Glen brought up the interesting idea of not improving the offensive phaser per say. He suggested the P1 would be eligible to receive a –1 ECCM shift, which we have heard before. What I haven’t seen posted before now was the concept of allowing a shorter reload cycle, presumably an 8-impulse delay, allowing the P1 to fire twice in a turn. Interesting and viable, but I’m concerned from a KISS perspective. Keeping track of the firing status of a dozen phasers that can fire in several different ways sounds notably more complex then tracking your particle cannons or gatling phaser.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 05:35 am: Edit

I'ld much rather see one weapon system, say the diruptor have 2 shots per turn with an 8 impulse delay and I've already voiced my dislike of that idea.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 03:21 pm: Edit

Firing phasers twice a round, epsecially with only an 8 impulse delay between shots is massively more powerful than replacing P-1's with P-5's.

Do this if we want a return to one-dimensional phaser-driven X-tactics.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 09:05 pm: Edit

I don't like the idea of 2 shots a turn phaser.
But there is a need to improve the phasers.

The ph-5 is one way to improve it.

Another way is to keep EW at 8 points, but allow a column shift for the ph-1s.

A third way is to go to 10 EW, and allow 1 (or 2) shifts.

If either of the two EW proposals get selected, I would really like to see reduced numbers of phasers, otherwise, it would be hard to make X2 "play nice". The designs would be an example of "doing more with less", which fits with the economic troubles in the Trade Wars period.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 09:18 pm: Edit

In either case (PV vs. EW shift for P1's), I think we're definately seeing a trend toward less phasers. Ken's poll showed that desire very clearly. I personally like the PV idea as something totally new and very 2X. I don't like semi-gatling P-1's.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 02:11 am: Edit

I guess one of my points I was trying to make (for what it's worth) is that better weapons don't mean having a stronger kick, but hitting a little better.
If you create the ph-5 (which I can only imagine is somewhere around .66 of a ph-4), it still doesn't account for better accuracy. (i.e., a roll of a 3 is still a roll of a 3).
One other idea I came up with is that a ph-5 could operate normally against a 2X ship and against a 1X ship (the advantage still being held by the heavier phaser), however being fired upon a 0X ship may result in a -1 to the roll (an indicator that 0X hulls are not quite riddled with stealthy defensive properties as new ships are which can easily be examplified in modern warfare).
Yeah, I'm just throwing ideas as they pop in my head.
:-)

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 06:51 am: Edit

I don't think any rules that say "If the target is X1 or X2, the weapon does ____, but if the target is X0, the weapon does ____" would work.

A phaser from an X2 ship should do exactly the same to (an X0 ship generates 6 ECM and 0 ECCM) as it would do to (an X1 ship that generates 6 ECM and 2 ECCM).

If column shifts are ugly, but you want the same effect, then you could make the ph-5 look identical to a shifted ph-1, but limit EW to 8.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 02:56 pm: Edit

We are under mandate that X BPV of GW tech fight equal to the same of X2, and tech changes make this difficult.

Anything that prejudices against a lower tech level will make play balance a bigger problem than it will be.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 09:05 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I don't think any rules that say "If the target is X1 or X2, the weapon does ____, but if the target is X0, the weapon does ____" would work.

---

---

Quote:

We are under mandate that X BPV of GW tech fight equal to the same of X2, and tech changes make this difficult.

Anything that prejudices against a lower tech level will make play balance a bigger problem than it will be.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 09:43 pm: Edit

Actaully the Ph-5s aren't all that powerful.

If I have an XCA with 4 Photons with 24 point warheads and get to R8 in an oblique and fire 6 of her 8Ph-5s ( beacause that's all I can get to bear ) and I generate my 8 EW in a way that exactly counters your Fed CX's 8 EW then:-

I attack for (3.5 x 6 + 24 x 4 x 1/2) 61 points of damage every second turn ( or playing defensively by loading on alternate impulses or running 12 point fastloads ) 45 points of damage every turn.

Your attack getting 8 of your Ph-1s to bear and firing four 12 point fastloaded Photons, for ( 2.16' x 8 + 4 x 12 x 1/2 ) 41.33' points of damage every round. Even sticking to 16 pointers your damage will only jump up to 49.33 points of damage every two rounds.

Basically the offenses of the XCA will be quite minimal and they may cause the vessel to fall under the 315 ISC CCX value unless we sup'-up other aspects of the ship ( like her defenses and her speed and her total power ) as the Fed CX is only 240 points.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 11:34 pm: Edit

The XCA has a slightly improved direct fire output.

