Archive through April 29, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 disruptors: Archive through April 29, 2003
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 10:07 pm: Edit

Quote:

And, before anyone says the above is either impossible or highly improbable, it does happen.


On the contrey, if you narrow volley it'll happen 50% of the time and if you use seperate rolls then it'll happen 6.25% of the time.


Quote:

I know it doesn't happen often, but it illustrates the point I'm making here...the photon is pretty darn dangerous right now, so we'd best tread carefully with any changes we make.


But with an extra 10 shield boxes and some kind of shield protection ( be it damage shunting or Caps-to-SSReo) and the effects of the A.S.I.F we give ourselve room to increase the Photon warhead without increasing the final ability of the Fed to crunch it's way to victory.
Counting in the fact that the damage of the Photon comes at enormous power cost ( and the Disruptors will proably be opperating from Caps ) and the 24 point photon isn't much of threat...sure it'll win games with some good luck but that is the nature of playing Fed vessels.

CL20 Pg 60 points 23 and 24.

It's the nature of the game that Feds can get lucky from time to time and can wreak ships with a handful lucky rolls.
Don't try to steal the Fedness from the Feds.


Quote:

Well, that's one way to look at it. Another is this:

Disruptor:
Range 5
Six disruptors
Max alpha strike damage potential: 36
Average Damage 30
Time to rearm 1 turn ( 8 Impulses minimum )



Photon (full OL):
Range 5
Four photons
Max alpha strike damage potential: 64
Time to rearm 2 turns. minimum 32 impulses



And another is this, the Klingon goes to R0.
The Fed and Klingon exchange.
The Fed takes 16 points in feedback damage and a further 60 points in Disruptor hits.
The Klingon takes 64 points in Photons hits and 12 points in Feedback.
Both vessels take 76 damage.

And another is this.
The Klingon get to R1 and both vessels exchange
The Klingon takes 64 points of damage and the Fed take ( 5/6 x 6 x 10 ) 50 points of damage plus 16 points of feedback.
The Feds take 66 points of damage and the klingons take 64!

And another is this R2
The Klingons hit (6 x 5/6 x 8) for 40 points of damage agsinst the Fed and Feds hit for ( 4 x 5/6 x 16 ) 53.33 points of damage.

Klingon X1s with 6 disruptors work fine but X2 disruptors will be considerabley better than GW disruptors ( unlike X1 ) and thus reverting back to 4 of them will be okay.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 10:09 pm: Edit

And the above X1 examples didn't klist the consistant aspect of them, that the Disruptors could rearm in next turn and the Photons could not...unless we want to compare 12 point fastloads.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 03:41 pm: Edit

Okay, let's continue the disruptor discussion that's been going on in other threads, and see if we can all agree on something.

There are two schools of thought on 2X disruptors (at least, that I'm aware of). One is keep them all the same across the various races that use them, with maybe some very minor differences. The other is to start making them different, allowing for variances that complement the individual race more appropriately and enahance their racial flavor. Here is a list of some of the various proposals I can remember. These are in no particular order, and aren't credited to anyone in particular, either.

Disruptor Proposals


  1. Rapid-Fire Disruptors: Disruptors that stay the same as X1, but can fire 2 times per turn, with a required break between each firing.
  2. Improved, heavier disruptors: Damage base is six, not five. Firing cost and other rules stay the same.
  3. Integrated UIM/DERFACS: UIM and DERFACS are now a "standard package" and cannot be burned our or destroyed.
  4. Disruptor Cannon redux: The return of the EY DC, used by the Carnivons. Either given an overload function, or a rapid-fire function allowing it to fire each turn.
  5. Capacitors: The Disruptor has a capacitor bank similar in function to the phaser capacitor. The benefits are obvious.
  6. Double-Overload disruptors: Just like in Supplement 2, disruptors that can be double overloaded. Acts just like an overload, but by paying six points instead of four, you get 50% more damage.
  7. Heavy Disruptors: Disruptor "doubled". Does twice the damage for twice the power.
  8. Any combination of the above

As you can see, it's a lot to choose from. Now, the problem we face is:
  1. Deciding whether or not to let everyone have pretty much the same thing, or
  2. Giving different capabilities to each race.


What I'd like to see are good, cogent reasons for any choices anyone makes, with some good justifications for those choices. Flavor, tactics, design...all are good ways to justify a choice.

