I hate to do this but here is yet another topic. Lets keep the integrated proposal topic clean and bounce around comments here.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Nice SSDs Mike R.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 04:56 pm: Edit

Thanks. I'm working up a set based on what they might look like after the Xork invasion. But that's really guesswork, as we don't know what sorts of things the Xorks will be particularly vulnerable too. The Andros, for example, didn't deal well with the photon. But is a Y215 XBC better equipped with six photons, or more drones? Dunno yet. Still, it's interesting to see the difference between a pre-Xork XFF, and a post one.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 04:10 pm: Edit

I think that X2 ships should be designed to deal with Xorks, at least on a tech level. Possible refits could be designed to deal with specefic Xork threats if necesary I would imagine.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 04:18 pm: Edit

That's tough to do, though, since we don't know what Xorks will look like. I do think the basic tech level of X2 we're starting to see emerge will be enough, though. The ships I mention are just possible refits for later, true warships rather than the more balanced approach I took with the basic designs. I haven't posted them and probably won't for some time, though in truth the aren't much different from the ones above. I did finally come up with an XCL I was satisfied with, as well as an XGS; I'll put them up later.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 04:18 pm: Edit

I like, "designed to deal with each other, redesigned to deal with the Xorks"

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 04:24 pm: Edit

That's the basic approach so far, yes. If anyone wants to see the Y215 ones, I'll send them to them. Or, when this has evolved a bit, I'll put them up.

By Aaron Gimblet (Marcus) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 05:47 am: Edit

Okies... inital comments-

John-I really like the ISC stuff. Itll be interesting to see what various versions of the Plasma Caster do in playtest... theres something about the idea of just-plain-dropping my torps on someone, out to Range 5, that warms my heart.

Possibly side-note for the 'caster... since it is in some ways simliar to transporter activity, perhaps downing the shield in the arc your 'casting' into might be a potential balance point. Perhaps this would cripple them in use.

I know this isnt really the place for it, but what do you see the ISC 'doing' in this era? Are they making friends and playing nice? Are they falling apart at the seems because theyve been FORCED to become like those malicious psychopaths they once thought to pacify? I ask only because, IMHO, you can better design a Navy if you know exactly who built it and what their planning on doing with it...

RE: Kzinti Proposal-
Can we get a chart for the Carnivon Special Disruptor Cannon your using? I tried digging in the Disruptor topic for it, couldnt find it, and I dont have the Carnivon stuff in front of me. The idea of more, cheap drones to swamp their ADD opponents (Klingon) makes sense... armoured drones would still be a possiblity against the ESG-wielding Lyrans.

RE: My own Hydrans-
This isnt ~just~ Hydrans, its kinda generalized to the game as a whole.. but looking at my Hydran proposals made me stop and think... what are the high density of pulseable phasers going to do to not just drones, but plasma? From my POV as a Drone captain, him shooting down drones with phasers is just lovely, because im likely to be nearby, and thats fire that isnt going into me. From my POV as a plasma captain, however, im most likely a decent distance away when my opponent is dealing with my plasma.. if he can too-casually dice it up and keep coming, the plasma captains job becomes MUCH harder, unless hes willing to launch alot and close behind it, and/or simply anchor all the time. I suppose this isnt the place for it, but we just MIGHT have to look at making 2X plasma more phaser-resistant...

As reguards the Kzinti

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 08:53 pm: Edit

Aaron,

The to-hit chart is identical to a standard disruptor. No UIM, but DERFACS is included.

The damage is doubled from a normal disruptor.

By Aaron Gimblet (Marcus) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 09:17 pm: Edit

Jeff-

I somehow think I should have already known that. So a double-damage, non UIM Disruptor for the Kzin? God, thats going to be ugly in a knife-fight...

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 09:53 pm: Edit

Consider though that the DC is a two-turn weapon, not one. So it won't be too ugly.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 10:08 pm: Edit

Forgot to mention that the disruptor cannon is a two turn weapon, not one turn.

The arming cycle doesn't have the flexiblity of a photon.
For one thing, the decision to overload is made on the first turn of arming.

2+2 is standard.
4+4 is overload.
2+4 or 4+2 is a standard that's limited to range 8.

----

While armored drones are good against ESGs, so are multiple drones. Since ADDs ignore armor, I figured increased drone rates, but no improvement over X1 to the drones themselves was an effective balance.

Before we started with these integrated proposals, I also designed a Klingon XCA. For the Klingons, I would not improve the drone launch rates, but I would improve the drones themselves. It would make the Klingons and Kzintis different, and the Kzintis traditionally don't have enough Gx racks to make this style of Klingon improvement useless.

