See, I see Lyrans and Klingons fairly wedded in Disruptor tech... with the Kzinti going their own way.

Or, we can stop and look at it as 'what would each want to build', and go that route. If you were a Klingon, how would you change a disruptor? Is this different from what the Kzinti want out of it? Is this different from what the Lyrans want out of it?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 03:37 pm: Edit

The Klingons and Kzinti are more likley to want similar disruptors because both can fight at a distance.

The Lyrans are more like Hydrans and tend to like to get closer.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 04:55 pm: Edit

Maybe, but the Klingons/Lyrans do share some technology, and it might make sense for them to use the same disruptor. I like the idea of the new improved disruptor cannon for the Kzintis, if for no other reason than Y1 is specific in it's statement that the Kzintis did try to use it, but abandoned it because they couldn't overload it. If they can solve that for 2X, I could see bringing it back.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 05:44 pm: Edit

I like that idea too.

Just looking at fighting style, the it's the Kzinti that are closer to the Klingons, not the Lyrans.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 11:18 pm: Edit

"Maybe, but the Klingons/Lyrans do share some technology,"

True, as far as it goes. How happy are the Lyrans that the Klingons botched the General War? How happy are the Klingons that the Lyrans couldn't be trusted to pull their weight? Why are the Klingons aggressively expanding trade into former LDR space? Why are France and Germany refusing to support a NATO ally requesting military aid?

I could see these ‘allies’ less inclined to share tech after the wars.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 11:46 pm: Edit

Tos, do you really think the Lyran attitude would be that the Klingons botched the GW?

That's the first time I've even heard that concept.

"I could see these ‘allies’ less inclined to share tech after the wars."

Or even more so given the poor state of the economic situation. Like commrades holding each other up while walking out of the great battle, out from the smoke.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 12:39 am: Edit

Suppose everybody decided to pull back into themselves, gets a little insular?

It would explain how everybody can build unique technology.

Then when the Xorks hit, we can have everybody share and build a second set of X2 ships.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 01:00 am: Edit

"do you really think the Lyran attitude would be that the Klingons botched the GW?"

Dunno. Could be. Just technobabble to explain why the Lyrans and Klingons might have a technological divergence.

"Then when the Xorks hit, we can have everybody share and build a second set of X2 ships."

I'm all for the post-Xork new technology idea but people always seem to have this strange reaction whenever I use the term X3.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 12:22 pm: Edit

Ahh, OK. I see. Could be either way and it is yet to be determined.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 03:21 pm: Edit

Tos,

Not post-Xork new technology but combining resources. If the Feds, Klinks, Kzins and WYN all have interesting and uniqee drone variants what happens when you combine THIS Kzin Drone with that Fed module?

This would not be another revolution in technology.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 11:43 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Not post-Xork new technology but combining resources. If the Feds, Klinks, Kzins and WYN all have interesting and uniqee drone variants what happens when you combine THIS Kzin Drone with that Fed module?

This would not be another revolution in technology.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 12:54 am: Edit

Here's a thought.

Give every other havey weapon an ability to do more damage ( at R8 ) but because the Klingons love to sabre dance, give them the ability to Fire out to R12 ( for 5 points of power ) with no UIM for R9-12.


This way the Klingons will Just Sabre dance, better, which is their favourite tactic, and we won't have to go into making disruptors into sheild smashers or rapid firing the disruptor.


I wonder how that will affect the Kzintis, Lyrans and Tholians?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 02:18 am: Edit

Give them customozed disruptors also.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 03:08 am: Edit

Okay, how about this...


The three main disruptor races, The Klingons, Lyrans and Kzintis invented their own different disruptor technologies around Y205 but by the time of Y218 they had each ( by observing each other during the trade wars ) copied each other's abilities.


The Lyrans invented a Disruptor that had a capasitor system, such that they could hold 4 points of power to fire the weapon in the capasitor system ( Two 2 point capsitors per Disruptor ), latter with the battery refit these capsitors ( which were left over X1 capsitors ) were replaced with X2 capsitors and thus each disruptor could hold 6 points of power.

