| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 02:38 pm: Edit |
MJC,
"Death on seeking weapons" roughly translates to
"Significantly reducing the effecitveness of seeking weapons by making seeking weapon defense either too easy or too effective."
Splitting P-6's into P-3s will do that.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 12:19 am: Edit |
J.T.:
Hmmmm...
I'm not sure.
I still think most of the damage done by drones isn't done by the drones but rather in stteing up a state of play where the no drone chucker has few if any "swing weapons" as SVC calls them to chuck into it's offensive count.
Too easy; is a possibility but I think it's really a matter of BPV rather than being a game breaking situation.
L.K.:
I don't see the need to put the Phaser charts on the SSD for Varrious rapid pulse modes.
The overloaded phaser charts weren't on the SSDs.
Ships with all Ph-1 suites can fire as downloaded/hastily-repaired Ph-2s and yet the Ph-2 tables aren't on the chart.
Personnally I think the Rapid pulse should follow the current X1 Rapid pulse rules.
That is FIRST Rapid Pulses shot must be anounced as a rapid pulse shot (or atleast remembered as such) and that all rapid pulse shots are to be levelled at X1 Aegis Qualified targets, or elese the only thing that can be done is to fire the phaser normally or as a down loaded shot.
Close and hose should exist but only against Aegis Qualified targets.
If 3Ph-3 shots is "G like" well that's okay to me, so long as players know that the Phaser fire three shots because of the improved X-aegis system and not because they are gats which they arn't.
3Ph-3 shots will aid the X2 craft in dealing with GW drones and that is why I would like the Phasers to have a lot of options, dispite the extra work it'll be remembering/recording.
IMHO of'cause.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 12:31 am: Edit |
For those that don't know.
This is where I stand on Rapid Pulse.
| Phaser | X2Ph-1 | Ph-5 | Energy used |
| Ph-5 shots | Na | 1 | 1.5 |
| Ph-1 shots | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Rapid Pulsed Ph-2 shots | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Rapid Pulsed Ph-6 shots | Na | 2 | 1 |
| Rapid Pulsed Ph-3 shots | 3 | 3 | 1.5 |
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 01:54 am: Edit |
The real problem is hogging SSD real estate with 4 phaser tables. I couldn't do half my cruiser designs if I had to put the P-1 and P-3 tables on every SSD.
Simply too limiting.
I also prefer that the P-5/6 be a new paradigm analagous to the P-1/P-3 paradigm, not backward compatible with P-1s and P-3s.
If we could afford the SSD real-estate, I would allow a P-5 to down-fire as a P-1 but that would be it.
Your XP-1 downfire tables are way too powerful. Both are non-starters in my book.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 02:27 am: Edit |
It really depends on the BPV.
You can just skip out on the Down Fire Rapid pulsed etc tables and keep them in the main book because that's what was done with X1.
Having a defensive capasity of strong rapid pulsed fire is important ( although I'ld be willing to skip the Ph-2 shots if 1) the Ph-6 got to be able to four point of damage out to R2 on a roll of 6 AND 2) the X2Ph-1 got the ability rapid Pulse Ph-6 shots).
If an XCA with 12Ph-5s can rapid pulse each of them as Ph-3 three times and is the BPV of a CX plus a DDX, then the XCA fires 36Ph-3 shots MAX (irrespective of facing ) and the X1 task group fire 42Ph-3 shot ( MAX irrespective of phasing ).
Now I'm not really convinced that 24Ph-6 shots really out-performs 42Ph-3 shots.
Considering that there will be fewer sheild boxes in total and less power in total, I'ld say that the added flexibility of 36Ph-3 shots over 24Ph-6 shots will help make up for the fact that the ship falls short in every area including the fact that she only has 36Ph-3 shots ot compete with 42.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 03:24 am: Edit |
You have been fixated on a XCC having a CX+DDX BPV. This may not be the case.
