John T. Bamm! Right on the nail head!

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 01:31 am: Edit

I specialize.

Hows your integrated proposal coming along?

I may just have to kick yours along by posting a half-@$$ed one of my own.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 01:48 am: Edit

I've got all the raw material put together. I need to find time to design ships and write the rules clearly. Thanks for asking.

Currently, I'm in dire streights and have had to pull off my big contract to do another that will pay. The big contract will pay, I'm not worried, when the cottin' pickin' inspector decides to show up so we can get to phase two. Mean while, I and my family need to eat and keep the lights on, so no heavy SFB anything for a while.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 03:07 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Not really. We need a feedback loop between the two, and plasma also. If a change occurs to phasers, that change has to propagate to drones and plasma in the form of some kind of compensatory advantage. They're linked together.

This, I think, is the crucial gap in understanding in Old X2. They packed it with Neat Stuff and never worried about the interactions.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 11:15 am: Edit

If you make drones hit more often by lowering the defense level of X2 ships then old era may sweep up the X2s.
If you make drones hit more often by improving the drone X1 and GW will not have a chance even given equal BPV.

Tread most carefully here, me thinks.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 01:51 pm: Edit

Agreed. A little headwork now will save some footwork later

By michael wheatley (Mike_Wheatley) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 08:00 pm: Edit

Many people got confused by the X1 rules, in that they forgot which "X "modifiers applied to a given item on the SSD.
To prevent such confusion, I would strongly recomend that the new weapons be given new names, with unique rule new numbers.
E.g. don't call it an X2 ph-1, call it a ph-5, and create a new rule number for these ph-5's.
Players reading the SSD will thus have ONE place to look, and can be sure that that one place has ALL the rules pertaining to that system.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 08:43 pm: Edit

We did. There are charts in the archives for a phaser V, VI and H.

By michael wheatley (Mike_Wheatley) on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 09:23 pm: Edit

Since X2 ships are able to go faster than their predecesors, a simple way to improve the weapon would be to widen the second and third range brackets by one hex each. (Pushing out all the later ranges.)
The total damage output would not go up, but the X2 ship would be able to deal damage that a slower opponent could not match.
Sort of like the way D5's could defeat early-war ships, thanks to their better arcs.

Oh, and glad to hear you will give the neo-ph-1's a distinct new name, whatever it s traits end up being :o)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 11:58 pm: Edit

I posted this in the XPh-3 topic. There is no Ph-4 topic but it is an offesive weapon so I'll repost it here.

Why not give the Phaser-IV overload ability. Have it be the only one but don't limit range of the OL. Call it the Ph-IV+.
A single larger chart would do. Use the PH-IV chart and in parenthesis give the OL number next the normal damage number.

State that only bases had the structural stability to OL their phasers. X2 only.

Some were talking about making a new Base Phaser so I proposed this.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 12:54 am: Edit

Why not have base mounted phasers that can through the use ecen more effective heavy phaser produce more damage.

Say with a damage of 25 points in the R0-3 range and rolls of 1 through 4.
And then carry it out to sweetspot at R20.
Call it the Ph-8 or the Ph-6 or what ever isn't being used....personnaly I'ld like it to be the Ph-8.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 10:14 am: Edit

I second the call for the P8 being the upgraded P4. As is fitting 8 is double 4. Similar to the P5 I propse taking the P4 damage chart and doubling the ranges. 0-3 -> 0-6. 4-5 becomes 7-10. The autohit sweet spot bracket becomes 27-34. Thems some biggun guns. Bases and planets only.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 01:50 pm: Edit

...then what's a P-7?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 02:02 pm: Edit

A P2 limited to range 15.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 10:17 pm: Edit

I would say a Ph-5 is the Ph-1 analog, a Ph-6 is the Ph-2 analog and a Ph-7 is the Ph-3 analog.

The Ph-3 analog ( particularly for the Fed Gat on their escorts ) would need to have sweetspot of 4 or at the very least 3 so we either use the Ph-2 table, the Ph-1 table or develop our our own table, say one with a sweetspot of 4.

The Ph-2 analog would need to be powerful enough to make the Ph-5 only marginally advantagious. If we drop the sweetspot of the Ph-5 to R8 then we could opperate the Ph-1 as the Ph-2 analog. If we drop to the sweetspot of the Ph-5 to R10 then we we really would need the Ph-6 to have a sweetspot of R8, the Ph-1 just can't cut the mustard. And if we leave the Ph-5 sweetspot where it is, then the Ph-6 sweetspot will need to be R10, and that will put all X1 and GW ships out in the cold, which is something that could only be corrected with monster BPVs like 500 for a light cruiser or increadibly limited numbers of X2 phasers which creates Mizia problems that players will dislike, i.e. eggshells with sledge hammers.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 10:42 pm: Edit

Erm... if X2 has a Ph-1, Ph-2, and Ph-3 analog... why is there a X2?

I just don't get it. X2 should be different not "everything improved".

There doesn't need to be a Ph-1, -2, and -3 analog. Instead there should be something new.

Honestly, it sounds as if X2 is just going to push the effective range of weapons out... so battles start at longer range.

woop. dee. doo.

42

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 11:51 pm: Edit

Not really.

X2 will move at higher speeds nessecitating the use of much longer ranged weapons.

