Archive through January 29, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 disruptors: Archive through January 29, 2003
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 12:02 am: Edit

Quote:

BTW, I have no desire to get in a flamewar.
It'll distract too much from the topic.



Understood.

Quote:

OK, could you spell out how to do the math for what you're proposing?



Okay, the bleed back power is effectively free energy, through the use of highly advanced perpetual-motion based nanoids...or some such.
The Bleed back power can not be greater than the power of the first turn and will happen on the second turn.
The bleed back power must also be "kept warm" through the addition of some nominal power on the second turn.

So the power would look like this for say a16 pointoverload over two turns.

•The player flushes in 4 points of power on turn X.

•During the EA of turn X+1, the player recevies up to 2 points of warp power per tube in the form of bleedback and must also alocate 2 points of warp power aswell to receive those two points of bleedback, so he allocates 2 points of warp power to the Photon-torp ( I'm not sure how to mark it or even if it should be marked in the EAF ) as 2+2 where only the black 2 is counted towards the power used this turn but the sum of the two mumber's is counted towards the warhead strength of the photon.

•When the weapon is fired on turn X+1 it will have a warhead strength of 16 but only 6 points of power will be allocated from the ship's power to arming it, specifically 4+2.

• If the weapon is held then it will simply be held based on the warhead strength.

I supose one could note the bleedback power in the notes section of the EAF or maybe they could just determine it at the instant of firing at the firing player discression, so long as the bleedback power stayed within the rules for the purposses of that calculation.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 12:14 am: Edit

Quote:

I'd prefer the Tholisn D be the only exception to the rule.

The other exception is the Old X2 cruisers who were all SC 2 and had a MC of 1.



It does match the size jump between the Enterprise-A and the Enterprise-B.

Not that, that's any reason but it'll mean that some of the Enterprise-B is being shadowed in our game which will be good for the Star Trek fans in the market.

If we want a few spaces to stow stores, then I'ld say;"Hull volume" rather than simply "fewer weapons to make room".


Quote:

MJC,

KISS problems.


Hence 12 Phaser-6s is better than 8.

At 3.5 points of power at R8 and 1.5 power to fire the thing, we won't really be making uberships if we have 12 phasers...actually looking at that math ( 3.5 points at R8 ) I don't think we'll need uber-heavies to keep the balance in favour of racial flavour...maybe the 20 point warhead/bleedback photon will be enough.

I wonder if extended range overloads is a good idea? Since the Ph-5s will bring ships into R8 by themselves giving the GWs and X1s a fighting chance.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 01:07 am: Edit

Quote:

Here's an idea.
The first hit to any X2 phaser ( not including the X2Ph-1s ) has a die roll. ...
The phasers that take a hit just to their Caps will loose all three points of Capasitor ( although they can still utlise the ship's cap to fire ). If the phaser has already lost it's cap, then it is simply destroyed.



KISS problems. It adds another die roll to the DAC procedure.

I think your bleed-back idea also fails the KISS test. If you want more warhead for less power, just make it 2.5 for 1. You get a 15 point warhead for 6 power, without the convoluted math.

Quote:

It does match the size jump between the Enterprise-A and the Enterprise-B.

Not that, that's any reason but it'll mean that some of the Enterprise-B is being shadowed in our game which will be good for the Star Trek fans in the market.



Anything that looks like Enterprise-B may be good for Star Trek fans, but not good at all for ADB's legal budget.
Bigger X2 cruisers = Enterprise B = Unpublishable by ADB

Quote:

If we want a few spaces to stow stores, then I'ld say;"Hull volume" rather than simply "fewer weapons to make room".



But increasing the hull volume means making a bigger ship.

Quote:

I wonder if extended range overloads is a good idea? Since the Ph-5s will bring ships into R8 by themselves giving the GWs and X1s a fighting chance.



I gave my photons a range improvement.
The disruptor rifle uses the same range brackets as a regular disruptor, but gets its improvements in other ways.

The fact that the brackets for photons and ph-5s don't line up makes for a new set of tactics and decisions. The new photons have range 7-10 to hit on 1-3, but the phasers have the same performance throughout the 9-15 bracket.


Quote:

At 3.5 points of power at R8 and 1.5 power to fire the thing, we won't really be making uberships if we have 12 phasers.



We may not have uberships, but we'll have phaser-heavy ships, and that's probably worse.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 01:23 am: Edit

Quote:

I think your bleed-back idea also fails the KISS test. If you want more warhead for less power, just make it 2.5 for 1. You get a 15 point warhead for 6 power, without the convoluted math.



And a 10 point standard, that might be exactly what we're looking for.


Quote:

We may not have uberships, but we'll have phaser-heavy ships, and that's probably worse.



Okay what about, the CCXX being built ( but under treaty each race built 1 ) and so the CLXX was built and they had about 8 Ph-5s and a longer range and were meant as defacto servey vessel, going out on longer missions deeper into space ( than the X1 before them ).
The when the Xorks inavde the CAXX get's built and it'll have 12Ph-5s and YIS around the Zork invasion.

Then players can pick the much more sturdy ( and more expensive and YIS restricted ) CAXX to play or risk the internal damage problems of the cheaper CLXX.

It could work, but the SSDs might be too many.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 10:04 pm: Edit

Here's an idea.

What if we gave the Disruptors a special ability...like they really did disrupt the ships...by forcing a roll on the critical hit chart...which would be even more fun if the SIF is added to the chart.

We'ld need to put some limit, like if the ships takes 30 x MC points of damage ( rounded up ) in a single impulse then the hit ship must roll once ( per occasion ) on the critical hit table.

We'ld also need to make the setting's work differently to current Disruptors, so it'ld require 50% more power to fire standards, or Overloads, and the usual Standard and Overload damage would be inflicted.

The damage can only come from X2 disruptors ( that are paying the higher price ) and must all occour in a single volley.


Now those 24 point Photons won't seem so unreasable.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 12:27 am: Edit

Forcing people to use the crit-hit chart.

Ugh.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 12:51 am: Edit

Quote:

Now those 24 point Photons won't seem so unreasable



It sounds like you invented a definate game-breaker for the disruptors just to make the 24-pointers not look as much like a game-breaker.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 03:51 am: Edit

Quote:

It sounds like you invented a definate game-breaker for the disruptors just to make the 24-pointers not look as much like a game-breaker.



Yup.

Or more accuratly I was saying that Disruptors could have come in a Flavour other than Rapid Pulse...it's just a matter of finding a Flavour we all like.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 12:45 pm: Edit

X2 disruptor:

Don't have it separate, so here's an SSD with the chart.

Can fire 2 shots each turn. Has a capacitor of 6. 2nd shot must be from Batts - regardless of capacitor status. 1st or 2nd shot can be Standard, Overload, Focused, or Web - but cannot be Critical Overload.

Focused Beam: Requires same amount of energy, but does 1/2 damage - not compatible with WEB or CRITICAL firing modes.

STANDARD: Costs 3 to fire.
OVERLOAD: Costs 6 to fire.
CRITICAL OVERLOAD: Costs 10 to fire. 66% chance weapon may be destroyed, (1-2 good, 3-6 destroyed) but shot is still fired. Critical Overloads must be designated in EA, and if designated weapon must fire or discharge. Discharge is safe - no chance of weapon destruction. If Critical is allocated, disruptor may not fire more than one shot that turn.
WEB: Tech modified from Seltorians. Does 4 damage to Web if hits. (Not really a "hit" - just whether the shot actually disrupts the web.) Due to the sensitive energies / frequencies involved, only 1 ship may fire at web per impulse, and must use all disruptors on ship in web mode.

42

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 01:26 pm: Edit

Cool SSD, Rob! Can't say I like the rule, though...a 10 point, rapid fire disruptor is a bit much. Rapid fire at 5 or even six points I could live with...but not a base of 10.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 02:14 pm: Edit

I agree. Double power over a normal disr for +1 power is a little over the top.

A hallmark of a lot of our X2 stuff is that the increased damage comes at increased cost.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 02:30 pm: Edit

The discussion of an improved disruptor cannon in one of the other X topics reminded me that I did have to design an overloadable disruptor cannon for an unofficial, unsanctioned TC I did for the carnivons last year. While such a weapon would obviously need some impovements in X2, this could be an example of such a weapon improved to GW standards.

Basically, arming with 2+4 increases power by 50%. Testing showed that doubling the damage was way too much in GW/Tourney battles. This ship seems to fight pretty well against other TCs.

