that is the best idea I hav heard yet. Just build an X2 ship. We don't know war is coming....

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 09:31 pm: Edit

That is exactly what I'm saying. We agree.

And when the Xorks do come it will be these X2 ships that do the fighting and they will fight valiantly! I don't think the Xorks will be that powerful as to just sweep away X2 cruisers.

So, OK, enough about the Xorks. Yaaa!

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 09:41 pm: Edit

So, back to the topic of the 2X phaser. I like the P-VB1 that Loren proposed for the new basic offensive phaser. IMHO, the original P1 is close enough in performance that it could serve as the 2X analog of the P2 without necessitating a new phaser table...that leaves us with a defensive phaser. Which way do we go with that? There were several options put forward, IIRC:

• Use the P-2
• Make a P6, a suped-up P3.
• Use the P1, with pulse-mode added
• For the Hydrans, PG-II

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 09:59 pm: Edit

I like the P5/P6 idea. Moves ahead in technology, but is not too over the top.

I do think the Hydrans should get a suped up P-G. 4xP-1 pulses is way too much. I would think 4xP-6 shots, just to move up in the tech range. Especially since they will be using the X1-P1 as their main heavy phaser weapon.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 09:59 pm: Edit

I don't think the P2 will exist anymore, as Targeting systems are far more advanced now.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 10:04 pm: Edit

Maybe the small phaser is improved enough so it acts like a ph-2, but only costs half-power.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 10:47 pm: Edit

That's been the proposal. There is a half space phaser that requires 0.5 power to fire, it does damage like a P2 (note: like, not is) but is limited to range 15 (due to being tied into X-Aegis). This weapon would be suitable for the PG(X2).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 11:05 pm: Edit

The X2Ph-G.

I'ld like to see 5 shots ( or ten ) or something larger then 4 becuase it's supossed to be a high tech weapon, so it should be better in more than just one way.

Here are some questions.

If the PVB1 is the new Ph-1 and the Ph-1 is the new Ph-2 and the Ph-5 can shoot a rapid pulse pair of Ph-2 shots, then should the 2XPh-1 also be able to shoot a pair of rapid pulse Ph-2 shots.

My vote is Yes is the X1 is a true X2 weapon, being signified by the 3 point caps it like the Ph-5 gets. If it stays with 2 point caps then it isn't really an X2 weapon and shouldn't get the 2Ph-2 rapid pulse.


Also should the Ph-3 analog have the ability on a roll of 6 ( assuming no EW ) to inflict a minimum of 1 point of damage, on the same grounds that the Ph-3 can inflict siad one point of damage on a roll of 6 at range 2?

If we go that way then the Ph-5 may be better off firing a pair of Ph-7(?) shots, rather than a pair of Ph-2s.

Should the Ph-5 get more Ph-3 shots than her Ph-7(?) shots?

Should the 2XPh-1 be able to fire as Rapid pulse Ph-7s(?) and Ph-3s? Or should it be limited to rapid pulsesing Ph-3s and downloading to Ph-7(?) shots?

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 11:11 pm: Edit

10 pulses? Sounds like an uberweapon to me.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 11:46 pm: Edit

Yeah...10 Pulses I think would be around the X4 mark but we don't wont to do an Enterprise-D so let's have just 5.


We can even have 5 quarter point pulse or even 5 0.5 point pulses because the Caps can hold three points.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 12:25 am: Edit

Here is what I propose.

Ph-V = Standard heavy phaser on ship except for auxillaries. 1.5 to arm, 3 points in cap (i.e. 2 x 1.5), can fire as 1 x ph-1 (one point of power) or as two Ph-6* (0.5 each). This is all for one turn.

XPh-1 = secondary phaser used like the phaser-2 was. This is the exact same phaser as on X1 ships. Same rules and all. It's pulse mode fires two Ph-3s*.

Ph-6 = Point Defence Phaser. Those races who don't use the XPh-1 will get several of these. Call it racal preference. I haven't seen all the charts but I think we all share a similar vision of what this is.

Ph-8 = "He ate three eights and died!". This is the heavy base phaser to replace the Phaser-4. The Phaser-4 will be phased out as this new phaser is more effective and easier to maintain. Basically I see it as being the same advancement over the Ph-4 as the Ph-V is over the Ph-1.

*= I think the Ph-6 chart should share the same column division as the Ph-3 so that the two phasers can share the same chart (Ph-3 damage results shown in parethysis). Or arrainged in such a way as to accomodate the ph-3 numbers. This will reduce the number of phaser charts on the SSD. The Ph-3 will still be needed as weapons can be under repaired as a Ph-3 and the Ph-1 will still fire them. So it's sill just impertant enough to deserve a place on the SSD. Besides Admin shuttle may still have Ph-3s as well. We might have a tough time getting SVC to put the Ph-6 on Admins.

A note about the Ph-2. I suppose that you will be able to under repair a phaser to a Ph-2 but to put a ph-2 chart on an SSD for that rare case is unwarrented. It wasn't done before so...

