Archive through January 20, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 ph-1: Archive through January 20, 2003
By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 12:31 am: Edit

I still haven't seen a reason for a P-2 analogue.

The P-1's "sweet spot" was at range-5 and it did decent damage out to 8.

The P-2's "sweet spot" was at range-3 and its damage outside that spot sucked.

A P-1 fits that comparison to a P-5 nicely: shorter sweetspot, capratively sucly damage outside.

It may also be that the P-5 is too good. Mike, what would a P-5 table look like based on the megaphaser damage table instead of the P-4 table?

There is a use for a P-7 that can bump our base phaser to P-8. the hydrans will want a gatling P-6. We can use the P-7 designation for that.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 01:02 am: Edit

Unfortunatle 2 hexes difference in range for speed 23 ships isn't going to be anything like ( 13-5 ) 8 hexes of range for speed ( 60+1 - say six standards for 12, subtract 30, divde the remainder by 5:- ) 36 hexes per turn.

That's a differnce of 8.69% to over come up to 22.22%.
You quite simply have around three times longer to "blast and evade" if you have Ph-5s and they have Ph-1s than you would have had if you had Ph-1s and they had Ph-2s.

And these ships will have how many HETs!?!

It only takes one bad impulse for MY ships to jump from R5 to R3 on each other and then get hammered by the Ph-2s.
With a differnce in range of 8 and the ability to Jump range on each other of 4 at the most, that just won't happen with X2 ships.
You've got to be able to claw back the difference in effective ranges of the two weapons with properly times Mid Turn speed changes, and you just can't do that with a ship moving 28+ like the X2s will even if you can go at 36.
Jumping up to speed 36 in the 8-9 change of impulse using a MTSC and trying to chase down that speed 28 X2 will mean at best you can claw down the range by 6 hexes and you'll need 8 to get the R5 shot your Ph-1s REALLY need.

The only way a Ph-1 could act as the X2 Ph-2 analog is if the Sweetspot of the Ph-5 was brought back to R8...even at R10, it'll take so much OUTSTANDING TACTICS on the Ph-2 analog players part just to break even that the game wouldn't be even remotely fair.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 01:45 am: Edit

Quote:

If under X2 you can shoot down drones with a Ph-2 or Ph-2 like weapons table and it only costs 0.5 points of power, why rapid pulse you Ph-5s as a Ph-2 for a full point of power.



Whatever the X2 defensive phaser turns out to be, the X2 offensive phaser should be able to rapid-pulse in that mode.

Quote:

Maybe not. I mean isn't W and Stellar Shaows for funky-zainy new gizmos.
X2 should really just be technological improvement...simple it should be the same stuff made better.



Given some of the ideas I've seen on the X2 boards, I don't see how it's just "the same stuff made better."

The other problem is that if it's just "the same stuff made better", then there's no room for new tactics to be invented. You wind up with the same stuff. Yawn.

Not that every race should come up with it's own X2 offensive phaser, but there should be at least 2 or 3 different phasers.

Quote:

The only way a Ph-1 could act as the X2 Ph-2 analog is if the Sweetspot of the Ph-5 was brought back to R8...even at R10, it'll take so much OUTSTANDING TACTICS on the Ph-2 analog players part just to break even that the game wouldn't be even remotely fair.



If two hexes range is such a game breaker, then how come the ph-1 Feds and Kzintis didn't stomp all over the ph-2 Klingons? You're only looking at one piece of the ship, not the total package.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 01:50 am: Edit

On the BPVs, they should be close enough to duel each other and the better tactics and a little luck should win. 50 BPV is too much of a difference. The Fed CA and Klink D7 variance should be about the type of difference we shoot for. I mean, we don't want the BCH, everyone at 180 type of thing.

MJC, X1 is plenty of improvement over what we already had. X2 should be an improvement yes, but I really want to see new toys and some new abilites. I would still like to see alot of old things stay the same. Probes for example, I don't want to see a change in probes. :)

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 02:38 am: Edit

I think we owe it to the Star Trek Fans in the market to build an X2 that is kinda sorta enough advanaced over an X1 to be like the Excellcior and the Enterprise-B are, over the Enterprise-A.

