---

Quote:

The story will be, I think, that the Klingons wanted to have the best XCC in the quadrant. They had to choose between two types. One was great but expensive. The other quite capable and fitting the budget. They build both with the former in far fewer quanities. They could have built Three XCM for every two XCC but given the era and other factors it was determined to be the correct choice. The Klingons really wanted something that would be a force to be reckoned with.

---

---

Quote:

This was as close as I could get to 1d6 while keeping the odds of a hit equal or greater than the X0 disruptor. The thing I like about the range 1-4 improvement is at that range the X2 ship is going to take significant return damage.

Thanks Mike.

---

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, May 02, 2003 - 11:02 pm: Edit

I think the Feds should end up with the best X2 pre-Xork cruiser.

First gen X2 will be science oriented. Also, the Fed will have the most money and the biggest budget on ship research.

The Fed's had the best all round crusier up until the C7/BCG, and even then it was close.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, May 02, 2003 - 11:31 pm: Edit

My Fed XCC is pretty tough. Though it's BPV would be slightly less than the best Klingon, it should be strong enough to win, therefore a solid deterant to all out battle.
(Generally, these ships will be too valuable to risk losing in battle so even the K-XCC will think hard before going toe to toe with the F-XCC.)

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, May 02, 2003 - 11:58 pm: Edit

Well, then all is as it should be

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Saturday, May 03, 2003 - 12:41 am: Edit

I would disagree that the Feds had the best pre-X cruiser, there are some pretty strong competitors out there. In fact I'd go so far as to say that the Feds never had the best cruiser, excepting those years where they were the first to build a new class.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, May 03, 2003 - 12:48 am: Edit

best all around cruiser though.

Not the best combat crusier, but the best science, and peace-time cruiser.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, May 03, 2003 - 03:34 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I think the Feds should end up with the best X2 pre-Xork cruiser.

First gen X2 will be science oriented. Also, the Fed will have the most money and the biggest budget on ship research.

The Fed's had the best all round crusier up until the C7/BCG, and even then it was close.

---

---

Quote:

I would disagree that the Feds had the best pre-X cruiser, there are some pretty strong competitors out there. In fact I'd go so far as to say that the Feds never had the best cruiser, excepting those years where they were the first to build a new class.

---

---

Quote:

best all around cruiser though.

Not the best combat crusier, but the best science, and peace-time cruiser.

---

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, May 03, 2003 - 03:57 am: Edit

Guys, it is written in the book that the Fed maintained Cruiser supeririority up intill the BCH era. I think the Feds will want to take that title back with X2.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, May 03, 2003 - 04:28 am: Edit

At the start of the X2 period...that'll be the case.

In the Xork period it'll be much of a muchness.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, May 03, 2003 - 09:29 pm: Edit

Frankly, it very much depends on the definition of "superiority". In a "real world" they might have the best all around cruiser, but in the strict sense of combat worthiness, the Fed CA wasn't superior, IMHO.

I can see the Feds still taking a very well-rounded approach with their 2X cruiser, and that's the flavor I tried to go for with my designs. But it won't be as good at pure combat, I don't think, as some of the other designs...particularly the Klingons and Roms.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, May 03, 2003 - 10:27 pm: Edit

Well, as far as my presentation goes, the Feds will bounce back from the wars the fastest and have the most XCC. The Klinons will come in at a close second but only by counting their XCM's in the heavy cruiser list. Romulans will rely on X1 for the back bone of their fleet for a while but their XCC will be scarry.

The ISC pull way back a creat a strong defense line between themselves and the rest of the galaxy.

The Lyrans start a total rebuild and re-annex the LDR. The Lyran Far Stars goes simi-independant from the rest of the Empire. The Emperor doesn't like it but can do little about it for the time being. Far Stars is growing but there is discontent about it independant path. The Xorks solve the problem as there is near instant reunification when the Empire is attacked. The absence of import from the Far Stars keeps the Emperor from even considering agression against the Kzinti or Hydrans.

