Archive through May 08, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 disruptors: Archive through May 08, 2003
By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 01:27 pm: Edit

Semi-indirect.

I really don't like messing with AT Disruptor charts. If you don't improve on damage, or basic to hits this is a possible solution.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 01:28 pm: Edit

Just to improve the clearity of that quote.

Two of three shields are in jeopardy. The facing shield can/will be hit by phasers. One of the two adjacent shields will be hit by AT-Disruptors. Two shields can take damage at the discresion of the attacker. This is different from such things as splash where the side damage is usually much less. Here the two strikes are the major factors of a Alpha strike. This is a very powerful ability in that a defending ship can no longer simply turn a down shield away. It could take up to a half turn to turn a down shield away. With two or more ships in the battle then all the Klingons have to do is down one shield. In the mean time they are turning their shields. The enemy must do much, much more damage because it has to take down several shields (a basic quality of the whole game).

Where is see the comparison to fencing fail is that the other guy can do it as well. With AT-Disruptors this ability is given to only one side.

I once proposed a delayed Proximity fuse for the Photon. It traveled just past the target and exploded on the opposite shield. Like your proposal it was powerful in duels. But in squadrons and fleets it reduced the effectiveness of shields to almost nil.

To note: Lightning is a "Bolt" but a "Bolt" is not lightning.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 03:38 pm: Edit

Loren, thank you for your clarification. My response is let's playtest this raw 'as is'. If too powerful, then it can be adjusted.

My proposal was for plain, non-overload, non-UIM/DERFACS disruptors.

It IS an improvement. I think it's simple and fits Klingon tendencies and tactics perfectly.

Remember, it can't full-alpha (both phasers and disruptors) on a non-facing shield- Only the AT Disruptors. It can't pick any shield- has to be either the facing one, or the one to the left or right of the facing one.

Playtest it on a D7.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 03:40 pm: Edit

Loren, could you describe a "bolt" of a disruptor?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 08:35 pm: Edit

Quote:

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*.


I would've stuck the flaws in first, as they can be removed if playtesting shows the game won't need them to retain balance....but I'ld rather serve not loose something because after player see something as broken they tend not to be willing to play the watered down version to see if that's not broken.
Just my take on human nature I guess.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 09:39 pm: Edit

Interesting.

I thought that in order to have a more 'valid' test one needs to control the variables as much as possible. The AT Disruptor (as proposed) in playtest only has the new variable of a choice of 3 shields to target. Already knowing the capabilities of the STD disruptor would really help to see if it is a game breaker.

As for human nature...after one knows the cheat codes, playing without them IS dry, so I'm with you there.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 09:52 pm: Edit

The rules define the Disruptor Bolt as a discharge of energy. The Dictionary defines "Bolt" (other than hardware) as "Flash of lightning; move suddenly; swallow hastily"

Lightning only travels in a varied path because of the physical state of the medium it is traveling through (In most cases air). Normally electricity travels the path of least resistance and so would a energy discharge. In space there is no resistance of medium so electricity is not a factor. The natural way an energy discharge would behave in space would be to emanate in all directions. I would assume that the disruptor directs this energy in some way but at the source where it emits from. After the bolt of energy is discharged it will travel in a straight line unless something is acted upon it.

How would a ship be able to act upon its discharge 150,000 KM away? Perhaps something is sent with it?

A Bolt is a noun that is also a verb. In the phrase "A Bolt of Lightning" the word Bolt describes the form the Lightning takes (you could have a ball of lightning). But lightning doesn't describe the "Bolt". This means that to use the term "Bolt" does not imply a random or varied path.

This is way off topic and not really necessary to go on with. I'm only trying to explain why I took exception to the statement "More tecnobabble: isn't a *bolt* like lightning...pretty jagged trajectory."

However, should the AT-Disruptor pan out a useful weapon for the game then another description can be made up. I don't believe the above is adequate.

Rodger, I'm not excited about the AT-Disruptor but far be it from me to poo on the idea. I'm really just trying to be constructive. Let's see where the idea goes. So far not many ideas have had much play testing but most all of them have been thoroughly debated. I've gone to great lengths to get some of my ideas across and failed to achieve a useful result in some cases. It took several months for the Special Bridge to be accepted by more than myself. New ideas need to be put through the wringer as they almost never end up as first proposed.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 10:03 pm: Edit

Loren, honestly, I do thank you for the lightning lesson, that's why I asked. Technobabble is what allows us to play this game with a semiclean conscience.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 10:35 pm: Edit

Quote:

The AT Disruptor (as proposed) in playtest only has the new variable of a choice of 3 shields to target. Already knowing the capabilities of the STD disruptor would really help to see if it is a game breaker.



