Archive through August 11, 2022
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Rules:
(E) Weapons:
Twin Phasers (Phaser-Ts):
Archive through August 11, 2022
This was first posted elsewhere on the BBS, but I thought it was best to discuss it on its own terms here going forward.
-----
One of the handy features of X-phasers is the ability to rapid-pulse as a less powerful phaser type under (XE2.43). A phaser-1X can rapid-pulse as two phaser-3Xs, for example.
Perhaps a non-X precursor of this could be made to exist as a "twin phaser", or "phaser-T": two phaser-3s installed into a single phaser-1-sized mount - be it for Alpha Octant and M81 Galaxy standard phaser-3s, and/or perhaps for one (or more) of the alternate phaser-3 types (wide-angle, radiation, etc.) over in the Omega Octant?
This would be a parallel development to the twin laser [(ME1.215)] out in the Lesser Magellanic Cloud, which as the name suggests is the placement of two light lasers into a single mount. This is referred to as being "a straightforward piece of engineering" (as opposed to the complexities involved in constructing a phaser-G).
-----
For comparison's sake, one could unpack how the twin laser is (or is not) used out in the LMC relative to the Module C5 empires' nearest equivalent of the phaser-1: the medium laser [(ME1.212)].
Of the three Magellanic Powers (Baduvai, Eneen, Maghadim), only the Maghadim dabble with the use of twin lasers, for use in the laser option mounts of the "collars" on larger Maghadim ships. And even then, they only used them instead of medium lasers when expecting to deal with mass drivers being launched at them by Baduvai warships; against the Eneen, medium lasers were preferred.
Both the Uthiki and the Jumokian pirates make use of twin lasers. The Uthiki used them as a matter of course; the pirates typically have a pair of TLs on their base hulls (one on each wing), plus the choice of installing them in their weapon option mounts.
Each TL mount takes up the same amount of space on a ship as a medium laser. So there is no blanket upgrading of light lasers to twin (or medium) lasers. Nor is there any installing of twin lasers on Eneen or Maghadim fighters (or on Baduvai PFs) either. There is a discount on repairing a TL relative to two separate LL mounts. Also, TLs only blind sensor channels if both light laser shots are fired in the same impulse.
It should be noted that one key difference between phasers and warp-tuned lasers is that the latter cannot be down-fired. Which makes the choice between a TL and a ML more of a pressing one for a given empire (or pirate) to consider.
-----
As is the case in the LMC, most empires in Alpha, Omega, or M81 might not be in a hurry to use this weapon type, as opposed to two of whatever type of phaser-3 they can otherwise install on their ships.
That said, as is the case with TLs in the weapon option mounts for the Jumokian pirates, there might be use for such a system for other "pirate" factions: be they the Orion Cartels, the M81 Pirates (and/or their Nebuline patrons), or the Zosman Marauders.
Actually, the Zosmans might find particular use for an Omega-type twin phaser, were they allowed to install them in their phaser option mounts as well as in their forward-mounted weapon modules. With relatively few phaser mounts on their base hulls, twin phasers might help them deal with enemy seeking weapons and attrition units - not least if a would-be "phaser-WT" were to aid in defending the Phi Sector against the large-scale Souldra invasion which took place during the Sixth Cycle.
Actually, even if seeking weapons were not a factor, twin phaser mounts might be useful to help finesse the amount of damage being scored on a target freighter's shields, relative to taking a single phaser-1. Even for pirates with access to "shield-cracking" weapons (such as shield crackers in M81, or energy howitzers over in Omega), this might be of some benefit.
-----
All told, would it be reasonable from an engineering perspective to allow a phaser-T to exist, akin to the twin laser out in the LMC? And if so, how many different types of phaser could be given such an option?
Honestly these look like a developmental step to ph-Gs.
If so, would it make sense that older pre general war Hydrans could have recieved ADM’supposed early two phaser 3 gatling.
I agree that something like this could be a stepping stone in the development of the phaser-G but I don't think it makes much sense in the evolution of X-phasers. There isn't any real need for an intermediate stage between a Phaser-1 that can fire twice as a P-3 over the course of two turns and an X-Phaser-1 that fires twice as a P-3 over the course of a single turn.
Also, we already have a non-X phaser that fires twice as a P-3 in a single turn: the Nicozian Phaser-P (Pulse Phaser).