To get the ball rolling, here's what I'd like to see.

Klingons: The quintessential disruptor race, I'd like to see them either go with choice 1 or 3. Both seem fitting for the Klingons, to me. The first because having an extra firing a round adds to their sabre-dancing ability, and the second because they did develop both enhancements, and it would make sense that they'd find a way to improve on them both. I could also see later (Y215), heavier ships using limited numbers of either of these, and a pair of Heavy Disruptors (choice seven) for some serious extra kick.

Lyrans: Choice five. The Lyrans already have capacitors for their phasers and ESG's. Adding a new one seems a very Lyran thing to do, and would help mitigate the power crunch they get into with the ESG.

Tholians: Choice 2. They use disruptors fairly well now, but do have a taste for "crunch" as witnessed by the "P" refits they get. A slightly heavier disruptor feels like a Tholian approach, to me. Plus, it's simple. They spend most of their time working up improvments to the web, not disruptors. A modest change seems enough, to me.

Kzintis: Choice four, in some form or other. The rules in Module Y state they abandoned it because it couldn't be overloaded, so I'd go with that. There have been a few that don't like this idea for the Kzintis, and there have been some good reasons (Alex Chabot posted an especially good one.) I still think keeping it, even if we have to tweak it a bit, is a good fit for the Kzintis. I don't know what 2X drones will look like, but having some crunch for the Kzintis doesn't bother me.

Okay, those are my picks. Anyone else? And please, let's try to keep this simple, civil, and productive. Just state what you want to see, and why, without questioning another's choices or saying why you think/feel they're wrong. There's been enough of that (I'm as guilty as anyone) already, and it's gotten us absolutely no where. Also, please note that this isn't intended to be a poll...it's just a forum to toss around disruptor ideas, and maybe get us going somewhere.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 10:44 pm: Edit

I was thinking last night about the effect of the Disruptor Cannon if it did have a fast load option in comparison to Disruptors and other ships.


X2 Photon Fastloaded (standard) 12 point warhead R0 R1 R2 R3-4 R5-8 R9-12 R13-15
Damage Na Na 12 12 12 12 12
To Hit 1-6 1-6 1-5 1-4 1-3 1-2 1
Average damage per Phot-torp Na Na 10 8 6 4 2
Average Damage per ship Nil Nil 40 32 24 16 8
X2 Photon Fastloaded (Proximity setting) 12 point warhead R0 R1 R2 R3-4 R5-8 R9-12 R13-15
Damage Nil Nil Nil Nil 6 (proximity overload setting ) 6 6
To Hit 1-6 1-6 1-5 1-4 1-5 1-4 1-3
Average Damage Nil Nil Nil Nil 5 4 3
Average Damage per ship 0 0 0 0 20 16 12
X2 Photon Fastloaded ( overload setting ) 12 point warhead R0 R1 R2 R3-4 R5-8 R9-12 R13-15
Damage 12 12 12 12 12 Na Na
To Hit 1-6 1-6 1-5 1-4 1-3 Na Na
Average Damage 12 12 10 8 6Nil Nil
Average Damage per Ship 48 48 40 32 24Nil Nil
X2 Disruptors (+2 UIM) Overload R0 R1 R2 R3-4 R5-8 R9-12 R13-15
Damage 10 10 8 8 6 Na Na
To Hit 1-6 1-5 1-5 1-4 1-6 Na Na
Average Damage 10 8.33 6.66 5.33 6 Nil Nil
Average Damage per ship (4 Bolts) 40 33.33 26.66 24 21.33 24 Nil Nil
Average Damage per ship (6 Bolts) 60 50 40 36 32 36 Nil Nil
Fastload Disruptor Cannon R0 R1 R2 R3-4 R5-8 R9-12 R13-15
Damage Na 10 8 8 6 6 6
To Hit 1-6 1-5 1-5 1-4 1-4 1-4 1-4
Average Nil 8.33 6.66 5.33 4 4 4
Average Damage per ship Nil 33.33 26.66 21.33 24 24 24


Perhaps the Disruptor cannon can be mounted on Kzinti ships and still have a descent array of Drone Launchers and also keep the BPV from being the biggest meanest ships in the known galaxcy.
The salient values arebolded for clairty.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 11:17 pm: Edit

Talking about general X2 disruptors.