Quote:

50 BPV is too much of a difference.



If we are talking about a 450 BPV ship and a 500 BPV ship then they are within reason and thus can be duelled against each other quite well.


Quote:

If two hexes range is such a game breaker, then how come the ph-1 Feds and Kzintis didn't stomp all over the ph-2 Klingons? You're only looking at one piece of the ship, not the total package.



Two hexes when vessel will be able to go at speeds of 31 with relative ease and speed 35 will be a complete chore. Divide that up by the mid turn speed change rules and you'll see that inorder to take a beatling and then sneak up behind the attacker, the defender is going to need weapons that sit much closer to the effective range of the weapons than 5 is to 13.
The Kiznti's as we both know didn't capitalise on their Ph-1s because they only had a handful and Feds had to go all the way into R4 to get their Photons to work properly so the Klingons were only dealing with a 1 hex problem...and there's plenty of power to climb back on the enimy's #4 if you didn't put any power into the Disruptor that took a hit even with the MTSC rules retarding you abilities.

Don't come the raw prawn with me.
You're trying to argue that since the difference between a sweetspot of R8 and R10 is a game breaker and that that's an exagration; that therefore the idea of a difference between R5 and R13 is utterly unfounded.

The Ph-1X can not act as the "P2XX" whilst ever the sweetspot of the Ph-5 is R13. With a sweetspot of 2.6 times as long, you'ld need a mountain of Ph-1s to regain parity and that makes the game unfun for players who will A) wait around for the other guy to roll his 36 phaser attacks and B) have to wait for the other guy to record that he spent 36 points of power in that phaser attack and C0 if you are the guy with the mountain of Ph-1s, roll a mountain of phaser dice and record how much power you spent doing it.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 05:28 am: Edit

But we aren't paying homage to the movies. It is just too big for this game.

I've built and even used ships that big in a game. It isn't fun if a ship can take 100 points of damage and not flinch.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 01:44 pm: Edit

MJC,

We owe it to the ADB's legal budget to stay the hades away from the Excelsior-class and the movies beyond what X1 has already done.

Put another way, trying to shoehorn an Enterprise-B into X2, is a non-starter from SVC's perscective.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 02:46 pm: Edit

As I recall SVC hated that ship.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 04:36 pm: Edit

To be honest, so do I.

It's a visual thing with me. I never liked the downswept saucer that TNG and the movies use. "Umbrella saucers" is what I call them.

Then again, I dislike the Defiant more, again for visual reasons. It doesn't even look like a Fed ship. The inflated claims made for its combat capability that were made when it was introduced were a turnoff also.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 04:51 pm: Edit

If we design any SSDs for Fed or Klingon X2 ships, we'll have to go out of our way to make sure they DON'T look like anything in the movies or TNG.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 06:09 pm: Edit

<HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT><P>It may also be that the P-5 is too good. Mike, what would a P-5 table look like based on the megaphaser damage table instead of the P-4 table?<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0>


John, it would look like this. Look at P-VB...that's the one based on the Megaphaser. If anyone wants to create a different one, let me know and I'll put it on this page. Feel free to post this stuff as you like.

2X ideas page

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 07:25 pm: Edit

Mike,

That looks great.

Could you set up a complete phaser proposals page? So we have P5, P6 and P-8 candidates side by side?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 07:59 pm: Edit

Sure...what are they, exactly?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 08:14 pm: Edit

My vote...for what it's worth.

The PVA and the PVB become our Ph-5 and Ph-6 respectively.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 10:38 pm: Edit

For the P-6 we have my P-6 proposal and Tos' Range-15 P-2 as alternatives. The P-GII's damage charge would also qualify as a P-6 possibility.

Whatever gatling phaser we use for the P-7 should use the P-6 damage chart.

I don't know if there's a chart for the P-8, our P-4 x 1 1/2.