Two thoughts come to mind; first is the comparison to the Ph-G (an unfair one in my mind) and how this weapon might end up being a detraction from one of the Hydran uniquenesses*
The other is the phasers used by the Nicozians (I don't have that book in front of me, but I've had a soft spot** for the unique Nicozian phasers); these are weapons that can fire as either a single Ph-2 or as two Ph-3 in a turn.
(* Umm, ignoring, of course, Fusion Beams, Hellbore Cannon, having carriers operate without escorts, and on the other side of the equation, the LDR... 
)
(** The aforementioned "Soft Spot" is a quarter ounce of material almost identical in consistency and composition to the stuffings in Marshmallow Peeps and is protected by about four inches of reinforced concrete. Its purpose in my anatomy is it is a substitute for an alleged brain... )
Okay, okay... Getting my head out of... Never mind...
In all seriousness, please take a look at the rules for the new phaser type in the Nicozian playtest book. IIRC, they're called "Pulse Phasers," and while using them MIGHT be regarded as "Tech-Sloshing," they might be an angle to be looked at.
On the other hand, if your intent with Ph-T is to be a Ph-3 with a special coolant capacitor system that can't be applied to anything larger (i.e.: a Ph-2 or Ph-1), then the sky isn't the limit for it; it's home.
As far as different types of phasers, I just had the thought, "WHAT IF the PSB `Special Coolant Capacitor' that ran through my alleged mind in the last paragraph could be enlarged to work with Ph-2s, BUT ONLY ON STARBASES/STELLAR FORTRESSES?"
Anyway, IMO, any idea is worth at least giving a look to it.
When the five planets that would later form the Inter-Stellar Concordium first developed their own "warp-class" plasma weapons in parallel to one another (as seen in SFB Module Y2), three of them (the Korlivilar, Pronhoulites, and Rovillians) designed different types of direct-fire heavy weapon; the Q'naabians cooked up a plasma drone; while the Veltressai pioneered the concept of a seeking torpedo, in the form of the plasma-V.
Yet while the plasma-V was ultimately used as the basis for further development, it took the integration of the five species' design teams under a unified Concordium for the "modern" bolt-able plasma torpedo to be brought into being. (Well, four of the five species' design teams, at least; the plasma drone would fall by the wayside as ISC plasma technology went in a different direction.)
And of course, having a track record of designing and implementing different plasma-based direct-fire heavy weapons would help when the time came for the ISC to develop the plasmatic pulsar device.
-----
When considering the phaser-1X, it was this convergence of parallel design lineages which I had in mind as a point of comparison.
As in, should the phaser-T be permitted to exist, perhaps the phaser-1 and phaser-T design teams would, in the process of making the leap to first-generation X-technology, have worked together in order to develop a new weapon that combined aspects of both "pre-X" phaser systems.
While also working together with the phaser-4 design team, in order to develop the rapid-pulse functions of a phaser-4X.
Another way you could balance these would be to consider firing delays, sort of like a Type C drone rack?
Ph-3C: Capacitor increased to 1 from .5, can fire twice in a turn but not within 12 impulses of a previous firing.
That's the 1-1 conversion, but you could take it further, reducing the delay to 8 or even 4 impulses, increasing the capacitor size, and/or increasing the per turn firing count.
Ph-3R (rapid fire): Capacitor increased to 1 (or 2 even) from .5, no limit to how many times it can fire within a turn, but cannot be fired within 8 impulses of a previous firing.
As further points of comparison: unlike a Gatling phaser or phaser cannon in the Alpha Octant, the twin laser in the LMC does not provide any sort of discount for the light laser shots it can fire. Each shot costs the same half-point of energy to fire as on a standalone light laser mount [(ME1.214)].
Warp-tuned lasers do not have a built-in capacitor system the way that phasers do. Instead, the energy required to fire them comes from dedicated BANK boxes shown on the ship's SSD. As noted in (MH2.21), "each BANK is charged and kept track of individually, although any laser can draw power from any BANK box on the same unit".
-----
So, in the case of the proposed phaser-T (or phaser-WT, phaser-RT, etc.), I would prefer to keep things equivalently simple.
Each individual phaser-3 shot from a phaser-T would cost .05 of an energy point. Each phaser-T would add 1 to the capacity of the ship's phaser capacitor. And, as is the case for twin lasers, each phaser-T mount would allow both shots to be fired "together or separately, on the same or different impulses, on the same or different targets".