I think that a +2 UIM should be developed and +2 Defracs and the Disruptors should have a 6 impulse "double broadside" period over the turn break and fire from disruptor caps.
The UIM would burn out on rolls of 1&2 and the Defracs only on rolls of 1 to make them different.
UIM burnout like X1 should have no negative effect on the disruptor it'self.

Since the Klingons got a 50% increase in the number of Disruptors in X1, the Klingons shouldn't need to much of an increase to the disruptor to keep it running fine. The above small list of changes would be enough, particularly since the Exhausted Klingon ecconomy will want cheaper solutions to their improvement of firepower than most other races.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 11:50 pm: Edit

Don't you hate it when you only half do a job.

X2 Photon Fastloaded (standard) 12 point warhead R0 R1 R2 R3-4 R5-8 R9-12 R13-15
Damage Na Na 12 12 12 12 12
To Hit 1-6 1-6 1-5 1-4 1-3 1-2 1
Average damage per Phot-torp Na Na 10 8 6 4 2
Average Damage per ship Nil Nil 40 32 24 16 8
Power to Arm 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Throughput Na Na 1.66 1.33 1 0.66 0.33
X2 Photon Fastloaded (Proximity setting) 12 point warhead R0 R1 R2 R3-4 R5-8 R9-12 R13-15
Damage Nil Nil Nil Nil 6 (proximity overload setting ) 6 6
To Hit 1-6 1-6 1-5 1-4 1-5 1-4 1-3
Average Damage Nil Nil Nil Nil 5 4 3
Average Damage per ship 0 0 0 0 20 16 12
Power to Arm 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Throughput Na Na Na Na 0.83 0.66 0.5
X2 Photon Fastloaded ( overload setting ) 12 point warhead R0 R1 R2 R3-4 R5-8 R9-12 R13-15
Damage 12 12 12 12 12 Na Na
To Hit 1-6 1-6 1-5 1-4 1-3 Na Na
Average Damage 12 12 10 8 6 Nil Nil
Average Damage per Ship 48 48 40 32 24 Nil Nil
Power to Arm 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Throughput 2 2 1.66 1.33 1 Na Na
X2 Photon Fastloaded ( overload setting ) 16 point warhead R0 R1 R2 R3-4 R5-8 R9-12 R13-15
Damage 16 16 16 16 16 Na Na
To Hit 1-6 1-6 1-5 1-4 1-3 Na Na
Average Damage 16 16 13.33 10.66 8 Nil Nil
Average Damage per Ship 64 64 53.33 41.33 32 Nil Nil
Power to Arm 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Throughput 2 2 1.66 1.33 1 Na Na
X2 Disruptors (+2 UIM) Overload R0 R1 R2 R3-4 R5-8 R9-12 R13-15
Damage 10 10 8 8 6 Na Na
To Hit 1-6 1-5 1-5 1-4 1-6 Na Na
Average Damage 10 8.33 6.66 5.33 6 Nil Nil
Average Damage per ship (4 Bolts) 40 33.33 26.66 21.33 24 Nil Nil
Average Damage per ship (6 Bolts) 60 50 40 32 36 Nil Nil
Power to Arm 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Throughput 2.5 2.083' 1.66 1.33 1.5 Na Na
Fastload Disruptor Cannon R0 R1 R2 R3-4 R5-8 R9-12 R13-15
Damage Na 10 8 8 6 6 6
To Hit 1-6 1-5 1-5 1-4 1-4 1-4 1-4
Average Damage Nil 8.33 6.66 5.33 4 4 4
Average Damage per ship Nil 33.33 26.66 21.33 16 16 16
Power to arm 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Through put Na 2.08 1.66 1.33 1 1 1

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 12:11 am: Edit

I see the Tholians adapting Particle Cannon technology for their disruptors. If they wanted more crunch they would just mount a photon. Particle Cannons have capacitors (PC hold cost) and rapid fire. I see these units taking significantly more space than a non-capacitor disruptor so they would have fewer than the other disruptor races. Another Tholian option would be a web-pass option for their disruptors, perhaps at a +1 to hit.

I can see the Klingons getting a base 6 disruptor. That’s creative, but the damage bonus may have to have some limits, say range 8 and/or fewer mounts. Wide arcs are standard.

I like a heavier weapon for the Kzinti. I see them as looking to get in the killing blow from close range. Not as much crunch as a photon but more than a Klingon disruptor. My choice would be a two-turn arming weapon that arms for 2+2+2H and base 10 damage. I’d be willing to see a 3+3+3H overload for base 15. Fewer mounts.

