 0
6 3 2 1 0 0 0


This is intended as X2 only and not as a down fire option for the Ph-V.

I had the idea to apply this technology to the Phaser 4 as well. Bringing the average damage up a bit at medium range (15 ish) and a bit higher at thirty as well. Bases are going to need something like that. I don't have the chart finnished yet, just a quick sketch.

I repeat! This is not a Gatling phaser of any sort. It can fire ONE shot per turn. It still uses only 1/2 a point of power and is still a 1/2 space weapon.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 11:31 pm: Edit

20 pulses of THAT?!? What's the power cost? 5? 10?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 11:36 pm: Edit

Arrgggg. No. One shot is pulsed 10 or 15 or 20 times. The beem is divided up into pulses. That what increases the damage. If 90%-100% of the pulses hit it does a grand total of 6 points at range 0-1.

Mike Raper warned me it would inevitably be interpreted that way. Don't worry, it's just a better Ph-3. The Pulse thing is the Technobabble as to why it has a better damage table.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 11:38 pm: Edit

Why didn't you just say it was like a pulse-laser in battletech? :)

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 11:45 pm: Edit

Quote:

We can dump a P-2 analogue. The P2 is a holdover from EY.

The holdover in X2 will be the P-1.



Yeah, that's why I'm for making either the Ph-1 or the Ph-1/Ph-2 the Ph-3 analog as they will be a Holdover from X1.

I want a Ph-1 analog and a Ph-2 analog to regain Racial Flavour.
We don't need the same history basis ( Ph-2s are left over from the Y period for races that were too tightfisted to developed Ph-1s ), we can develop our own ideas, like the Ph-6 is built around subatomic partical occilation and the Ph-1 is built around multi-phased waves...and the two technologies were incompatible and...and off we go from there.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 11:49 pm: Edit

Could just be that some races were too cheap to spring for P5's regardless of the reason.

No need to get into specifics when vague generalizations will do.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 11:49 pm: Edit

Oh, well, I...I've never played Battle Tech. :(

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 11:56 pm: Edit

J.T.:

Yes, that's it...the Ph-6 was developed because some races were tightwadds.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 08:34 am: Edit

If someone wants to make up the chart for this, send it to me and I'll make a "real" chart and post it, along with the current P-V and rules regarding both.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 01:39 pm: Edit

MJC, if they're tightwads, they'll use P-1s. They're cheap, plentiful and devalued on the market once P-5s come out.

No need to do a P-2 replacement.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 02:08 pm: Edit

John T.

I agree. In fact, I've been considering that the new defense phaser should just be a standard XPh-1 and canning my Pulse Phaser 3 idea. It is far more simple game wise.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 02:17 pm: Edit

I don't think so. I think th lack of P-3's contributed to the "flatness" of X1 ships.

I think a P-3 replacement is in order.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation