Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through August 02, 2003	25		08/02 03:47pm
	Archive through February 07, 2004	25		02/07 10:42pm
	Archive through February 09, 2004	25		02/09 04:21pm
	Archive through February 11, 2004	25		02/11 10:01am
	Archive through February 11, 2004	25		02/11 08:57pm
	Archive through February 12, 2004	25		02/12 10:10pm
	Archive through February 14, 2004	25		02/14 06:52pm
	Archive through February 16, 2004	25		02/16 04:18pm
	Archive through February 20, 2004	25		02/20 05:41pm
	Archive through February 22, 2004	25		02/22 05:40pm
	Archive through February 23, 2004	25		02/23 10:55am
	Archive through March 23, 2004	25		03/23 01:45pm
	Archive through April 22, 2004	25		04/22 05:04am
	Archive through April 22, 2004	25		04/22 09:04pm
	Archive through April 24, 2004	25		04/24 09:23pm
	Archive through January 09, 2005	25		01/09 01:52pm

I like the idea of having the Ph-1 become the new Ph-2 for racial flavour purposes.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 06:14 am: Edit

I'm with Alan on different directions for races, but I think there should be some commonality (as a means of basic measure against each other). It seems the phaser is the most logical choice for that.

Still, I like what Mike suggests for the Tholians. I and other suggested different plasmas for the PLAS races. I also like the different disruptor ideas for the DISR races. It seems the difference here is mostly in heavy weapons, but then as Mike might be suggesting (correct me if I'm wrong here) the Tholians could use their phasers as a sort of heavy weapon.

I presume the Hydrans would be the first to build true X2 fighters, and the Lyrans would come up with some new capability for the ESG, etc. Likewise I think careful consideration should be given to the cloak for Romulans and the PPD for ISC.

On a side note, I also like what Mike wrote in his X2 proposal about the Federation going back to being "shield busters." We need to make sure we stay true to racial flavor (and I think most agree) simply because people play certain races because they like how the races play.

Perhaps I'm going back to basics here but I think it's useful from time to time.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 06:52 am: Edit

Hmm, a few notes.

1: I know people disagree about the phaser-5 costing only one point. No sense re-hashing all that, but the biggest reason I don't like the higher cost is that my approach to X2 has been improved efficiency and flexibility. A more powerful phaser that costs more to fire doesn't acheive either.

2: My thoughts for the Tholians were to make them basically a phaser/web only race. They might retain a few ships with some X1 heavy weapons, but for the most part they'd go back to using phasers and improved web devices. I have no idea what those would be; havne't gotten that far yet.

3: Names. I thought about calling the Klingons XCA the XD (basically the reverse of the DX) but thought it sounded kind of silly. So, just to keep it clear what roll a given ship is playing, I just named them XD7, XF5, etc. Who knows what the real names will be? These are test models; nothing more.

I have played with most of these ships at least a little bit. So far, the XCA and XD7, and the XDD are the ones most tested. They work pretty good. I rather like the XDD with a cargo box for NWO and G2X racks for the option mounts.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 08:26 am: Edit

Mike, regarding your point 1 . . . what you wrote and it maintains the simplicity of phasers.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 05:52 pm: Edit

I don't see any reason to improve the efficiency of the already super efficient phaser. Greater damage for greater power, fine.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 06:16 pm: Edit

I have a preference for the 1.5 primarily from power-curve reasons. X1 ships have too much spare power, part of what makes them one-note ships to play.

Since a P-5 takes up 1.5x the space of a P-1 costing 1.5x as much makes sense, just to keep the power situation from getting worse.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 07:47 pm: Edit

Output is 90% of the issue, damage to power ratio is 10%.
We can playtest the Ph-5 with both systems and then make up our minds.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 10:23 pm: Edit

MJC;

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "Output is 90% of the issue, damage to power ratio is 10%", but if you're saying what I think you're saying, I have to disagree. I think damage-to-power is at least as important, and often more important, than raw damage output. This is heavily situation dependent, of course, but it also depends on tactics. From some of your term paper posts I suspect I prefer to "fight faster" than you do and there are situations in which you arm all your weapons but I would leave some unarmed in order to move at high speed. A weapon with a superior damage-to-power ratio allows me to generate good, even if not maximum, firepower while still having adequate power for other things.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 10:27 pm: Edit

All, at this point I should suggest we take the phaser discussion to the phaser thread and save this thread for integrated X2 proposals.