You assume that a XCA would have 12x P-5. Few if any proposals to date have supported this.
Your proposal assumes some equality in even the need for phaser firepower for defense. The simple fact that X2 ships will move faster than X2 skews any such seeking weapons defense comparison.
Your post contains nothing that for a second persuades me that allowing a 2XP-1 to fire as 2x P-2 is a reasonable thing. Or firing it as 3xP-3.
Heck, I'm not convinced that the P-5 should fire as 3xP-3, let alone the P-1.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 04:52 am: Edit |
Okay...a couple of quesions.
Will there be either Type X & XI drones or Type VII and VIII boosted drones?
If so then the extra speed of the X2 ships ( 8 extra points of warp !?!) get "nobbled" by the (40-32) 8 extra points of movement ( or worse still 16 extra points of movement if Type VII booster drones can go at 48 which some people think is fair ).
Will the other systems of the ships, Bridge as Special sensor, A.S.I.F., 24 point photons, Caps-to-SSReo, Reproducers, etc, cause ships to move more like X1 ships than their raw power would indicate?
I would also like to make the comment that I don't believe the XCA should have 12Ph-5s but rather should have a refit from either 12Ph-1 or 8Ph-5s to 12Ph-5s.
If we take a different comparison, and say the unrefitted XCA is worth about the same price as the CX then we fall into the following under standing.
The CX can rapid pulse a total of 24Ph-3 shots per turn.
The XCA can rapid pulse with 8Ph-5 just 16Ph-6 shots.
If we assume that the rapid pulsed Ph-6 is worth one and a half Ph-3 shots then we have parity.
If we say that with our 4 Aegis steps ( and the 2 that the X1 gets ) it's better to have the flexibility provided by 24Ph-3 shots than 16Ph-6s then the X2 cruiser falls behind in phaser defense.
Three Ph-3 shots in rapid pulse might cause a player push for Gatling capasity being added to the Phasers.
Personnally I don't think that player pressure will cause much of a thing with ADB...there was a lot of player pressure for Fighter reloading capasity to for Freighter skids and ducktails and yet because they operational needs of the fighters meant that you needed about 10 fighters to opperate a continuos C.A.P. (which is what the c in cap stands for) and that with that many fighters, why not get access to things like, energy weapon rearming and ECM loaning that only the AxCVL could provide.
Skids and Ducktails didn't conme to pass because the opperations of fighters won't work properly despite the fact that there was immence player pressure to introduce them.
So too with Four Pulses from the Ph-5...it won't come to pass because it'll render the gatling phaser out of business.
Having three and sticking with three because there will be need is different matter.
I never played under the old supliment 2 but I think that either the gatling capasity of the phasers were not restricted to Aegis targets (and that was where the problem cam from ) or they themselves weren't much of problem for the bad taste of the old supliment 2.
But like I said before, I'ld be willing to drop the double Ph-2 shot if the X2Ph-1 got to fire as a rapid pulsed Ph-6 and the Ph-6 got a better outcome on a roll of 6 at range 2.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 06:04 am: Edit |
Consider it this way.
We have an X2 Fed XDD and an X1 Fed CX and we through fom a GW group a number of drones.
IIRC a Fed NCA and a Fed NCL can launch 3 Type IVF drones every turn.
Now we'll take it as given that any captain worht his commision can get an R1 shot at speed 32 drones.
We'll aslo ignore the inate defensive capasity of both vessel's own drone racks.
The CX can obique for 9X1Ph-1 shots of which it rapid pulses at R1 3Ph-3 shots and again on the second aegis step for 3Ph-3 shots to kill the three Type IVF drones.
The XDD can fire let's say 5 of her 6Ph-5s ( although she probably can only get 4 to bear because the drone racks are a higher percentage of her BPV ) and she can only fire Ph-6s in rapid pulse.