I think it would be difficult to find a place for this weapon in the General War era unless it's just a rare refit in which case the "Partial X-Refits" rule already allow you to replace 2 P-3 with a single phaser 1-X capable of firing rapid pulse.
Douglas, this proposed Phaser-T would be effectively obsolete once the phaser gatling gets invented.
In theory, it would have been replaced by phaser gatlings before the beginning of the General war.
Apologies for the typo in my previous post: ".05 of an energy point" should, of course, be ".5 of an energy point"...
-----
Also, should phaser-T versions of one or more of the appropriate Omega phasers (-M, -P, -Q, -R, and -W) be permitted to exist, it might then be worth considering whether or not to allow the Bolosco to install them into the "P-1" option mounts on their ships under (OR20.021).
-----
Even in the Alpha Octant, only those Orion Cartels operating in or close to Hydran space would have anything more than limited (10%) access to phaser-Gs. [While certain other empires in which the Orions operate make use of gatling phasers in more limited instances, only the Hydrans are considered to have them in "unrestricted" production under (U7.24).]
So while the proposed phaser-T is not intended to stand up to a gatling phaser, it is intended to be less of a hassle to actually make use of - akin to the relatively common use of twin lasers by the Jumokian pirates.
And of course, since there are no gatling phasers in Omega or M81, such a comparison would be a non-issue for the locals in those regions of space.
Timeline says Hydrans developed the Phaser-G in Y133 and that the new Hydran ships classes were in service by Y134. This always puzzled me because clearly the Hydrans would have had to start building these new classes at least a decade or two in advance of the War of Return (which took place in Y135) given a plausible production schedule. I would suggest that these ships were built prior to Y134 equipped with the Phaser-T and that the Y134 in-service date refers to the date these ships entered service equipped with the Phaser-G as the result of a fleet wide refit. The Hydrans considered the upgrade in capabilities sufficient to justify referring to the upgraded ships as new "classes" in their nomenclature.
A Ph-3 takes half of an SSD box and takes half of an energy point to fire. This means two Ph-3s take a full SSD box and combined take a full point of energy to fire. The pair of phasers also adds a point to the phaser capacitor. The pair of phasers also takes two damage points to destroy.
A Ph-T takes a full SSD box and takes a full energy point to fire both shots. It also adds a point to the phaser capacitor. This phaser takes a single damage point to destroy.
So a pair of Ph-3s takes up exactly the same space in "boxes" as a Ph-T, takes the same energy to use, and adds the same to the phaser capacitor, but takes twice the damage to completely destroy. That means the Pair of Ph-3s is universally better than the Ph-T and there is no disadvantage ever to choose that. No one will ever use a Ph-T as it is worse and provides no benefit.
To actually make the Ph-T worth the effort would require it to be more efficient with power or more efficient in "boxes". So, if it only took a quarter point of energy to fire a Ph-3 shot, that would be a big win. Or, if you could fit, let's say, two Ph-T in the space of three Ph-3s, that would be at least a marginal win. But it has to have some kind of win over two separate Ph-3s to be worth the effort.
And if it is worth the effort, you will have to decide why everyone didn't immediately adopt it. Because if they are more space efficient that Ph-3s, they will be edged in sideways all over the place. Now, the Fed and Gorn refits would all include two Ph-Ts instead of two Ph-3s. Lyrans would use the crap outta these things in place of Ph-3s. Tholians would also use these instead of Ph-3s, as web/snare to one Ph-3 sucks, but a web/snare to one Ph-T starts making more sense.
So, looking at the Ph-T, it looks like it is either pointless, or something everyone would use everywhere, depending on the specifics. And I am not seeing very much middle ground between the two extremes.
The only "benefit" I would give a single phaser-T mount over two phaser-3s would be the same as that of a twin laser versus two light lasers under (ME1.13): namely, a reduced repair cost (3 points for a phaser-T relative to 2+2 for a pair of phaser-3s).
Speaking of costs, since the twin laser has the same BPV adjustment as an early laser (the warp-tuned laser equivalent of a phaser-2) - namely, -.25 BPV under (ME1.143) - I'd give a would-be Alpha Octant or M81 Galaxy phaser-T the same adjustment cost also.
Actually, since all Omega phaser-3 types have the same BPV adjustment and repair costs as their Alpha Octant counterparts according to Annexes #8B and #9 in the 2011 edition of the SFB Omega Master Rulebook, I'd set would-be Omega phaser-T types at -.25 BPV and at 3 repair points in turn.