You guys use it for a starting point if you like.

http://jgray-sfb.com/carntc.jpg

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 02:32 pm: Edit

Well... besides the damamge... the post is there to show some options for weapon improvement.

I especially like the idea of the Focused Disr and Web Disruptor.

(And I agree with Jeremy. No X2 for awhile, please. X1R, perhaps... but no X2.)

42

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 03:09 pm: Edit

X1R would be a logical next step as the History would be better defined for working out X2. However, work can be concurrent. I would like to see X2 happen soon. That would mean X1R comes soonER.

I posted the original X2 Disruptor Cannon idea in the MAJOR X2 CHANGES... thread. I could repost it here I suppose.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 07:10 pm: Edit

What do we have so far?

Disruptor cannon - finally gets OL ability

Disruptor bolt - perhaps double overload, or more bolts per ship, or rapid fire

Disruptor rifle - my attempt to combine a particle cannon with a disruptor bolt

Who likes which ideas? Are there any that I left out?

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

I like merging the PC/WC Capacitor system with a disruptor firing mechanism as a Tholian only device. It might also be rapid fire and might also be able to be charged in addition to what can be stored in the capacitor.

It might be fun to allow the Lyrans to tie their disruptors to the ESG capacitor allowing one capacitor to fuel two systems.

The other ideas are possible but the none make me sit up and say eureka.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 07:27 pm: Edit

Well....

I like 'em all. Sounds weird, I know, but I do. What I'd like to see is some variation between the races, something like this:



That's my take on it. I have absolutely no doubt others will disagree or have their own ideas. My only argument is that I did try to justify the ownership of the various versions based on historical data, rather than my play style or preference.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 07:31 pm: Edit

Quote:

Klingons and Lyrans: Get the basic disruptor bolt, rapid fire mode with built-in DERFACS and UIM. Add a capacitor, and you get a relatively low-cost, rapid fire weapon



It's a disruptor that fires multiple shots per turn with a capacitor. How is this different from the rifle, other than possible no large or mega shots?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 07:35 pm: Edit

You just said it...no mega shots, and the base damage is still only five. They can fire either two normal shots in one turn, or one overload shot. The capacitor would hold four points of energy per disruptor. That make sense?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 10:22 pm: Edit

Mike, why not give them a base 6 damage? That's not much but does keep up with the Cannon.

No DERFACS or UIM for the DC, right?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 10:27 pm: Edit

Mike, jsut reviewing and I wanted to clearify something. Via e-mail I did mention something different than my original proposal for the DC but the only difference in your proposal and my original one is the yours can't be Fast Loaded. My original post had OL for the DC.

That said, having both is too much. The two turn standard or OL version is better (I think for now anyway. :) )

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 10:33 pm: Edit

In the GW.

•Klingons have Disruptors and Drones ( few drones ( and a Ph-2 suite )).
•Kzintis have Distrutors ( few Disruptors ) and Drones ( & a Ph-1/Ph-3 suite )).
•Tholians have Disruptors and the Web.
•Lyrans have Diruptors and ESGs.

We only need one Flavour of Disruptor to generate Racial Flavour.
So let's just have one kind of Disruptor.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 10:44 pm: Edit

There's no need to keep all of the disruptors identical. Let's experiment.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 10:48 pm: Edit

At this stage in the game, I disagree.

Since we aren't actually designing X2 for the ADB, just tossing out ideas and spinning interesting combinations, I say we give everyone both a unique disruptor and drone that they can call their own. SVC can decide if he wants to to keep that degree of diversity.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 11:56 pm: Edit

I can see the Lyrans and the Kzinti developing there own flavor of DC.

The Klingons should develope their own advance disruptor out of their original.

I just can't see the Tholians developing the Disruptor further. They captured the tech. from the Klingons and it is alien to them. Whith the arival of the Neos and the Selts. I see them keeping the Disruptor as it and augmenting their ships with something else. I don't like the PC myself. The web caster is the Coolest. Imagin a T-XCC with four Disruptors (or Photons) and two Web Casters able to fire the Sticky Web Fist. That's plenty hight tech. for me. (along with a few Ph-Vs and Ph-1s.

I also mentioned a multi-shot snare (3 or 4) that fired small single target 10 point webs against SC5 and smaller units.

That would feel very Tholian to me.

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