She obliques the drones at R1 and fires 2Ph-6 shots at the first two drones in the first Aegis step, then she fires on any survivers plus the third drone on the second Aegis step. Then she fires in the third impulse step if she has to but on average this will require 4Ph-6 shots from 2Ph-5s. Unless she only has limited Aegis in which case she must fire 3Ph-6 shots ( plus the obligatory 1 follow up shot on the second Aegis step ) for a total of three of her bearing 5Ph-5s ( although it's more likely to of her 4 facing Ph-5s ) being put into aegis duty.
But in the outlined form, 2Ph5s are consummed in rapid pulsing and the 3Ph-5s are still able to be brought bear.
Which is better to fire at the enemy?
3Ph-5s or 6Ph-1s?
Since 3Ph-5s is worth about 4.5 Ph-1s, I'll pick the 6Ph-1s.
You need the ability to rapid pulse your X2 ship capital phasers as 3Ph-3 shots ( Both X2Ph-1s and Ph-5s ) in order to defend yourself against GW ships and their drones as-well-as the X1 ships are doing.
Note following some of the statements above, specifically; 4Ph-5s to bear and limited Aegis, it could be as few as 1 remaining Ph-5 against the 6Ph-1s of the CX.
| By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 06:18 am: Edit |
MJC, a not,
an X1 phaser 1 can fire as 2, not 3, X1 Phaser 3s.
Also note, the Fed NCA and NCL have a total of 12 spaces of drones between them. It is very unlikeyl that they would carry more than 1xType IVF drone, if any. It also greatly depends on which border they are on.
And, I just don't see how you can dumb down a weapon that much. A P-5 should clearly be able to fire as 2xP6s, but as P3s seems too Low Tech.
It would be like giving a 16" gun the ability to fire 3x5" shells. Sure, you could probably do it, but the cost would be much greater, and the effect would only rarely be seen.
I think that a P6 should be able to gaurantee a kill of a standard GW Type I or IV. And it should have a good chance of killing a Type VII or VIII X1 drone.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 06:24 am: Edit |
If in the above example we could rapid pulse our Ph-5s as three Ph-3 shots then the incomming IVF drones would be dealt with as follow.
A Pair of Ph-5s will be taken form offensive duty and put onto defensive duty.
When the ship gets to R1, the ships fires on the drones.
First Aegis step is a pair of Ph-3s destroying the first Type IVF drone, the second Aegis step has a pair of Ph-3 shots destroying the second IVF drone and the third Aegis step fires a pair of Ph-3s for the destruction of the third IVF drone.
This requires just 2 of the bearing Ph-5s altering the basic equation form:-
3Ph-5s Vs 6Ph-1s to
4Ph-5s Vs 6Ph-1s which keeps the situation level.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 06:34 am: Edit |
OOps...I meant three shots from the suite not from the individual phaser.
Quote:Also note, the Fed NCA and NCL have a total of 12 spaces of drones between them. It is very unlikeyl that they would carry more than 1xType IVF drone, if any. It also greatly depends on which border they are on.
Quote:And, I just don't see how you can dumb down a weapon that much. A P-5 should clearly be able to fire as 2xP6s, but as P3s seems too Low Tech.
It would be like giving a 16" gun the ability to fire 3x5" shells. Sure, you could probably do it, but the cost would be much greater, and the effect would only rarely be seen.
Quote:I think that a P6 should be able to gaurantee a kill of a standard GW Type I or IV. And it should have a good chance of killing a Type VII or VIII X1 drone.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 12:51 pm: Edit |
Currently a phaser can fire as its own type or one of lesser quality. Very simple.
The X1 phaser can do the same or Rapid Pulse as two Ph-3s at aegis targets. Simple.
I think that the Ph-5 should continue down this path. Firing as a Ph-1 is really a natural thing as phasers have always been able to down load. It becomes a valuable tactic because of the power savings but maintains an affective shot. (I think it would be common at point blank ranges for ships to fire as all Ph-1s to save power). Rapid pulsing as two Ph-6 maintains the standard of the X1 phaser. The improvement to the Ph-5 is in the new tables for the Ph-5 and Ph-6. In this was the phaser remains simple.