-----
If that is not enough to make most empires give the phaser-T a serious look, well... that in fact tracks with the historical use (or lack thereof) of twin lasers out in the LMC.
It's no coincidence that, for both the Maghadim and the Jumokians, the use of twin lasers is largely tied to the use of option mounts: laser option mounts [(MR4.R5)] in the case of Maghadim collars, and weapon option mounts [(MR6.1D)] in the case of Jumokian pirate ships. Since there are certain engineering trade-offs involved in what can, or cannot, go into an option mount relative to a "standard" weapon mount, the use of a single mount at a time (in this case, a twin laser) might be required in such instances.
Similarly, the phaser option mounts on Zosman or Bolosco ships, or the weapon option mounts on Orion, WYN, M81 Pirate, and (again) Zosman units, cannot fit two separate phaser-3s in the room taken up by a single phaser-1-sized option mount. Which leaves the proposed varieties of phaser-T as a more viable weapon for those factions to consider. Were these to be made available for them, that is.
In short: yes, I agree that, for ships with the spare room aboard ship to install either a single phaser-T mount or two separate phaser-3 mounts, they'd have good reason to lean towards the latter. But for those that lack this luxury, there might be a niche which the phaser-T could find for itself, as is the case for twin lasers out in the LMC.
Mike West:
Your analysis is incomplete.
You are assuming that there is unlimited capacity for any given hull, to have the ability to add additional number of “half sized” phaser boxes. (The distinction between phaser three type phasers verses phaser T half sized boxes being meaningless, as you have pointed out.).
The proposed phaser T (perhaps it might be accurate to call it a transition phaser gatling) is to all practical purposes a flawed phaser gatling that just didnt work.
Perhaps it was designed to fire four phaser three shots per turn, at a per shot energy cost of 0.5 points of energy each, but heat issues limited it to only two shots per turn.
As a gatling phaser prototype design, it should not be universally available as it would then be “Tech Sloshing.”
Douglas Saldana post above offers a reasonable explanation of how the Hydrans deployed a flawed weapon system to the ships of their fleet, with the expectation that they could eventually fix the problem.
The really nice part of that idea, is the build schedule (substitution of the phaser T for Phaser gatlings) allows construction of ships up to 10 years earlier than the War of Return, but denies the early years of that period use of regular gatling phasers.
Quote:You are assuming that there is unlimited capacity for any given hull, to have the ability to add additional number of “half sized” phaser boxes. (The distinction between phaser three type phasers verses phaser T half sized boxes being meaningless, as you have pointed out.).
No. What I am assuming is that if you can find space to put in a Ph-T, you can find space to put in 2xPh-3 instead. They are exactly the same size. If you can fit one, you can fit the other.
I am also assuming it is NOT a Ph-G predecessor. It doesn't need to be. It is just two Ph-3s that are put in the same SSD box. There's nothing special about the technology. Now, if you want to say that the Ph-T only takes 1/4 point to fire each Ph-3 shot, then we're on to something and it would make sense as a Ph-G predecessor. But "two Ph-3s mushed together with no other rules changes" doesn't scream Ph-G to me.
Also note that Gary didn't say anything about it being a precursor to the Ph-G. That is something added by others. The actual proposal doesn't make that link and Gary has actually avoided even referencing it.
Quote:In short: yes, I agree that, for ships with the spare room aboard ship to install either a single phaser-T mount or two separate phaser-3 mounts, they'd have good reason to lean towards the latter. But for those that lack this luxury, ...
No ships in Alpha/Beta sectors lack this space, except for Orions. For anyone not limited by the mechanisms of an option mount, if you can fit a Ph-T, you can fit 2xPh-3. That said, it would could make sense for Orions in very special circumstances. But even then, there are tons of option mount choices that make way more sense, so even if given that option, I doubt anyone would take it.
A weapon that might make sense for this uses would be:
Ph-T (for triple): One box, may fire up to three times as a Ph-3, no power cost discount, 1.5 capacitor space.
It's better than 2 Ph-3 for everything but padding, while still not being so good that you wonder why there aren't ships based entirely around it.