But,

• The XCA has preferential movement advantage over the CAX, and possibly turn mode advantage as well.
• The SIF and/or doubled hull will make the XCA better able to take the damage.
• Increased power will mean increased shield reinforcement, particularly on the first couple turns when the SIF won't be powered.
• Range 10 OL will give an edge over a CAX, but the phaser output will be reduced at that range
• Drones will be better (type and/or numbers)
• THe X2 technology may have other, subtle, advantages

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 07:10 am: Edit

My guess is that the eggshells-with-sledgehammers aspect of highly advanced ships will evapourate and I'm not saying that X2 vessels will run the risk of being cheaper than X1 vessels but rather that the 12Ph-1 Vs 8P-5 situation gives plenty of scope for racial flavour within X2 and thus building a furthered watered down new phaser isn't at all warrented.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 05:16 pm: Edit

Mike Raper asked in the SSD thread:

think the phaser matrix is a good idea. Couple of questions:

Do combining phasers have to come from the same array? That is, can I combine the phasers from 6 and 7 with those from 10?
Do they have to fire in the aegis step? Or, can you combine fire with them under the normal DF stage?

It'd be interesting to see this played out, and it does have a very Kzinti feel to it, IMHO.


1. No. For the moment you can combine 6 and 7, but they have to be adjacent to combine. Otherwise it's too good. It may be too good to allow adjacent to combine.

Look at it this way, The original concept was essentially a P-5 that takes 3 hits to kill and rapid-fires as 3x P-3 or 1x P-1 and 1x P-3. That's much better than a normal P-5. That's why I introduced the weapon-specific ECM, to take the edge off the P-1 and P-5 shots. It may still be too much so I may have to back off allowing any combination even between adjacent phasers.

2. A given matrix should be able to fire once per aegis step. Normal weapons fire is always aegis step #1.

It's kinda the Kizinti version of the P-G.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 07:40 am: Edit

I know it's just a feeling.

But I kinda felt that the Ph-6 was developed ( for 2 reasons ).

1) To give shoot down speed 40 drones.

2) To give the Kzinti's a Kzinti Flavour Phaser.

I think if we do go to the phaser matrix we'll render the Ph-6 totally un-needed and I for one like the tactical limitations of a forrest of Ph-6s rather than having basically an inverted Ph-5 rapid pulse array.

Why should the Kzintis build a weapon that can dial up to hit at longer ranges with fewer shots, when as X2 stands they can build a few phaser that can be dialed down to a lot of short ranged phaser shots.
Unless you're looking for nought but Phaser padding!?!

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 08:19 am: Edit

I may be wrong, but i always saw and played the Kzinti as a standoff race, using drones, fighters and long range disruptor fire to attack from a distance. Why would I, as a Kzinti, trade up long-range phaser 5's for short range phaser-6's? The 5 can downfire anyway, right, so why carry a "forrest" of short range, one use phasers? A few on the back, yes, for defense. I think John's idea is creative and different, and if used only by the Kzinti it certainly gives them a flavor all their own.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 12:47 pm: Edit

I always saw the Ph-6 as a logical technology progression from the ph-3 just as the Ph-5 is to the Ph-1. In fact, the tachnology that allowed the ph-5 is what makes the ph-6. The Ph-6 being a bit better buy in that it gains damage for the same power. The ph-5 gains a little damege and much efficiency for an extra 1/2 point of power.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 01:40 pm: Edit

I'm with Loren and Mike.

But just to clear, it's not my idea. I just tweaked it and put it on a SSD. I forget where, but you can find the original proposal somehwere among these topics. I give credit in my proposed rules.

I still think the P-6's energy cost should be 1/2 a P-5 otherwise we'll be triple-shooting P-5's as P-6's and seeking weapons of all stripes will be in a world of trouble, not unlike what was experienced with X1 development. Just saying "a P-5 can only fire twice as a P-6" is a ligthning rod for massive player-pressure to change to three times.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 02:17 pm: Edit

Well, to be honest, I never realized the P-5 cost 1.5 to fire, anyway. I thought it was still one, and the extra damage was reflective of an overall improvement in phaser design. Increasing the power cost by 50% for only a marginal damage increase seems almost backwards; that the phaser is actually less efficient than the original P-1. That's just me, and I could be totally, completely wrong.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 03:14 pm: Edit

It is less efficient. But it's in keeping with the "more damage at more cost" theme we have kind have been following.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 05:09 pm: Edit

I'll review how I'm proposing it.

Ph-5 costs 1.5 power and has a double capacitor holding three points of power.

It can be down fired as a Ph-1 for one power. Thus can fire as a ph-1 three times (once per turn) on the energy in the capacitor.

It can be downloaded to fire as one Ph-6 for 1/2 point of power.

Or it can fire in Aegis mode as two Ph-6 for 1 power (1/2 point each). If fired as a ph-6 it cannot fire again that turn except as another ph-6. To use the second ph-6 the first shot must have been at an aegis qualified target. The second shot can be fired at any point in the turn including the second Aegis step of the same impulse that the first shot was fired.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 05:28 pm: Edit

...and there will be a lot of player pressure to be able to use the last .5 of power (that goes into arming the P-5 as a P-5) as a third P-6 shot.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 06:51 pm: Edit

I think that sort of pressure doesn't make sense to me. It would be like having player pressure to insist that a plasma-R armed as enveloping should bolt for 100 points. You put in the power, why doesn't it do the extra damage? Well, because that's just the way it is.

Three Ph-6 shots is too much. Look at it this way, it's a supped up ph-1. You sink extra power into it to get the Ph-V table. Use the same targeting and focusing methods at low power and you get an equivalent of a ph-6 instead of a Ph-3 but like the X1 Ph-1 it can only handle firing twice per turn. Just because the power is there doesn't mean the system can handle further tasks. Giving every X2 ship limited aegis is a lot and giving them three shots is WAY too much.

Pressure or not it cannot be allowed.


<edit> Also, if you want to make your Ph-6 shots equal the power the why not ask for the ability to fire a ph-1 + a ph-6 which would equal 1.5 power. I think it is reasonable to let it be as is with out getting greedy. (and I know, John T. , you're not doing that but mearly stating that some players will.)

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 08:26 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I may be wrong, but i always saw and played the Kzinti as a standoff race, using drones, fighters and long range disruptor fire to attack from a distance.

---

---

Quote:

Why would I, as a Kzinti, trade up long-range phaser 5's for short range phaser-6's? The 5 can downfire anyway, right, so why carry a "forrest" of short range, one use phasers?

---

---

Quote:

I still think the P-6's energy cost should be 1/2 a P-5 otherwise we'll be triple-shooting P-5's as P-6's and seeking weapons of all stripes will be in a world of trouble, not unlike what was experienced with X1 development. Just saying "a P-5 can only fire twice as a P-6" is a ligthning rod for massive player-pressure to change to three times.

---

---

Quote:

Well, to be honest, I never realized the P-5 cost 1.5 to fire, anyway. I thought it was still one, and the extra damage was reflective of an overall improvement in phaser design. Increasing the power cost by 50% for only a marginal damage increase seems almost backwards; that the phaser is actually less efficient than the original P-1. That's just me, and I could be totally, completely wrong.

---

---

Quote:

It is less efficient. But it's in keeping with the "more damage at more cost" theme we have kind have been following.

---

---

Quote:

I'll review how I'm proposing it.

Ph-5 costs 1.5 power and has a double capacitor holding three points of power.

It can be down fired as a Ph-1 for one power. Thus can fire as a ph-1 three times (once per turn) on the energy in the capacitor.

It can be downloaded to fire as one Ph-6 for 1/2 point of power.

Or it can fire in Aegis mode as two Ph-6 for 1 power (1/2 point each). If fired as a ph-6 it cannot fire again that turn except as another ph-6. To use the second ph-6 the first shot must have been at an aegis qualified target. The second shot can be fired at any point in the turn including the second Aegis step of the same impulse that the first shot was fired.

---

---

Quote:

...and there will be a lot of player pressure to be able to use the last .5 of power (that goes into arming the P-5 as a P-5) as a third P-6 shot.

---

---

Quote:

Three Ph-6 shots is too much. Look at it this way, it's a supped up ph-1. You sink extra power into it to get the Ph-V table. Use the same targeting and focusing methods at low power and you get an equivalent of a ph-6 instead of a Ph-3 but like the X1 Ph-1 it can only handle firing twice per turn. Just because the power is there doesn't mean the system can handle further tasks. Giving every X2 ship limited aegis is a lot and giving them three shots is WAY too much.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 08:35 am: Edit

MJC,

You said:

---

Quote:

Whilst I think the Ph-5 ( and the X2Ph-1) should be able to fire 3Ph-3 shots I don't think the Ph-5 should ever be able top fire 3Ph-6 shots.

---

---

Quote:

Three Ph-6 shots is too much. Look at it this way, it's a supped up ph-1. You sink extra power into it to get the Ph-V table. Use the same targeting and focusing methods at low power and you get an equivalent of a ph-6 instead of a Ph-3 but like the X1 Ph-1 it can only handle firing twice per turn. Just because the power is there doesn't mean the system can handle further tasks. Giving every X2 ship limited aegis is a lot and giving them three shots is WAY too much.

---

---

Quote:

I think 3Ph-3 shots is just right but I suspect 3Ph-6 shots is playable...although it perhaps is too strong a drone defence, when you factor in Full Aegis and Bridge ad a special sensor meaning that with eight labs you are looking at I.D.ing 17 drones ( max, you'll get about 14 of them ) and these ship are probably a little bigger than X1s so you could have 10 or 12 Labs.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 08:47 am: Edit

Yeah...your playing semantics around the word "think".
Is it KNOW or is it merely SUPOSE.


I think it's playable but on the marginal part of playable but I'ld rather have a lower BPV for my vessel or more of something useful, ( like an A.S.I.F. ) than get 3Ph-6 shots.


I think it's matter that BPV can resolve but I'ld just rather have a nifty set of thing in my ship rather than the ability to blow the snot out the best drone wave any enemy is ever likely to send at me.