Well, here is an example. A Klingon XCC would have 8 Ph-V (4 in the boom and 4 in the wings). The waist phasers would be what? Ph-Vs seem to be too much so I'm thinking four XPh-1s.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 03:37 pm: Edit

Sure. That would fit with the D7's waist P-2's.

But the D7C/L also has a couple of wing P-3's. P-1's would be too much and P-3's too boring.

Maybe the Kzinti are lonesome for the days of the P-3 claw...

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Eagle) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 04:43 pm: Edit

John, the flatness problem will disappear when you consider the X2 ships need more than just more powerfull weapons.
The Klingon in the example above could have
Improved(I)Disruptors, IDrones, all phaser-1s(or V) an one shot SGF and possibly something more.
No one will notice phasers only come in one flavour(they'll be too busy trying to figure out how to use the new systems )

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 05:20 pm: Edit

The biggest reason I can see for an improved P3 would be size...it's a half-space weapon, usable on shuttles and fighters, and other small craft. I would think the powers that be would want an improved defensive phaser, even if in limited quantities. It's great to have a PV that you can down-fire, but lets face it...if you're down-firing your PV's, you aren't shooting at the opposition with them. A P3 with somewhat better range and a slight damage increase (somewhere between the current P3 and P2) would seem an appropriate place to start.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 07:05 pm: Edit

How about this for the phasers:

	Heavy offense	Light offense	Defense
X0	ph-1	ph-2	ph-3
X1	ph-1		ph-3 (pulse)
X2	ph-5	ph-1	ph-2 (pulse?)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 09:03 pm: Edit

That's why I had the Klingon with XPh-1s. Those four Ph-1s will have a long reach to hit heavy drones at a distance or could fire two Ph-3s each for a total of 8 Ph-3s. Those XPh-1s would be like having two Ph-Gs with an up firing option.

Two Ph-2 pulse for the Ph-V is too much I think. If you could pulse two Ph-2s why couldn't you pulse two Ph-1s?

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 09:24 pm: Edit

You could do 2xP2 as the pulse, if a P5 shot costs 2 power.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 09:25 pm: Edit

Or, we could have a P6. A P2 damage(approximately) for a half point of power.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 09:37 pm: Edit

A proposed P-6 table

Roll	0	1	2	3	4-8	9-15	16-30
1	5	5	4	4	3	1	1
2	5	4	4	4	2	1	0
3	5	4	4	3	1	0	0
4	4	4	3	3	0	0	0
5	4	4	3	2	0	0	0
6	4	3	2	1	0	0	0

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 09:39 pm: Edit

Given the damage chart for the Ph-V the energy/damage coefficiant would be very poor. A Phaser-V doesn't do as much damage as to old Overloaded XPhaser-1 which cost 2. Two power would be too much and the capacitor would have to be four points. At 1.5 with a cap of three each you have a cleanly effective weapon clearly superior to the XPh-1. Let it fire as two Ph-3s for one point (half each) and have other defencive systems on board. Since two Ph-3s would not put out as much total possible damage as a Ph-V then there wouldn't be the phaser-hose abuse like before and the aegis restrictions could be removed. Might make for a very dangerous Mizia situation though. But maybe not because the most effective mizia threshold is about the damage of a Ph-V.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 09:40 pm: Edit

Make a new P-5 chart.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 09:41 pm: Edit

I'd have a max range on a P-6 be about 20.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 09:48 pm: Edit

Agreed. 30 is a bit too much for a defensive phaser.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 09:50 pm: Edit

for range-0 5-5-5-4-4-4 might be a bit much, but the least we could go to would be 5-5-4-4-4-4 or 5-4-4-4-4-4-4 at the very least

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 09:56 pm: Edit

Well, it does not have to be exactly like a P2/P3.

Why not
Range 0: 5-5-5-4-4-3
Range 1: 5-5-4-4-4-3
Range 2: 5-4-4-4-3-3
Range 3: 4-4-4-3-3-2
Rng 4-8: 3-2-1-1-0-0
Rg 9-15: 2-1-1-0-0-0
R 15-20: 1-1-0-0-0-0

With a restriction that the Pulse can only be ised vs. SC5 and smaller targets, we have no worries of it being abused against a ship.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 10:09 pm: Edit

Can do on the range. I was originally thingking something like 20 to 24.

roll	0	1	2	3	4-8	9-15	16-20
1	5	5	4	4	3	1	1
2	5	4	4	4	2	1	0
3	5	4	4	3	1	0	0
4	4	4	3	3	0	0	0
5	4	4	3	2	0	0	0
6	4	3	2	1	0	0	0

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 10:11 pm: Edit

CFant,

We run it like X1 rapid-pulse and say that a P-5 can only rapid-pulse as a P-6 when it is firing at a aegis-viable target.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 10:17 pm: Edit

What would the arming energy be for a P-6?

I'm thinking 2/3 or 3/4.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 10:19 pm: Edit

All this sounds too complicated.

An XP1 can fire as 1P1 for 1 power and has a 2 cap.
An XP5 can fire as 1P5 for 1.5 power and has a 3 cap.

An XP1 can pulse as 2P3 for 1 power.
An XP5 can pulse as 2P2 for 2 power.

To fire in pulse mode you have to use X-Aegis and therefore defensive fire is limited to range 15.

KISS

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 10:49 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

But the D7C/L also has a couple of wing P-3's. P-1's would be too much and P-3's too boring.

---

---

Quote:

Two Ph-2 pulse for the Ph-V is too much I think. If you could pulse two Ph-2s why couldn't you pulse two Ph-1s?

---

---

Quote:

You could do 2xP2 as the pulse, if a P5 shot costs 2 power.

---

---

Quote:

I'd have a max range on a P-6 be about 20.

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 11:24 pm: Edit

MJC,

I haven't heard anyone else voice support for an X2 P-2.

You may be outvoted.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 11:43 pm: Edit

I support a range 15 P2 replacing the P3 as 'the' defensive phaser.

This isn't really a P2 in my book but a range 15 XP3 that does damage equal to the P2 chart, takes ½ a space and costs 0.5 power to fire.

Forgive me if I just said all this somewhere else, I'm getting dej-a-vu.

The P5 becomes the offensive P1 analog.
The P1 becomes the offensive/defensive P2 analog.
The P? becomes the defensive P3 analog using the P2 chart out to range 15.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 11:56 pm: Edit

The problem I have with the pulsed P-2 is that the P-2 is a P-1 with poor targeting but also that is is too long of a ranged weapon. Two shots of Ph-2 is more damage (up to 12) and will turn into the phaser hose problem. Making it pulse through the X aegis is a complicated system, IMO. And using two power from the 3 point cap doesn't seem balanced.

Pulsing as the above Ph-6 is more acceptable to me than the Ph-2 as that would max out at ten damage. This would require a new phaser chart on the SSD but might not be a problem if it is said that any phaser that is on a X2 ship down fires to a Ph-6 then the Ph-3 chart could be eliminated.

For me, I guess, it comes down to the fact that I just don't like it (pulsed Ph-2s). It's just a little too much.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, January 15, 2003 - 12:08 am: Edit

I tend to agree that a gatling P-2 is excessive.

That's why I built an upgraded P-3 (the 6) to go with our upgraded P-1 (the 5)

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, January 15, 2003 - 12:43 am: Edit

As was pointed out at least once before the appropriate defensive weapons will have to work in sync with the seeking weapons of the day.