That's everything.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 10:44 pm: Edit

The P-8 is no problem...I'll just whip it up. Where is your P-6 proposal? I'll make a chart for it, as well.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 11:37 pm: Edit

P-3 topic, first archive, Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 10:09

I did a table, then a revised. make sure to match the time for the proper one.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 12:11 am: Edit

There are two parts to determining the phaser suite on a starship. How many? What type?

There is plenty of discussion on what type of phaser belongs in the X2-tech level.

But, How many phasers belong on a starship?

In the timeline thread, we're close settling on X2 ships being multi-purpose ships, similar to a Y140 ship. So the ship isn't upgunned like a CCH.
Would an average X2 cruiser have 6-8 phasers?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 12:23 am: Edit

I think we're doing good just holding the line at 12 or so P-5's.

We can't expect to improve technology and retrograde on the armament.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 12:35 am: Edit

I rather like the Ph-VB. My proposed version is a bit too powerful I think. The Ph-VB is a little more reasonable. I need to compair it with the Ph-1 tomarrow. And you know at Range 50 it is better than the Ph-VA.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 12:37 am: Edit

Heh, I didn't notice that the Ph-1 table was to the side of it until I downloaded it and viewed it. Good thinking Mike!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 12:39 am: Edit

Quote:

There are two parts to determining the phaser suite on a starship. How many? What type?



Three parts.

Haw many?
What Type?
What arcs?


I'ld like to see the basic principle be around 12.

16 should be the upper limit...maybe 18...if we're talking about a say a Kzinti with lots of Ph-7s for drone defense and a hand full of Ph-5s for dancing against an actual opponent.

I'ld rather not go down to 8 phaser of on a basic cruiser...not simply because I like extensive math but rather, we haven't chaged the DAC but have changed the way it opoperated.
12 points of real internal damage...reguardless of whether we have some kind of sheild between the A & B colloums or a Doubling of Hull Box Strength, will still be a loss of TWO Phasers.
If the damage output of an X2 ship goes up...and it will, then we can easily mizia up four little 12 point block and kill all 8!?! phasers.
Sure higher speeds will compensate by allow one to turn, but the longer ranges will cause ships to "whoosh by the open shields" for a longer number of impulses and so that method of reducing the mizia won't work.
Thus the ships will take lots of mizia damage...even if we have 8 phaser and a mizia of two bunchs of 36 ( which is acheivable with these ships ) we'll wind up having lost all 8 phaser.

Thus I say we should be looking at 12!
12 for the Ph-5 user and judging by the effectiveness of the Ph-6 ( Assuming PVA & PVB respectively ) 14 for balance and no more than 15...not unless we're dealing with a BCHXX...which I think can wait for X2R.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 01:24 am: Edit

If, as a player, you get hit by four Mizia volleys on four different impulses, you deserve what you get. And if we're talking still talking about a MC 2/3 or MC 1 ship, 48 internals = crippled.

12 ph-5!? How many would go on each of the different MCs? There's the MC 1/3 FF, MC 1/2 DD, MC 2/3 CL, MC 1 CA.


Assuming a typical battle pass will get 8 of them in arc, the average damage of the various ph-5 proposals would be:

Average damage caused by an 8 phaser volley with no shift.
Range567891011-13
ph-V 6049.341.33630.62416
ph-VA60483630.625.32014.7
ph-VB34.726.726.726.714.714.714.7


Combine this with the range 10 overloads, and how can the BPV be measured against an X1 ship?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 02:46 am: Edit

A CX can easily inflict 8Ph-1 shots at R5 for how much damage.

I mean that'll be the trick for GW and X1s...how do you get the enemy into R5, without loosing a Cruiser to crippled status every round...sounds like a base assault to me...pity we used the Ph-4 as our base weapon, right!?!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 02:53 am: Edit

In an X2 Vs X2 battle, we can expect ships to need more phasers.

They'll have 4-6 five point BTTYs.
50-60 Sheild boxes on their #1.
Other bits and peices.

I know X2s will get closer to each other than they would an X1 but those few Phaser at R10 aren't even going to get past the SSReo.

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