Now combining these two factors will create an interesting situation for GW ships, how do you employ weight of numbers in order to defeat the ultimate dancer.

The Big question you have, is should we have a Ph-1 and Ph-2 analog to generate racial flavour, or should we have one Ph-1X analog to bring something new to the game, like say a spearfish drone capasity for all X2 phasers.


Personnally I'ld rather bring back Racial Flavour with two main phaser types and work on the force dynamics question than just allow every race to have the same X2 gizmo but create something new.

By Mark James Hugh Norman (Mnorman) on Saturday, January 18, 2003 - 04:20 am: Edit

What about giving every race a new X2 Gizmo? i.e. The feds with their heavy use of Phasers get a new improved phaser, but the Lyrans, who don't seem to put much effort into phasers getting an improved something else (may be not just an improved ESG). It would be possible to say that if one race got some cool new phaser, everyone else would copy it, but that argument could be countered with the cost of a new phaser design compared with the Ph-1, and the Lyrans getting something else.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, January 18, 2003 - 12:10 pm: Edit

Robert Cole

MJC is adamant that X2's phasers be a reflection of MY/GW.

The P-2 of the X2 era is the P-1 in my mind.

Tos,

My P6 and your P7 are proposals for the same niche: the defensive phaser (P3 equivalent) of X2. If we accept tha "P6=P3XX", one of those two are going to be the "real" P6, so the superheavy base phaser would be the P7, unless we leave a number open for the P2XX MJC seems to want.

Personally, I see no point in designing a p2XX when the P1X is sitting right there.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, January 18, 2003 - 01:58 pm: Edit

X2 should have a P5(Offensive) P6(defensive) P7(like Hydran and Klingons and other old P2 races) and the P8(Base Heavy Phaser).

New charts, new tables, new rules. Not just longer ranges. Some longer ranges sure, but not so much that ships never get close to each other at all.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, January 18, 2003 - 09:21 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

MJC is adamant that X2's phasers be a reflection of MY/GW.

---

---

Quote:

The P-2 of the X2 era is the P-1 in my mind.

---

---

Quote:

Personally, I see no point in designing a p2XX when the P1X is sitting right there.

---

---

Quote:

X2 should have a P5(Offensive) P6(defensive) P7(like Hydran and Klingons and other old P2 races) and the P8(Base Heavy Phaser).

New charts, new tables, new rules. Not just longer ranges. Some longer ranges sure, but not so much that ships never get close to each other at all.

---

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, January 18, 2003 - 10:47 pm: Edit

MJC: Build a chart and give it a name. No reason to change any of the existing proposals yet until we can examine all of the proposals.

No fancy formatting needed:

Range:1/2/3/4/5/6
0-2:15/13/11/9/7/5
3-5:12/10/8/6/4/2

is clear enough. If anyone seconds your nomination then I'm sure Mike would be willing to create a chart showing all of the proposals.

p.s. Sorry for volunteering you Mike but you do good work.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, January 18, 2003 - 11:28 pm: Edit

Which proposal!?!

The point of Inflection Ph-5?

The R8 Sweetspot Ph-6? ( Which would only come to be if the Ph-5 had her sweetspot dragged down to R10.

Or the R10 Ph-6? ( Which is the Ph-2 analog if the Ph-6 sweetspot stays where it is. )

Also put up a link to the chart as I'll want to double check to get the numbers straight.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, January 18, 2003 - 11:54 pm: Edit

X2 should be different, not just better.

X1 defensive phaser: With X1 rapid-pulse technology, there is no need for building a separate defensive phaser. That's why there are no ph-3s on X1 ships (a couple of ph-G, but no ph-3.)

The X1 offensive phaser: All races had already invented the ph-1, and I assume that ADB didn't want to invent a new phaser for Module X1, so it was logical for all X1 ships to use ph-1 as their offensive phaser.

X2 offensive phaser: Now whether or not all of the Galactics remain with the same phaser for X2 is another story. If a new phaser type is to be invented for X2, I see no reason why all the Galactics have to invent the same type of new phaser. Omega opened up people's minds to just how different offensive phasers can be from race to race.

Overall balance: The races with weaker offensive phasers need something else to balance their ships. Not that the X2 CAs need to be balanced to tornament standards, but they all should fall within about 15% of each other (if 300 is the low end, then none should be more than 350)

Starbase phasers: Let's not give it a phaser number yet until we've sorted out the rest.
If a race spends the money to upgrade a starbase to X2 technology, the starbase phasers should be outrageous by X0 standards.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 12:22 am: Edit

---

Quote:

The X1 offensive phaser: All races had already invented the ph-1, and I assume that ADB didn't want to invent a new phaser for Module X1, so it was logical for all X1 ships to use ph-1 as their offensive phaser.

---

---

Quote:

X1 defensive phaser: With X1 rapid-pulse technology, there is no need for building a separate defensive phaser. That's why there are no ph-3s on X1 ships (a couple of ph-G, but no ph-3.)

---

---

Quote:

Starbase phasers: Let's not give it a phaser number yet until we've sorted out the rest.
If a race spends the money to upgrade a starbase to X2 technology, the starbase phasers should be outrageous by X0 standards.

---

---

Quote:

X2 should be different, not just better.

---