We'll here a question...what the chances of a the double blast?


That is what are the chances of hitting a two turn arming vessel on the off turn on the same sheild?

If they were 1 in 5, you just dropped them down to 3 in 5.
If they were 1 in 4 you've just dropped them to 3 in 4.


Effectively you just gained Crunch power for your Klingon...particularly after several attack runs.
Consider it...after the firast oblique battle pass we smash each other shield #6s.
The Fed comes along to oblqiue off his sheild #2 but the Klingon Fires before he reaches the #1-#2 boundary line reatining the ability to shoot at the #6 sheild...and does so...insto skipping out on the shiled boxes needed to stop those internal am mizia values.

And then the Klingon may well have 6 of the things...it's actually an increadibly powerful weapon so I'ld start with a water down version first...and players hate trying to fix a broken weapon more than they do trying UP a weapon that falls short.


Look at some of the suppliment 2 things that cause problems...I've propossed that the Ph-5 and X2Ph-1 be able to rapid pulse as 3Ph-3 shots.
Problem...it's too much like the can fire as Ph-G rule of Suppliment 2...and suppliment 2 was broken and so therefore Ph-5s rapid pulsing as Ph-3s must be broken...there will be no playtesting of this it to prove that 3Ph-3 shots is a game breaker, just that since the players got their fingers burnt once, it must therefore burn their fingers again...and they don't want their fingers burnt.
I have a hunch that most of the supliment 2 problems are infact not problems, they happen to be good ideas that since they are stuck next to bad ideas get a bad rep'.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 01:50 pm: Edit

Quote:

Consider it...after the firast oblique battle pass we smash each other shield #6s.
The Fed comes along to oblqiue off his sheild #2 but the Klingon Fires before he reaches the #1-#2 boundary line reatining the ability to shoot at the #6 sheild...and does so...insto skipping out on the shiled boxes needed to stop those internal am mizia values.



Michael,
Then it would on the 2-turn arming ships tactical shortlist to prevent or minimize this from happening. Tactics, maybe *new* tactics.

Isn't that what the X2 Module should offer?

I will not at all be interested in:

Race A: weapons do 50% more damage
sheilds stop 50% more damage
ships are ?% faster
ships are fatter

Race B: ditto

Race C: me too!

Boring.

New tactics. Make the Klingon fire at a further range (less damage). Remember, these are STD disruptors with disruptor damage. And again, no phasers on the #6 shield. Or Fed ship, circles around to recover more of his #6 shield while the Klingon chases. I don't know, but you guys can definitely come up with creative solutions.

And a AT Disruptor armed Klingon ship will fly!

Feel the wind again people.

Don't get me wrong, if the concensus of most wants a watered-down one, then I'm willing to look at the 'watering down' suggestions and redraw the proposal. Some have done so.

1. reduced damage (new chart)
2. no overloads
3. range penalty (add range-needs a new chart)
4. incompatible with UIM/DERFACS in AT mode
5. no caps
6. no holding
NEW ONE:
7. reduced firing arcs? FH to FA, FA to 60 degrees when in AT mode?

others?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 02:45 pm: Edit

I can think of one unusual limitation that actually makes a certain amount of sense. Most indirect weapons are more innacurate at closer ranges. You could reflect that with the AT disruptor by giving it a minimum range, and a worse chance to hit at closer ranges, and better at mid-to-long range. That would keep the klingon from using it in an overrun and getting his max damage with it, and would make for some interesting tactical demands on the user.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 03:01 pm: Edit

Nice...Mike!

How about just a Range 1-4 myopic zone?

Keeping it simple.

any others?

By Aaron Gimblet (Marcus) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 03:16 pm: Edit

I like it as proposed, maybe with a R4 and less penalty to hit. If its completely Myopic, then its a Klink that CANT EVER KNIFE FIGHT. I think trading off some knife fight for better saber dancing is a lovely idea, but Id hate to have to give up the Klink R2 HacknSlash entirely.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 03:19 pm: Edit

Aaron, agreed, how much less of a to hit?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 03:23 pm: Edit

I'm assuming that AT is a "mode" that 2X disruptors could use, not one they'd be limited to. If so, they could easily decide on the appropriate mode during EA, and it would be incumbent on the player to get himself in position to take advantage.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 04:01 pm: Edit

If it is:

An alternate overload mode
Does standard Disr damage
Can't use the UIM
multiplies range x 1.5 for hits and damage,

Then:
Under most circumstances, you're getting the ability to hit a shield somebody just turned away for 3-4 points of damage at the cost of 4 power at a 1-4 hit chance.