That's why my first attempt at a Kzinti XCA had 6 CXX racks and only 2 GX racks, to balance out against the Klingon designs I had in mind.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 10:26 pm: Edit

presumably a x 1 1/2 standard or "limited overload"

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 10:52 pm: Edit

JT, my proposal is for a 4+2 arming cycle to have all the restrictions of an overload (range 8), with the restrictions of a standard (only normal damage).

Unlike the normal disruptor or the phaser, the disruptor cannon has not gone through 100 years of refinements.

The standard load disruptor cannon was perfected by the Carnivorons, but the overload feature is a truly new invention.

I figured the overload feature on the disruptor cannon would still be a bit temperamental. Thus, the 4+2 or 2+4 would be an unstable standard.

If it doesn't work, or isn't fun to use, we can always change it later.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 11:11 pm: Edit

Arguably, for the Kzinti to choose it over a X2 disruptor it has to give them an advantage. if an X2 disruptor is a better weapon, why would the Kzintis switch?

It is reasonable to assume that a lot of disrutor development work is transferrable to the DC cannon. It may even be that some breakthrough was *better* suited for the DC and the Disr.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 11:30 pm: Edit

Because the Klingons and Lyrans won't share their developments with the Kzintis?

The Klingons and Lyrans may have improved on the X1 disruptor, but the Kzintis may not have been able to copy or get the Klingon designs.

If the DC is an improvement over an X1 disruptor, then the Kzintis would use it.

Kzintis never used UIM, so we can technobabble that the Klingon disruptor improvements from X1 to X2 were outgrowths of UIM technology.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 11:34 pm: Edit

The Kzintis get plenty of UIMs with X1.

Disruptor tech is identical across all X1 races.

At the very least the DC has to be better than the X1 disruptor and I'm not sure your DC is.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 12:03 am: Edit

Thunk. Thunk. Thunk.

That's the sound of the cookie cutter making the X1 ships. When X1 was designed, did SVC forget that the Kzintis hadn't had the UIM up until that point?

---

Quote:

At the very least the DC has to be better than the X1 disruptor and I'm not sure your DC is.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 06:48 am: Edit

Two things. One, we don't know what the 2X disruptor will look like yet...it hasn't really been hammered out. Two, module Y1 is very specific in that it says the Kzintis tried to adapt the DC, but didn't because it wouldn't overload. Giving it that ability and "X" ranges (i.e., max range of 40) would be a good reason for them to take it. I'd hate to see all the disruptor races using the exact same disruptor; that wouldn't be much fun, IMHO.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 01:39 pm: Edit

Agreed.

Jeff,

Cookie-cutter or no, the Kzintis get UIMs with X1.

Could you put together a DC chart showing to-hits and damages? it would give us something concrete to look at.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 02:55 pm: Edit

Jeff,

Is this the chart you propose? Ignore the rest of this SSD, but the DC chart is on it, from when we first started talking about way back when.

Kzinti SSD with Disruptor Cannon

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 06:27 pm: Edit

Mike,

I was proposing that the chart be identical to a disruptor.

But just becuase UIM works with a disruptor bolt, perhaps the crystals couldn't handle the extra power. Or maybe it can....

Without UIM:

Range	0	1	2	3-4	5-8	9-15	16-30	31-40
Standard	x	1-5	1-5	1-4	1-4	1-4	1-3	1-2
OL	1-6	1-5	1-5	1-4	1-4	x	x	x
Damage	x	10	8	8	6	6	4	2
OL Dam	20	20	16	16	12	x	x	x

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, March 16, 2003 - 02:50 pm: Edit

Does it fastload?

Does it fast-overload?

I'm still unclear what the advantage of the 6-pt load is.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, March 16, 2003 - 08:12 pm: Edit

The 6 point load is not supposed to be an advantage. It's slightly better than discharging the weapon.

Normal standard 2+2
Normal overload 4+4

For other weapons with a rolling delay, 2+4+4 shows the player discharging the weapon at the start of turn 2 and arming an overload.

The 2+4 arming option is slightly better, in that it allows you to complete the OL on turn 3, while retaining the ability to fire something on turn 2.

Turn 1 you decide to arm standards. 2 power.

Turn 2 you decide you'll need an overload.

This is 4 power on turn 2 and 4 more on turn 3.
Rather than discharge the weapon at the start of turn 1, the 2+4 option allows you to fire a short range standard on turn 2.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, March 16, 2003 - 08:19 pm: Edit

Not to dis your hard work, Jeff, but I don't see this as equal to a X1 disruptor, let alone a fitting X2 weapon.