The capsitor system was linked to the ESG capsiotr and by Y210 those were also linked to the Phaser capasitors. Although the disruptor never got the ability to fire the disruptors directly from the phaser cpasitor, they had to shunt power from the phaser caps to the Disruptor caps to do that ( if that happens during EA like regular battery shunting or atleast one impulse before depends on what players think about the deadlyness of the Hyperload ).


The Klingons developed the ability to Fire the Disruptor out to range 12 in an overload mode, pay 5 points of power to do so.


The Kzintis were so enamored with the power of the Photon using ships of their allies that they looked for a way to make all their disruptors fire in a mode that could also shield smash.
They developed an R8 overloaded Disruptor that could inflict double the usual Overload Damage and called it the Hyper load. It cost 8 points of power to arm and could be held for 4.

Eventually the Klingons and the Lyrans traded their technolgical data about their disruptors in exchange for both the data and Helping the Klingons find more dialithium...and both races got to use the extended range and Capasitor systems around Y216.

Around Y218 the Kzintis had observedf these new weapons enough to build their owns disruptors with these capasities and then built diruptors with all three capsities, refiting their ships as soon as possible.

So indignat were the Klingons and Lyrans that they began an extensive espianage campagin within the Kzinti government to gain the Kzinti technologies, and thus by Y220 both the Lyrans and the Klingons also had all three modes.


When firing the Hyperloaded disruptor using the Capsitors, one must allocate during EA atleast 4 points of power and add the other four from the diruptor capasitors. When the upgraded disruptor capasitors were introduced ( before anyone had goten both Hyperloads and Disruptor Capsitors, this became merely 2 points of allocated power and 6 points from the Caps.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 08:50 pm: Edit

Is there a consensus on the X2 disruptor?
The photon topic heated up, but the two have to be linked.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 08:53 pm: Edit

No, there isn't yet. As I said in the photon thread, I don't think there is going to be, either.

MJC, you do realize that double-overloaded, capacitor using disruptors is straight out of supplement 2?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 09:12 pm: Edit

No I didn't.

Wow!


I'm now tending to think that the Klingons ( and other disruptor users ) will go for cheaper ships, possibly with a Refit of their 4 Disruptors to 6.

With that kind of a 50% increase in firepower, the Klingons won't be much behind the 50% increase of the 24 point warheads.


Still cheaper ships should solve the problem.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 09:16 pm: Edit

And then their are others was of finding balance.

If 12Ph-1s equates with 8Ph-5s and the Disruptors are pretty lousy compaired to the Photons ( in output rather than to hit ) then the Klingons might start with 4Ph-5s on the boom and 8Ph-1s everywhere else and thus restore the balance.

More Boom Warp with the ability to use Boom Warp for movement could also be a good way of restoring the balance...asuming radiacally different BPVs are not your cup of tea.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 10:06 pm: Edit

Mike, I didn't realize that either. The disruptor rifle turned out to be a copy of that OX2 idea.
But where else can we go with the disruptor?

X1 gave disruptors a holding ability.
Standards hold for 1, OLs hold for 2.
That implies some sort of capacitor system.

What other ways are there of improving the disruptor?

UIM?
Only way to improve that is no-burnout.

Derfacs?
Already considered standard in the late years.

Accuracy?
With UIM, overloads already hit on 1-5 out to range 8 OLs. Throw in the +1 for ECCM, and it's autohits.

Damage?
Range 1, standards do 5, OLs do double damage.
A new setting that does triple damage for 6 power? Or quadruple damage for 8 power?

Rapid fire?
How can you have the power to fire 2 OLs without a capacitor?

The disruptor rifle I proposed was an extension of the last two options.

Meanwhile, the photon is going in one of two ways. Faster or Bigger.

X1 already put us on the path toward Faster photons.

If we continue with Faster photons, then the disruptor HAS to fire twice a turn to prevent mirror matches.