The Kzinti go into high gear, replacing every thing as fast as they can. They establist a thin but direct trade route to the Federation with Mantor once again in the middle of things. They also build up their off map colonies more than every one.

The Gorns solidify their nation, building a powrful wall of bases between themselves and the Romulans. Transfer to X2 is slow because infustracture is thier priority. Their XCC is a scarry as their DN was.

The Tholians develop the ability to build new hulls with two new ship yards. They begin to totally rebuild their fleet with these hulls, scraping every thing old for the matterials. Some begin to postulate that the Tholians might go on the offensive. Being the furthest from the Xork invasion, this concern grows, especially from the Klingons.

Many Orions find lagitimate power in the widened neutral zones. Some Cartels are reduced to roving bands of mostly unorganised privateers.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 12:22 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I can see the Feds still taking a very well-rounded approach with their 2X cruiser, and that's the flavor I tried to go for with my designs. But it won't be as good at pure combat, I don't think, as some of the other designs...particularly the Klingons and Roms.

---

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 01:51 pm: Edit

Wow! (And this 'wow' is not the 'wow' we've been alluding to occasionally)

I've just read the entire disruptor thread over the weekend and there's...well plenty of non-disruptor talk.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 04:24 pm: Edit

It happens.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 07:51 pm: Edit

AT Disruptor (Arced Trajectory)
X2 Disruptor Bolt

Background: The Kozenko Design Bureau, along with the Klingon High Command faced an impasse with the past developments of the disruptor bolt. After the GW, attempts were made to increase its effectiveness. All attempts failed to increase its damage output and rate of fire. Moreover, the UIM and DERFACS modules were already examples of technology that pushed its basic accuracy to the limit. In the past, the solution was to increase the amount of disruptors by 50%, and add redundancy to existing technology, i.e. UIM and DERFACS and have holding capability.

Recently, however Klingon scientists discovered a way to 'curve' the trajectory of their disruptor bolts. They discovered that depending on the direction of the 'arced' bolt they were able to hit shields that were adjacent on either side to the facing shield.

Arming: same; 2 points for basic damage
ROF: same; 1 per turn, std 8 imp. delay
To Hit: same (or to be adjusted by playtest)
Damage: same (or to be adjusted by playtest)

Targeting Advancement: The firing ship can choose to hit one of three shields: either the facing shield, or one of the shields directly adjacent to it. Example: If shield #6 is the facing shield, then the firing ship could target this shield (#6)or #1 or #5. In the case of a split hex facing, there would only be two choices.

Notes: I thought of what would Klingons develop if they could not drastically improve on the basic to hit or basic damage. They are lovers of battle. They would admire skill and tactical cleverness. They fly very manuverable boats. They would want consistant effectiveness from their weapons. Changing the disruptor into a more of a 'crunch' (more photonish) or power hungry (AKA manuverability limiter) weapon is not in their milleu. The AT Disruptor might be the Klingon answer. Inspired by a technique in fencing called Coupe': also cut-over; an attack or deception that passes around the opponent's tip. [pron. koopiyay].

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 08:04 pm: Edit

An interesting idea, Roger. I like it.

Very powerful, though.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 08:10 pm: Edit

Powerful, it may. But what if you balance it by not increasing base damage or to hits? If still too powerful? give it a -1 to hit penalty or even a -1 damage penalty.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 08:25 pm: Edit

I took that into account. I assumed an X1 disruptor with the arcing ability.

Hmmm....disruptors with a little english on the ball...but I digress.

It might be OK as-is, even.

If we need to give it disadvantages for balance, we could charge a little extra for the arcing, give it a straight - to hit as you suggest or if that's too much, suggest that the system is incompatible with the UIM.