Any more, for me, is too much complication. And I do mean anything more not just MJC's 3 x Ph-3 proposal but built-in ECM shifts and other things. We hit on the new phasers pretty early on and I think we hit a bull’s-eye. (And I'm impressed with the fact that we were wisely conservative, having rejected the super powerful half PH-4 for the comparatively moderate but effective half Mega-Phaser.)
That doesn't mean that a new weapon system, a racially exclusive type, couldn't work. Maybe the Kzinti do develop a new Phaser based defensive weapon. Maybe the Romulans develop a phaser lens for the mauler giving it a full FA arc.
These are my thought and I haven't been convinced otherwise.
| By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 02:16 pm: Edit |
MJC, you example does not matchup. A 120MM round, is still a 120MM round, no matter how you look at it. You might be able to carry that example when looking at a P-5 downfiring as a P-1. But as 3xP3s? Uh uh. Completely different animal. Not even the same genus.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 04:04 pm: Edit |
Well...
Let's not totally scrap the idea. Here's what I sort of thought over.
1.5 power equals 1xP5 shot, or 2xP6.
1 power equals a downfire to 1xP1.
Now, can this same downfire mode allow the P5 to "downfire" as two P3's for 1 point? I'd say so...the purpose in downfiring sometimes is to save power, whether in offenisive mode (P5 to P1) or defensive (P6 to P3). A ship running like hell from drones might choose to download his P5's, and save some power for tractors or SSREO.
If that's the case, why not allow the later 2X ships (Y215) to downfire their P5's as 3xP3? The damage total has the same potential, after all; 2xP6 is 12 points, 3xP3 is 12, too. That would provide very good defense vs. drones. The question, then, is "will it be necessary?" Not something we can answer quite yet, at least until we really see what 2X drones are going to look like. I think we can hold the idea in obeyance until we get some more drone data, but as it stands now, I see no reason not to allow the later generation of 2X ships to have this capability.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 11:03 pm: Edit |
Mike R.
Well, that depends on which Ph-6 chart you use. One of the charts has the Ph-6 maxed out at 5 (which is the one I prefer because 5+5=10 which is the max a Ph-5 does.)
And I agree not to totally scrap the idea. None of the ideas should be unless every body hates it and the author agrees. Otherwise, it's all a matter of record.
That said, if the six point chart for the Ph-6 is the chosen chart then I would rather have the three Ph-3 option and NO Ph-6 shots for the Ph-5. Leaving the Ph-6 as a unique weapon. I would then be inclined to increase the R0 and R1 maximums of the Ph-5 shot to 12 though that is a mater of a separate debate.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 02:56 am: Edit |
Quote:I think that the Ph-5 should continue down this path. Firing as a Ph-1 is really a natural thing as phasers have always been able to down load. It becomes a valuable tactic because of the power savings but maintains an affective shot. (I think it would be common at point blank ranges for ships to fire as all Ph-1s to save power). Rapid pulsing as two Ph-6 maintains the standard of the X1 phaser. The improvement to the Ph-5 is in the new tables for the Ph-5 and Ph-6. In this was the phaser remains simple.
Quote:If that's the case, why not allow the later 2X ships (Y215) to downfire their P5's as 3xP3? The damage total has the same potential, after all; 2xP6 is 12 points, 3xP3 is 12, too. That would provide very good defense vs. drones. The question, then, is "will it be necessary?" Not something we can answer quite yet, at least until we really see what 2X drones are going to look like. I think we can hold the idea in obeyance until we get some more drone data, but as it stands now, I see no reason not to allow the later generation of 2X ships to have this capability.
Quote:Well, that depends on which Ph-6 chart you use. One of the charts has the Ph-6 maxed out at 5 (which is the one I prefer because 5+5=10 which is the max a Ph-5 does.)