Seems reasonable as-is, no myopic zone or somesuch required.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 05:28 pm: Edit

John,

A myopic zone was suggested by me to offset a greater chance to hit at longer ranges, reflecting the way real indirect fire works. If it doesn't get a bonus at longer ranges, then I agree...no myopic zone needed. I just thought it would add a different flavor to the way disruptors are commonly used, and make it feel different.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 05:44 pm: Edit

Mike, the AT Disr is not really indirect then-at least that was not my intention, the shield choice seems to me to be very precise, like (here comes another analogy) like finding a chink in the armor.

An 'indirect' idea-like the SIGs Kinetic wave generator? could be explored as you have been developing. And yes, no myopic zone without the long range benefits.

Getting to John's suggestions, maybe the cost should go to 3 instead of 4? Also, what would a to hit chart look like (1.5 range multiplier)?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 06:04 pm: Edit

Roger,

range012-34-1011-15
roll1-61-51-41-41-3
damage54432

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 06:35 pm: Edit

I think there should be at least a range zero myopic zone. Given the technical explaination there should be some amount of range needed to arc around to the side. I suggest making R0 an N/A result for the AT-mode.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Though still not loving the AT mode thing I offer this suggestion. How about having it be a module you can purchase like UIM use to be. Then give it a H&R box.

That way ships can be designed as is and have the ability added in a refit.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 07:31 pm: Edit

I can deal with that.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 10:39 pm: Edit

Quote:

Then it would on the 2-turn arming ships tactical shortlist to prevent or minimize this from happening. Tactics, maybe *new* tactics.


I'm saying it really powerful...so Increasing the range by 25% and not allowing UIM and Defracs are important...if it's a Standards only weapon then that'll probale be a little too much watering down.

8. Can only hit the shield it's facing.


Quote:

If its completely Myopic, then its a Klink that CANT EVER KNIFE FIGHT. I think trading off some knife fight for better saber dancing is a lovely idea, but Id hate to have to give up the Klink R2 HacknSlash entirely.


No we've got klinck that have to SHOOT STRAIGHT in a knief fight.


Quote:

Aaron, agreed, how much less of a to hit?


Miopic Zone should cover that aspect or mayby something like. Closer than 20 suffer +1 ECM to target...Closer then 10 suffer +4 ECM to target.


Quote:

A myopic zone was suggested by me to offset a greater chance to hit at longer ranges, reflecting the way real indirect fire works. If it doesn't get a bonus at longer ranges, then I agree...no myopic zone needed. I just thought it would add a different flavor to the way disruptors are commonly used, and make it feel different.


You need the Miopic zone to offset the fact that the the defection is an slight angle and not the shield covers and area...which is a distance in a two dimensional expression...this means that the closer you get to the target the LESS able to shoot the side shield you become!...hance you need the miopic zone.


Quote:

Mike, the AT Disr is not really indirect then-at least that was not my intention, the shield choice seems to me to be very precise, like (here comes another analogy) like finding a chink in the armor.


One thing nobody has mentioned is the fact that these side shields are on angles.
Your attack in all fairness should skip off the face of the shield or only apply limited damage, Say Inflicted Damage = Sin 30 x Generated Damage.
More over what happens when the damage passes through the shields...the damage zooms straight past the side ship and out into deep space.
How far are the sheilds from the ships...5 metres?...50m!?!

I think at 80 million meters hitting a ship that's got a block co-effiecent ( there's bound to be person here able explain it to you if you don't know ) of about 0.2 and fills a space 80 m x 50 m x 350 m!...the ships have to target each other and not their shields because it's just too much extrac calculation...and how different are the ships...a ship with a shield 4 metres from it'self will need a different attack to a ship with a shield 800 metres from it'self and who says that that you can actually get sensor data about the location of the shield...your sensor might only be able to register the hull and electrical signature of the enemy ship and not the shield.


Quote:

Though still not loving the AT mode thing I offer this suggestion. How about having it be a module you can purchase like UIM use to be. Then give it a H&R box.

That way ships can be designed as is and have the ability added in a refit.


Unfortunately that won't mess with the heavy disruptor...the +2 UIM will work nicely but I don;t think we need to make the Disruptor all that much more power...it is a wonder weapon as it it.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 12:48 pm: Edit

Dream on for a +2 UIM.

And yes, this AT mode would be instead of the heavy disruptor.

We have each race nicely differentiated.

The Klinks get the AT disruptors (6 on a cruiser)

The Lyrans get heavy disruptors (4 on a cruiser, more later. some case to be made for 6)

The Kzinti get disruptor cannon (4 to a cruiser)

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 04:28 pm: Edit

Thanks for the input, I will work on a redrawn proposal or proposals for all to chime in on.

John T, Mike R. and others, different races, different disruptors...yes!

Gotta prep now for class.

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