I'm not suggesting all of these. If it proves too good straight away just try one.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 08:39 pm: Edit

Rodger, just curious. Are you under the impression that the to-hits of the Heavy Disruptor above (the integrated UIM/DERFACS one) are improved?

They are not. Those to hit values are exactly the same as is available to the GW era disruptor. The difference is that the UIM and DERFACS are so integrated that separate line are not needed. The Firing computer automatically determines what mode to use. The result is the table above. After that the only difference is that the heavy disruptor is a base six weapon instead of base 5. A very moderate increase.

Being able to strike a non-facing shield is very powerful indeed as the opponant is dealing with two shields in jeopardy. The facing from phasers and the other two from disruptors.

I'm sorry but I have to question the feasibility of arcing a weapon to such a degree that it would strike a no facing shield. It would have to arc at least 30° and how would one calculate the increased range of a weapon traveling that arc to a target 150,000 KM away (15 hexes)? I suppose a custom chart could be designed but I think the effectiveness of the weapon would be reduced. If they build up the damage output to counter the lose then why would they not just fire directly to do more damage?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 09:54 pm: Edit

We could set it so only a standard disruptor can be arced...

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 11:43 pm: Edit

I'ld make the arced disruptor considerably less accurate than the standards.

Say treat all ranges as 25% ( rounded up ) longer than the ranges, because the disruptor travelled through this arc...also treat give the effect a miopic zone of say 3 hexes.
It'll need a rule to cover bending to hit one of the two facing shields when firing directly on a
sheild bondary and probably and increase in the range for firing on the no correct side shield, say 30% increase in range.
E.G. a ship in heading A and the Klingon one hex in direction F and 7 in A from it would have more trouble hitting the shield #2 of the target ship than it would the sheild #6...being range 10 and 11 respectively.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 12:54 pm: Edit

Thanks for the input.

Let me try to address your questions:

Loren, It's not really a boomerang trajectory (AKA B-Disruptors) or a frisbee trajectory (AKA F-Disruptors). It's more of a slightly bent trajectory with a little hook at the end. Very much like the Fencing move mentioned before.

Quote from Loren:

"Being able to strike a non-facing shield is very powerful indeed as the opponant is dealing with two shields in jeopardy. The facing from phasers and the other two from disruptors."

Acutally,one of 3 shields can be hit. Klingon phasers cannot do this.

Michael, your suggestions for *weakening* the AT Disruptor should considered after playtest. Then we would know how much and many restrictions should be used. Don't get me wrong, I am an advocate of having improvements be tempered by weaknesses. Let's just see how it works without any *tweaking*.

John, yes. Ditto.

For all, it *really* is a targeting improvement, but not in the way people are used to. Adjusting the damage or to-hits needs to be playtested. I like it as is. A skilled weapon in the hands of a skilled Klingon captain. Think of the tactical opportunities. Heck, give a D7 these AT Disruptors and see what they could do to a Fed CA. It could be tested now.

More tecnobabble: isn't a *bolt* like lightning?...pretty jagged trajectory.

Thanks.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 01:17 pm: Edit

..but usually in one direction. It doesn't hit 60% down the tree. It hits the top.

Try this:

It's an alternate firing mode for overloaded disruptors, but hits as a standard. Multiply range by 1.5 (round up) for both hitting and damage, This firing mode would be UIM-incompatible (UIM can be used if the weapon is fired as a normal X1 disr). While not limited to OL range, max range of 15 before adjustment.

Still gives new meaning to the phrase, "Klingon Hook".

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 01:22 pm: Edit

trees...yes...but in space....in space...the things the Klings can do...

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 01:22 pm: Edit

Seems like what you're talking about is almost an indirect form of the disruptor. I'd say John's solution is a good start. I do think it definately needs a penalty of some sort if it can hit shields out of it's arc at the firing player's whim.

Another thought for the 2X disruptor...a proximity mode. Better damage at longer range, less at shorter, and a corresponding to hit table. Worth looking at?