Well, that what I propose.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 01:40 am: Edit

Ugh......no cross charts.

I don't see why anyone would have the Xph-1. Old ships using the P2s did so because of fire control. With such advanced tech, there is no reason for it.

Make the X2-PG fire 4 P-6 pulses.

Not too complicated here guys. 2 Phaser charts.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 07:59 am: Edit

Well, here are most of the choices so far presented...

2X Phasers

I'd vote for:

• Ph-VB1 for the standard offensive phaser
• PH-VIA for the standard defensive phaser
• PH-VIII for the new heavy base phaser
• A four-shot PH-VIA for the new G-II Hydran phaser

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 09:53 am: Edit

I wonder how people will feel about the following chart and applying it to the phasers.

I'm going to use Ph-5 for the PVB1 and the Ph-7 for the Ph-3 analog and Ph-6 for the Ph-4 analog since it's really a Ph-4 that does one and half times as much damage.

Shot Type	Ph-5	X2Ph-1	Ph-7
Ph-5 shot	Yes	No	No
Ph-1 shot	Yes	Yes	No
Ph-7 shot	Yes	No	Yes
Ph-2 shot	Yes	Yes	No
Ph-3 shot	Yes	Yes	Yes
Rapid Pulse Ph-2	2	2	Nil
Papid Pulse Ph-7	3	Nil	2
Rapid Pulse Ph-3	3	3	2

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 09:44 pm: Edit

Okay, here's an alternate idea.

We build a set of boxes, placed just under the Probes and lable them as :-

PHASER SAFTELY BACKUP SYSTEMS.

Basically when the the Phaser's are damaged, these systems kick in.

A Cruiser will have about 4 ( or maybe more ) of these ( possibply builng more as a commander's option ).

When the vessels takes damages, these systems are destroyed in the phaser's place ( or more accuratly they kick in when the main phaser systems are destroyed ).
When a ship takes hit's to phasers, then the Safety Backup system boxes are destroyed in iyt's place.

The Safety backup boxes are destroyed on the phaser Priority list and are lower than Ph-3s so that every thrid phaser hit must be to a Phaser-5 or Ph-1 depend on what is the best phaser in arc.

In this way we don't have Phaser heavy ships and fall into the old X1 trap, we don't have double damage phaser boxes, that make it look like the ship has 8 SFGs and yet we don't suffer from the mizia-SIF combo that will quickly strip a ship of phasers and we don't create a period of invunerability where the ship can take internals but can not loose weapons.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 10:25 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

and we don't create a period of invunerability where the ship can take internals but can not loose weapons

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 11:34 pm: Edit

Well...who are we talking about?

A Gorn or Rom will take an 18 point mizia and loose 3 Phasers.

A Fed FFXX ( which under the SSD I've seen has no Drone rack ) will take 18 points of damage to generate the third phaser hit.

Now the Kzinti and the Klingons and the Feds with drone racks will need to take a bigger hit.
A mizia of 27 points will score the third phaser hiot that you are looking for.
A Mizia of 36 will score 4 phaser hits ( statistically speaking ) and thus the ships will take intrnal damage and loose Phasers.

Sure a 12 point mizia isn't likely to take Phasers away, BUT it isn't all that likely to in the first place.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 11:56 pm: Edit

Mike R. This may be picky but I would vote fully for your Ph-6a if you changed the last 6 damage result in ranges 0, 1, and 2 to a 5 damage and changed the one damage result in range 2 to 2 damage. AND if any phaser that fires Ph-6a pulses fires them under x-aegis restrictions. Excepting, of course, for the XPH-G. (The latter is more important than the first.)

**Whew...that hurt my tongue.**

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 12:10 am: Edit

I just checked the D4.3221 and the prposal I puitforward would indeed make thge first two 12 point Mizias ineffective...and more if some are bought under the commander option.


One the other hand, I kind of like the idea.
The SIF forces people to use mizia because HULL can be protected but Torp and Phaser can not ( under all methods of SIF other than the "Shield #7" method, which should be dumped because it isn't any different to sheilds in it opperation of feel ).
BUT the Phaser Safety Backup forces people to use the Alpha strike ( relatively speaking ( 27 mizias instead of the traditional 10 ) and these two counter opposing forces create an interesting question for the captains.
" Should I alpha for the Phasers or should I mizia for the Heavy weapons?"

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 07:08 pm: Edit

Is there anyone who thought my two-box phaser proposal should be used? Or should I scrap the idea on any future plans?

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 07:21 pm: Edit

I'd say scrap it myself.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 07:23 pm: Edit

Scrap it.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 07:27 pm: Edit

Tis better to have tried and failed than to have never tried at all.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 07:28 pm: Edit

Gotta say scrap it. Allowing it to be hastily repaired as a P6 seems a good compromise.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 09:21 am: Edit

Actually, a lower C.D.R. cost through modular parts, might be the way to deal with the mizia effect.