In proposing the phaser-T (and/or phaser-WT, phaser-QT, etc.), I wanted to keep a clear line of separation between it and the twin laser (which is a "general" laser type in the LMC, at least technologically-speaking) on the one hand; and the Gatling phaser, or other "bespoke" phaser and phaser-equivalent mounts such as the Borak phaser cannon [(EB101.0)] or the Sigvirion pulse emitter [(OE2.0)], on the other.
Although, if it turned out that the only way for a phaser-T (of any stripe) to exist is for itself to be a "bespoke" phaser type - as in, one restricted to a particular faction, or factions, out there in known space - well and good. (Of course, if even that turned out to be a step too far, for whatever combination of reasons, fair enough.)
Coming back to something I mentioned before, would it be possible for a "twin phaser" to have 1/4 power per shot? So, literally "half-a-gatling".
I mean, if you can cram four Ph-3s into a single box AND make them more power efficient, you should be able to do that with two of them, right? I mean the gatling is a "real" system. Half-a-gatling should then be even easier to make and more reliable to use, right?
The reason I ask is that "half-a-gatling" is an incredibly useful weapon. It fires two Ph-3 shots for the same power as one Ph-3 shot. It should also not have the production restrictions and reliability issues of a gatling phaser. But, the trade-off is that it is easier to destroy and isn't a real gatling phaser.
There is no pressing reason that it has to be "bespoke", but at the same time it could be, too. If were to bespoke to the Federation, then the Feds, Orions (because they steal it), Tholians, and Gorns would have it available to them. It also means that the Feds would not be using ship-based gatling phasers, but would instead use these phasers everywhere, on pretty much everything (except civilian ships and auxiliaries). The Feds could keep their fighter gatlings because they got that tech from the Hydrans, which would still be the case here.
Of course, this means that every ship of every empire that could use this would need to change to accommodate it, so that pretty much kills the idea right there ...
I'm thinking that there are similar difficulties in the production of both which is why there is no advantage in producing half-gatlings once you have developed the full version. Kind of comparable to the way that gunboats replaced interceptors.
You could add some minor restrictions for the use of the twin phaser that would emphasize the superiority of the full gatling design.
Such as both phasers on the Phaser T must be targeted at the same target.
Or, alternatively, you could require a quarter turn (8 impulse) delay in firing the second phaser.
Or, , if both phasers are fired on the same impulse, you must skip a turn, to allow the excess heat to dissipate before using the phaser t again.
Just a thought.
I dunno. I would think that, uh, having literally double the number of Ph-3 shots would sufficiently stress the superiority of the gatling phaser. But that could just be me.
Probably best to keep it simple.
Douglas Saldana’ point about the difficulty in producing phaser Gatlings being (I am guessing) similar to the production of the proposed phaser T.
If the material, labor and all other variable costs of producing both types are broadly the same, then it makes zero sense to produce any phaser T units after the introduction of the phaser G.
Now, this assumes that there are no natural or artificial limits on production of Gatling phasers. (Note: in the case of the Federation, history clearly shows that there were limits to how many phaser gatling the feds could produce.)
If the Hydrans did produce the Phaser T as a precursor to full phaser Gatling production, and if, the cost of producing the phaser T was half the cost of producing a phaser Gatling AND the energy cost of powering each phaser T shot is (as Mike West talked about earlier in the discussion ) only 0.25 energy points, then it is at the break even point. One could go either way, as it is a neutral choice.
As I see this, the ONLY case where producing ANY phaser T weapons is if the Hydrans also have a limit on how many Phaser G the can produce in a given time period.
Further, it requires that there is some key input (material, crystal, gem etc.) that the phaser G requires, but that the Phaser T does not.
And that position, could mean that non Hydran Empires could make phaser T units and still not be capable to produce phaser Gatlings.
One other item that may not have been realized by all.
Fighter technology started Broadly speaking) with admin shuttles and a single phaser 3.
When the F-18 went into production, it had two phaser 3 FA.
That arguably could be an example of the Federation deploying a Phaser T into a fighter frame, in all but name. It functions just as the proposed phaser T does, down to Mike Wests point about the energy cost being 0.25 energy cost.
Food for thought.
I think the B-17 in-service Y160 was the first Federation shuttle to have two P-3 with the same firing arc. The F-7 in-service Y167 was the 1st single space shuttle with two P-3 with the same arc. However, if a phaser-T takes up the same amount of space as a P-3 you would have to explain why any fighter would have an odd number of P-3 since they surely would have replaced all P-3 with P-T.