The Lyrans would get a capacitor system. I like one centralized system supporting both the ESG and the Disruptor. No hold cost but power still dissipates as per an ESG. FAL/FAR/FH/FX arcs.

For all races I would make three line charts: To-hit, damage, overload damage. No need for DERFACS/UIM/OVL UIM lines. No need for burn out. No need for H&R.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 07:29 am: Edit

To the Tholians and Andros I don't think there should be X2 vessels of these races.
Another reason to make X2 mesh with GW ships.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 09:55 am: Edit

Tholians should get some sort of 2X improvement to disruptors, though maybe not as significant as the rest. Andros? They don't use them anyway, so it's a moot point. I do agree that there should be no such thing as a 2X andro of ANY kind, though, if that was your point.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 12:36 pm: Edit

Just a quick note about the Tholians.

I feel for several reasons that there should be some sort of major change in the way Tholians do things. If they don't then they will be VERY vulnerable to the X2 era. However, they should make advances in a way entirely different than the rest of the galaxy.

I think that they should continue to use X1 Disruptors and Photons and make real advances in ship building and the web caster. These are two areas every Tholian Admiral must feel inadequate in. So in Y204 the Tholians open the New Tholia Ship Yard capable of building hulls larger than PC size. The funny thing is that it takes several years for them to fully utilize their new capacity and continue with simular design styles (though with larger hulls).
In Y205 they finalize the build process for the Web caster and make some minor improvements.
Some general web improvements were made as well.
Advanced Battery Technology was purchased from the Pirate Cartels (which included safe passage through some areas of Tholian space on very strict routes).
Special Bridge required only the observation of the concept for the Tholians to implement it on their own ships (All new ships built in 206 and later include Special Bridge).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Loren,

The web caster is an incredibly powerful weapon that won't be much reduced in X2.

How would the Tholians be vulnerable?

That said, we've had some interesting web ideas come through here recently.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 01:22 pm: Edit

Well, as it stands (IIRC) there is no web caster production so any WC that go on X2 ships would have to come from older ships. I would still say, however, that production is limited to one facility on Tholia. And by some minor improvement I do mean minor. It is a very good weapon as is, even in X2, agreed.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 01:48 pm: Edit

OK.

Agreed that by X2, the Tholians should be producing WC's.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 01:35 pm: Edit

I was just looking at the Heavy Disruptor chart (base 6) proposed for the Klingons and Lyrans. I think that it should have a special UIM and DERFACS built into each weapon so as to have only two rows on the Heavy Disruptor chart. Make them no burn out and no H&R. THe systems are miniaturized and integral into each weapon. The down side is that it is harder to repair. The up side is each is independant and doesnot affect the others.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 01:53 pm: Edit

The chart would look like this:

HEAVY DISRUPTOR TABLE
Range-0--1--2-3-45-89-1516-2223-3031-40
Hit (STD)n/a1-51-51-41-41-41-41-31-2
Hit (OL)1-61-51-51-51-5n/an/an/an/a
Damage (Std)065544321
Damage(OL)1212101080000

The Advanced Heavy Disruptor has DERFACS and the UIM built into each weapon. No burn out or H&R.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 01:57 pm: Edit

The reason I say this is because the Heavy Disruptor is not real powerful and adding any more damage potential to it would be too much. It needs just a little something more. So, why not remove previous disadvantages (which is what the scientists would be developing anyway). This give is just the right little extra to keep up with the Photon and DC and other advanced X2 weapons.

IMO.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 02:15 pm: Edit

I'm game.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 02:41 pm: Edit

Fine to me, at least for somebody. I'd go with the capacitors for the Klingons, myself, but I think this kind of disruptor is fine.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 03:16 pm: Edit

X1 disrs aleady have caps. X2 would have those too.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 03:27 pm: Edit

Oh, ya, I didn't mean to eliminate the caps. This disruptor would have caps for sure. Really whats new is the extra bit of punch but the rest is the culmination of past technology into a totally refined weapon. Sort of like the M1 gun is to the cannon of the past. The M1 tank gun has not really new technology. All that targeting capability was there before but the M1 gun has them all put together in a consolidated package that is more than the sum of it's parts.

Note: I'm not trying to say I know all about the M1 tank gun because I don't. Just trying to set an example.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 11:18 pm: Edit

Quote:

I was just looking at the Heavy Disruptor chart (base 6) proposed for the Klingons and Lyrans. I think that it should have a special UIM and DERFACS built into each weapon so as to have only two rows on the Heavy Disruptor chart. Make them no burn out and no H&R. THe systems are miniaturized and integral into each weapon. The down side is that it is harder to repair. The up side is each is independant and doesnot affect the others.


The Disruptor is powerful weapon as it is.

Look at the damage of Thing at R5-8 with just a simple little +2 UIM.
6 points of damage ( and that for 4 power ).
Four times that is 24 damage.

A Fed X1 or even X2 looking for holdable Fastloads ) would be throwing out four 12 point photons for 24 damage.

That's before any refit to give the Klingons what they already have...6 Disruptors on a cruiser.


If you look at the damage of six +2UIM Disruptors at R8 on one turn and R15 or on another you get 6 x 6 x 6/6 + 6 x 3 x 2/3 which is 48 damage.
The same average expected damage as an R8 blast from the fully maxed out 24 point warhead photons that the Feds would have.

+2 UIM, +2 Defracs a Six impulse gap between shots over a turn break and Disruptor Caps, should be more than enough to make the Disruptor competative.


Quote:

X1 disrs aleady have caps. X2 would have those too.


When did that happen!?!
I think perhaps you are confussing the ability to hold overloads with having caps.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 11:26 pm: Edit

I think, though, that the initial idea is to have four disruptors on the XBC, rather than six. Thus, the improved damage. I do agree on the caps, though...I don't remember that at all. Has it been that long? Sheesh, I hope not!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 11:52 pm: Edit

Ya, that was a mistake. X1 Disruptors donot have caps. X1 Disruptors can be held. Standard for 1 point and Overloaded for two.

Caps are functionally similar but more flexable. THe Heavy disruptor should have Caps. Well, I like the Cap idea anyway. They should also be holdable like X1 Disr.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 11:59 pm: Edit

Quote:

I think, though, that the initial idea is to have four disruptors on the XBC, rather than six.


Well isn't that just the thing.


1) The Klingons have a more exhausted ecconomy than the Feds so they should build their XCA with 4 Disruptors but with room to refit up to 6 at some point.
The Klingons should have a ship that starts cheaper than the Feds.

Four +2UIM Disruptors at R8 will be inflicting 24 points of damage...every turn.
The Fed XCA loading fastloaded 12 pointers will able to inflict 24 points of damage on average every turn.

The Fact that the Fed XCA will be able to build non holdable fastloaded 16 point warheads makes the Fed XCA better but the ability to hurl 32 points of damage on average at the enemy at R8 isn't that much better once you factor in some other values.

2) The Klingons will have more phasers ( 12Ph-1s ) to let them take puishment bettwer than the Feds and the Klingons will likely have 2X2B-racks and 1X2E-rack.
If we take the Fed as having 2X2G-racks and limit everybody to Type VII drones ( The X2E-rack can launch Type VII but not Type VIII drones ) then the Fed 2 Type VIIs destroy 2 Klingon Type VIIs and the last Klingon Type VII must either strike the Fed or be shot down.
Assuming 2 Rapid Pulsed Ph-3 shots at R1, the Fed effectively takes one of it's six bearing Ph-5s out of the equation.

Those extra 8 points of damage done by the 16 pointers will begin to evaporate when the Klingon uses it's disruptor caps to move fast and thus get the perfect oblique it's looking for.
10Ph-1s at R8 beats 5Ph-5s at R8; 21.66 to 17.5 which is 4.16' points of damage.

The Fed is only looking at 3.83' points of damage more than the Klingon through it's fastloads.


3) The Klingon can be upto 10% cheaper than the Fed and still be playable.


All these combine to make the Klingon able to run around with 4 fairly weak Disruptors and still maintain their ability to compete with the Fed.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 07:43 pm: Edit

I don't see how, though. Compare the old DX to what you've described. It had six disruptors, and was expected to compete against 1X Fed ships with 12 point fast loads, and nothing more. Now, we're talking about Feds with 16 point fastloads and 24 point overloads, and you think that cutting the Klingons disruptors down by a third and giving them no improvement is going to allow them to compete? How? Not trying to argue, but I don't see that as possible.

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