Quote:That said, if the six point chart for the Ph-6 is the chosen chart then I would rather have the three Ph-3 option and NO Ph-6 shots for the Ph-5. Leaving the Ph-6 as a unique weapon.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 03:58 am: Edit |
Speaking of simple.
We could follow along an idea ( which I am oppossed to but anyway ) of firing the simple phaser against the simple drone at the last possible impulse before impact.
•A Ph-1 is an auto kill against a Type IF drone at R1 which is the last impulase one can fire.
•An X1Ph-1 can rapid pulse as 2Ph-3 shots and kill the standard X1 drone ( the Type VII ) at range one with an auto-kill.
With higher speed drone we may need to fire at range 2.
•Oddly enough a Ph-5 firing as 3Ph-3 shots against a boosted Type VII drone at range 2 ( possibly the last impulse before impact ) is an auto-kill.
Now I'm not saying we should mix boosted drones with three rapid pulses per phaser in order to build the X2 module, but atleast it is simple.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 04:12 am: Edit |
Quote:MJC, you example does not matchup. A 120MM round, is still a 120MM round, no matter how you look at it. You might be able to carry that example when looking at a P-5 downfiring as a P-1. But as 3xP3s? Uh uh. Completely different animal. Not even the same genus.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 02:23 pm: Edit |
MikeR,
I would prefer to not open the door to firing the P-5 as any number of P-3's. That way lies madness in my view.
AS FOR THE REST
I do not consider the 120MM round a valid comparison so I have ignored discussion centering around it.
P-5's downfire as 2xP-6. I'll go as far as 1xP-1, but that's it. P-1s are fine downfiring as 2xP-3 (or 1x P-2 if one is in a wierd mood). Great symmetry there. The only tweak I'd give the P-1 RE the P-2 is to allow the P-1 to fire as a P-2 for 3/4 of a point.
I think the P-6 should fire for 2/3 or 3/4 to cement the relationships in energy-allocation math. The player fires off his .75 of available energy in his P-5 as a P-6 and therefore can easily see that he doesn't have the 1 necessary to fire a P-1. If P-6's fire at .5 each, the player will wonder why he can't squeeze two more P-6 shots out of his P-5 or get a P-1 shot.
Just saying "no, you only get 2 P-6 shots" invites a deluge of e-mails requesting the third shot and every minute the ADB spends gong through e-mail and reading it only long enough to determine that it's just another request to get "full use" out of a P-5 is a minute future projects are slowed down.
It is unfortunate that the rules need to reflect real-world concerns like this but if you've never workied in an game environment where the public can suggest changes, you may not be aware how much of a deluge something like this can generate.
Let's just say that my X2 proposals will all contain a P-6 that fires for 3/4. I can be talked down to 2/3 but no lower.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 02:58 pm: Edit |
John,
I can live with all that...I'm just wool-gathering, you see. 3/4 for a P6 is fine, and is what I thought it was since I was reminded that the P5 was 1.5. So, to recap, I'd say...
P5 at 1.5
Downfire P5 at 1 point as a P1
Downfire P5 as 2xP6 for 1.5.
I would like a hasty repair rule that says you can repair the P5 as a P1, and downfire said P1 as 2xP3's, though. Make sense?
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 03:16 pm: Edit |
Mike,
Agreed. If you reapir it as a P-1 it fires as a P-1.
We could come up with some technobabble explanation like the P-5 has an integrated turbocharger that makes the difference between a P-1 and a P-5 (and a P-3 a P-6). You can repair it without the turbocharger and you get a P-1.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 06:01 pm: Edit |
Boy, it makes me wonder why we devoloped what we have before.
One of the reasons, as I recall, we went with the 5 point max Ph-6 for half energy was because six was too much for one half point energy and one have energy was very simple to deal with. Thing like 2/3 or 3/4 is more difficult to track. The extra damage to 5 was easy to atribute to better technology.
