Archive through February 09, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 ph-1: Archive through February 09, 2003
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 10:36 am: Edit

Somewhere I posted a repair chart for the Phasers. A X2 Cruiser will be able to repair Phasers pretty well.

Someone made the most exelent point that the PH-4 is a one box phaser. How could a ship based phaser be two boxes in that light? I don't believe it can.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 12:45 pm: Edit

Uh, no.

A P-4 is a 2-box weapon. (meaning that you would need two option mounts or could fit 2x P-1 in the same space if you ripped it out of the base)

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 12:58 pm: Edit

I think what he means is that it's destroyed in one hit, not two. Jeff proposed, as a durability issue, that the P5 have two boxes, similar to the SFG.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 01:11 pm: Edit

I reread the post. You're right.

You can make the case for a 2-step P-5 but I'm not thrilled with the idea so I won't bother.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 06:51 pm: Edit

Well we can cure it with:-

• Back up safety systems.

• Lower CDR cost.

• Letting the XCC have a flaw as it'll really be the XDD and XFF that find battle with the GW and X1 vessels and if all the XCC have same flaw then that'll be okay.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 11:07 pm: Edit

Q: Will a ph-6 blind a scout channel?

From (G24.134), the following weapons do not blind scout channels:



If the ph-6 is to be the defensive phaser for X2, we need to know this.

Second question:
Can a ph-6 rapid pulse into 2 ph-3 shots?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 11:49 pm: Edit

A P-6 (P-7 if you're MJC) should blind a scout channel according to the P-3 rules and exceptions. I see no reason to do anything different.

Having P-6's blind scout channels strips scouts of needed seeking weapon defense.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 11:59 pm: Edit

I would think that scout ships would want a defensive phaser that doesn't blind scout channels.

If the ph-6 blinds a channel, then a smaller defensive phaser is needed. Is the ph-3 still adequate in the X2 environment?

By Shannon Nichols (Scoot) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 12:45 am: Edit

How about phaser arrays. With individual elements that could fire independently of each other. Or be combined into phasers using two or three elements together. With only the elements in the same array being able to combined with each other.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 01:45 am: Edit

Second Generation Scout Sensors were also improved to withstand the "Blinding" effects of the Phaser-6.

I think that is totally resonable.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 02:51 pm: Edit

I agree.

It was kinda what I was saying, in fact.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 02:54 pm: Edit

How is a phaser array any different from saying "I'm firing phasers 5 and 6 [as a narrow salvo]"?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 02:55 pm: Edit

..or any different than a gatling phaser...especially since "phaser array" is a TNG term and therefore dangerous ground.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 06:00 pm: Edit

Quote:

Q: Will a ph-6 blind a scout channel?

From (G24.134), the following weapons do not blind scout channels:


•ph-3 (but if 2 burst are fired from a rapid pulse, it will )
•ADD
•Suicide shuttle
•Scatter pack
•drones launched from drone racks
•web generators (not caster or fist)


If the ph-6 is to be the defensive phaser for X2, we need to know this.

Second question:
Can a ph-6 rapid pulse into 2 ph-3 shots?


Ummmm...better check that.
XG24.1342 says that if you rapid pulse up to one per impulses, then you won't blind the sensors....the Rapid pulse statement seemed to imply two rapid pulse shots in a turn, rather than 2 in an impulse.


Quote:

A P-6 (P-7 if you're MJC) should blind a scout channel according to the P-3 rules and exceptions. I see no reason to do anything different.

Having P-6's blind scout channels strips scouts of needed seeking weapon defense.


Yeah, I think it'ld be cool to have the Ph-6 be the base mounted phaser, becuse it does a max damage of 30 points, which is 1.5 times a Ph-4's max.


Quote:

I would think that scout ships would want a defensive phaser that doesn't blind scout channels.

If the ph-6 blinds a channel, then a smaller defensive phaser is needed. Is the ph-3 still adequate in the X2 environment?


If we allow a single Ph-6 shot to be fired defensively without it blinding the sensors than we should do okay, but I'ld like to make the Special Sensor even tougher than that to avoid blinding. It'll allow for better drone defenses of the scout and means that an all Ph-1 armed X2 ships ( depending on how we see the Klingons but also the Hydrans will have problems getting a Ph-5 on their ships, and will likely therefore have lots of Ph-1s and a handful of Ph-Gs...or at least the analogs thereof ).
So I'ld say we allow all the following extra things to not blind a ship's Special Sensors.
• One Ph-2 shot per impulse...this allows Ph-1 armed X2s to use Ph-2s for their added reach in drone defense incase we choose not to let the Ph-1 fire an Advanced Point Defense shot.
• Two Rapid Pulse Ph-3s in one impulse.
• Two rapid Pulse Advanced Point Defense Shots in one Impulse.Note the above list is per phaser not per ship...I'm partial to letting X2Ph-1s and Ph-5s fire as 3Ph-3s in a more advanced rapid pulse mode.


Quote:

How about phaser arrays. With individual elements that could fire independently of each other. Or be combined into phasers using two or three elements together. With only the elements in the same array being able to combined with each other.


Why not just mount Advanced Point Defense Phasers in you Scout's PHASER SUITE.
If an X1 scout has a Pair of Defensive X1Ph-3s then or even a Pair of X1Ph-1s then it can fire two Ph-3 shots on the same impulse without blinding the sensor.
The way around Sensor Blinding has always been to fire lots of powered down phasers...we should be trying to make Scout defense harder for X2.
If we went for non-blinding X2 Special Sensors, that'ld be okay, or even NO PHASERS CAN BLIND would be okay.
Inventing some system of counting which phasers in you linked array can be fired and which can't is a step backwards and should be avoid for both Tech-feel and gajme play reasons.


Quote:

Second Generation Scout Sensors were also improved to withstand the "Blinding" effects of the Phaser-6.

I think that is totally resonable.


It's reasonable to say that even more intense Phasers fail to blind, but sticking the Advanced Point Defense Phaser in the same boat as the Ph-3 should do perfectly well.

By Shannon Nichols (Scoot) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 06:04 pm: Edit

Instead of calling it a phaser array, how about phaser matrix(PMx).
A PMx differs in several ways.
1)Easier to repair. 2 or 3pts a element
2)More damage resistant. There would be more of them.
3)Would offer more fire options. 1 element=PH-3, 2 elements=PH-1, 3 elements=PH-5.
4)Could be used as a racial weapon.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 06:12 pm: Edit

...and this differs from pulse-firing a P-5 how?

You have more phaser hits to destroy.

How else?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 06:25 pm: Edit

Quote:

4)Could be used as a racial weapon.



Yup...that's really what you are looking at.

By Shannon Nichols (Scoot) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 10:52 pm: Edit

How many hits does it take to kill a P-5.
How many targets can a P-5 engage at once.
Pmx charts could be tailored to fight at different ranges. 1 element short, 2 elements medium, 3 elements long.
When pulse firing a P-5, are the pulses subject to X-1 rapid pulse rules. PMx shots would not be.
All boxes are not the same size. There more related to the amount of damage it takes to destroy one. Points need to repair gives a better idea on how big a system may or may not be.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 11:29 pm: Edit

Quote:

How many hits does it take to kill a P-5?


One now...thank goodness.


Quote:

How many targets can a P-5 engage at once?


1Ph-5 shot, 2Ph-6 shots...maybe 3Ph-3 shots, maybe 2Ph-2 shots...It depends on what playtesting comes up with.


Quote:

Pmx charts could be tailored to fight at different ranges. 1 element short, 2 elements medium, 3 elements long.


Gawd I hope not.


Quote:

When pulse firing a P-5, are the pulses subject to X-1 rapid pulse rules. PMx shots would not be.


No, they'll be subject to the X2 rapid pulse rules.


Quote:

All boxes are not the same size. They're more related to the amount of damage it takes to destroy one. Points need to repair gives a better idea on how big a system may or may not be.


Having a Phaser array that takes 4 hit to finally kill, and can fire as a full weapon if three of those hits are undestroyed makes for a monsterous defensive system.
In order to have long range offsense of parity with say 8Ph-5s, you need a set of phasers that could take 32 hits to pull out all those teeth and all being the same box in an array, means the first 8 hit will fail to render a reduction in the offensive capasity...players will all the boxes they can hit being equal and thus the phaser priority rule ( which avoids the relatively OUTLANDISH Orion Phaser Boat ) will not be enforcable.
Then the 32Ph-6 shots that the weapon could russle up would be near invunerablity for the vessel in respect to seeking weapons.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 11:31 pm: Edit

Shannon,

You made a good case. I didn't think it was interesting and have just changed my mind.

With all those advantages, I wouldn't want to pay any less than .5 per P-3. Especially since it can engage ships as well as seeking weapons.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 12:02 am: Edit

The STERIO-PHASER actually has a good basis in real science, specifically constructive harmonics, but I don't see is a the Galact Powers swing weapon.


Now if the STERIO PHASER were to be the X2 Andro weapon, I'ld be cool with that.

By Shannon Nichols (Scoot) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 12:50 am: Edit

PMx phasers degrade as they are destroyed. Each hit on a array/cluster would destroy one element. A 3 element array that loses one element can only fire as a two element phaser,or two one element phasers. 2 hits would knock it back to only being able to fire one element. What I am trying to say is each element is a indivial phaser. Elements are grouped together in a array/cluster. That only allows them to work together. Elements from different arrays/clusters could not be use together.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 04:45 pm: Edit

You could also put an upper limit on the number of elements that can work together.

Say 3 as the max limit, so we're not making a megaphaser out of like 6.

This would be an interesting Kzinti or Hydran weapon. Both of them like their multiple small phaser shots.

By Shannon Nichols (Scoot) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 06:12 pm: Edit

The limit would be 3 elements working together on ships, and 4 on bases. Now there could be more than 3 elements in a array/cluster. Say there were 6 elements in a array/cluster. They could be fired as, two 3 element phasers, three 2 element phasers, any combination that adds up to 6 elements.But none using more than 3 elements to form a single phaser. The power usage I had in mind was, 1/2pt for a 1 element phaser, 1pt for a 2 element phaser, and 2pts for a 3 element phaser. Each element would have its' own 1pt phaser capacitor. I have worked out several tables and rules for this idea. But there has been no play testing done.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 10:13 pm: Edit

Please answer the 2X poll I have started. It may help focus debate and start the first round of playtesting.

(Sorry for the spamming)

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