If we go back to Bigger photons, then there's more room to maneuver when designing the X2 disruptors.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 10:17 pm: Edit

For a basic disruptor, I like the idea of a capacitor system coupled with no-burnout UIM and a 20% damage increase. That gives you the UIM bonuses with no worries of losing it (unless an H&R team takes it out) and some ability to power them while maintaining top speed. Add some good late year firing arcs like the D5 has, and you've got one hellacious knife-fighing weapon.

The Kzintis, per a blurb in module Y, could re-invent the disruptor cannon, and overload it. That gives them a two turn disruptor that does some hefty damage, and it makes some historical sense...they wanted it but abandoned it because it couldn't be overloaded (so says Y1), and they had to love the Fed photon. Plus, it fits well for the Kzintis, who have the excess power to use them since they rely so heavily on drones.

Those are just some options. The big bitch with the original 2X was the to-hit charts, coupled with double overloads and capacitors and a range 12 overload. It was truly ugly...disruptors were hitting for 12 points of damage out to range 12, on a 1-4...and the XCC mounted six of them. In standard mode, they hit at 1-5 all the way out to range 16, and to range 30 with a 1-3. It was really ugly. Oh, and UIM/DERFRACS were integrated in the disruptor, and couldn't even be hit by H&R teams.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 10:21 pm: Edit

I say take X2 Disruptors somewhere without nessessarily retaining parity with Photons.

If X2 Disruptors have a bunch of really neat stuff and Photons have a could a really neat things and one friggin' gynormous thing, and the Klingon ships are cheaper than the Feds, then that'll be okay.
It'll be a Klingon flavour thing, cheaper ships!


Even if the Feds got:-
16 point overloads.
Proxi Overloads.
Dial-up 8-12 point standards.
Dial-up 4-6 point Proxies.
And Overloaded Proxies.

And the Klingons merely got.
Disruptor Caps...that are linked seemlessly to the Phaser Caps.
+2 UIM
And +2 Defracs.


It still wouldn't make for a broken game: it'll make for cheaper Klingon cruisers.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 10:58 pm: Edit

Mike R.

Of course you already know we are in agreement there (Re: Disruptors). And that is where I balanced my photon proposal on. The two primary disruptor proposals are basically balanced to each other so they both are balanced against my Photon proposal.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 06:59 am: Edit

Looking at real damage.


If we took a Fed XCA with all the trimings for a similar time period , that is 8Ph-5 with Caps-to-SSReo ( because it makes less real damage than damage shunting ) and five BTTYs that all hold 5 points of power and we strike with out Klingon that has 4 Disruptors with +2 UIM and 12Ph-1s of which 8 can bear ( though looking at the C7 it could be more like 10 ) for a total of 24 points of Disruptor damage and 17.33 points of Phaser damage.
So the Fed Blocks all points of the Disruptor damage with 24 points of BTTY and directing/holding 9 points of power for the Phaser Casp direct the remaining 15 point in the caps to the SSReo.
The Fed still take 1.33 points of real damage at R8.

But the Klingon is likely to have ( based on BPVs ) the boom phasers to be Ph-5s for an additional 5.33 point of damage.

And the Fed is likely to have only 3 Point BTTYs so that's a further 10 points of damage.

And the Klingon may have ( latter in time ) all the phasers being Ph-5s.

And the Klingon may have an extra 2 Disruptors added.


So all in all the Klingons will be able to do real damage to the Feds as things currently stand...how much will depend on whether we through in a lot of refit stuff early so that it retain equal BPV or whether we let the Klingons be cheap ships that only bulk up when the Xorks arrive.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 07:34 am: Edit

---

Quote:

The Fed still take 1.33 points of real damage at R8.

---

By Mark James Hugh Norman (Mnorman) on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 10:03 am: Edit

MJC: Would you really be attacking with a light cruiser. Klingon ships at X1 gain an additional 2 disruptors. Wouldn't the X2 Klingon also have 6 disruptors.