I see a tendancy to see the rapid pulsing as part of a PH-5 shot so the logic leads to being able to use each part of the total shot. But that's not how I see it. I picture it as a Ph-1 with added technology that, combined with some extra power, results in the Ph-5. This same technology is what creates the Ph-6 (as a stand alone ph-6). But still the Ph-5 (actually a beefed up Ph-1) is intended as a single shot offensive weapon. Using an aegis tie in allows the tracking system to pull off multiple shots, and even though aegis can handle more targets and shots, more than two taxes the systems of the Ph-1 too far. It lacks the technology that, say, the Ph-G has. It's just a different system. And adding the Ph-G systems wouldn't allow a heavy phaser to fire as a heavy shot. The capicitor system is only a power supply. The fact that it is bigger (1.5 + 1.5) doesn't have anything to do with the operation of the weapon (except it has the power to opperate). I admit it a technobabble explaination for the most part but I think it jives with the established game. And it replaces the Overload rules nicely (which was a big part of the original intent.)
Consider the old Ph-1 overload rules. Overloading the phaser didn't allow you to fire more shots it allowed you to fire the rapid pulses as overloaded. (I acknowledge that those rules went through several revisions ultimatly disallowing overloading. It first was allowed (way back when...) that the OL energy got you four ph-3 shots (or 2 OL Ph-3) but that was the first to go. Then all reference to Phaser OL was deleated.)
John, as per you post above you can see (at least some??) what I'm saying. And I fully agree with the repair sequencing.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 06:29 pm: Edit |
Well, to be honest, I never saw the need to make the P5 a 1.5 power weapon, anyway. I sort of envisioned it being an improvement over the P1. This "improvement" is what gave the better damage...not increased power. That to me is the simplest answer; a 1 point P5, and half point P6. Just my opinion.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 07:07 pm: Edit |
It's not a bad solution but the reason I like 1.5 is for a couple reasons, mostly game based.
The level of improvement takes place from short to very long ranges. The improvement the Ph-5 has over the Ph-1 is greater than the improvement of the Ph-6 over the Ph-3. (This is based on the 5 point max Ph-6) Also, I like the dynamic of the 1.5 because it maintains the double cap. but the cap is 3 points. This gives you a real tactical reason to fire as a ph-1 (up to three times with out recharging). Or in the case of rapid pulse for defense, six Ph-6 shots.
I feel the 1.5 power cost for the Ph-5 is justified and would help to keep the BPV down a bit. Though, given the cap size and the power availability on X2 ships this wont be a real tactical hinderence. 1.5 power into the Ph-5 also gives X2 ships something to spend their power on (though with one point we could reduce the power levels on X2 but I'd rather not.) THis could be a hiden advantage (however slight) for ships like the Kzinti that might have less Ph-5 and many Ph-6. They gain damage potential over GW (or even other X2) with the same power cost on a ship with extra power.
Again, I'm just giving support to why I see things the way I do. And am not saying it has to be my way. I suppose I've become a little attached to the "Ph-5/Ph-1/2xPh-6/1.5+1.5 cap" design. I really love it and it was developed on this board. It is not my invention, it's ours and the one I love the most.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 07:57 pm: Edit |
Loren,
Yes, I can see what you're saying. At least I think I can...
Perhaps I read the convo differently. For me a max-6 P-6 was simply too close to a P-2 when the subjet was a P-3 replacement. I never liked the pange-15 P-2 proposal for the P-6. You will remember that my own P-6 proposal was even more conservative than the one we went with. I don't doubt that the consensus on the P-6 was .5 power. It probably was. But I think that's a big, big mistake for all the reasons I have stated.
The last reason on my list I'll add is that a .5 arming P-6 violates a main theme of our version of P-3, "More effect for more power cost." The P-6 becomes the second-most effecient phaser right behind the P-6 and ahead of the P-3, which is counter to that general theme.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |