Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board

Archive through June 15, 2003

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 ph-3 and other small defensive weapons: Archive through June 15, 2003

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 03:28 pm: Edit

Quote:
It is not unlike a Fusion Beam that gains a 50% increase in damage for a 100% increase in power. This is already supported in the phaser world because close range P3 have a better power to damage ratio than the P1.

True, but...

The disruptor and photon get double damage for double energy, so comparing phasers to heavy weapons can go either way.
The P3 does have a better efficiency than the P1 at close range, but has a far less total efficiency...1.83 compared to 3.21.

As I said, I can live with it for now. I don't want to seem like I'm arguing for fun, because that isn't the case at all. I just want the 2X phasers we come up with to be the right choice, and to have plenty of ammo to justify those choices when the time comes. The more we tear it apart and examine it, the better chance we have to come up with a valid design.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 04:20 pm: Edit

You're well in-bounds, Mike.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 04:57 pm: Edit

Well, let's keep in mind this may all be for not. At best we are preparing a presentation for SVC to review and use at his discresion (in whole or in part or to line his bird cage).

One thing that is clear about the ph-5 is its intention. There is where we have succeded, I feel. No doubt it can be refined but we did a great job of getting the idea of what sort of weapon we like. For that we should be pretty please with ourselves. I feel SVC will be pleasently surprised we didn't demand a super phaser. The Ph-5 is logical and conservative and probably something not one of us would have come up with fifteen or twenty years ago. Back then I would have only thought about a super phaser and getting to use it; ignoring the idea of it being used on me!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 11:11 pm: Edit

Quote:
That's all nice, but it doesn't address the point. If given the choice between 12 phaser 1's and 8 phaser 5's, I'd take the 12 phaser 1's. I get more padding, more mizia opportunities, and a perfectly acceptable damage curve. There is simply no compelling reason for me to use the current phaser 5 at it's power cost of 1.5.

I'd use it if we have a cost of 1, and I do like the table. But 1.5 is just too much for what you get. That's my only problem with it.

For me it depend on the ship.
See my Photon Thread Term paper.
By having those 8Ph-5 and firing at R12 on the impulse after I've crushed your shield with an R12 Narrow volley of my 12 point standards. 2 Points of damage per shot through the R9-15 range breat is a heck of to better than 1.
If I go for say 18 Point Photons at R8, I can have a high speed ( particularly in latter turns ) and thus fire at a point that in not a perfect oblique and this my 6 Bearing Ph-5s do measurably more damage than the 8Ph-1s you will get to bear...I just hope I've got enough BTTY to tractor the drones you've got more than me.

Quote:
The problem is the P-5 is too good to cost just 1 and n cost figure between 1 and 1.5 works easily (1.33?)

I don't really see it as that much of a difference...we are only talking about 1 point of SSReo per PAIR of Ph-5s.
It might be a massive throughput adjustment but it's only a small improvement to combat effectiveness.

Quote:
The reason this rule was deleted was because it did too much damage. To prevent reinventing a logical but known bad idea we instead extended the range.

No it did too much damage at one specific point.
R5!
It was a coupling of the "everybody has Ph-1s", "everyone has lots of Phaser-1s" and the "Overloaded Phaser rules"; that killed X1.

Quote:
(in whole or in part or to line his bird cage).

That's kitty litter and you know it!

Quote:
One thing that is clear about the ph-5 is its intention. There is where we have succeded, I feel. No doubt it can be refined but we did a great job of getting the idea of what sort of weapon we like. For that we should be pretty please with ourselves. I feel SVC will be pleasently surprised we didn't demand a super phaser. The Ph-5 is logical and conservative and probably something not one of us would have come up with fifteen or twenty years ago. Back then I would have only thought about a super phaser and getting to use it; ignoring the idea of it being used on me!

Preliminary Ph-5s were super phaser.
It was only when it was realised that an R8 sweet spot would allow GW ships to play and also Ph-1 ships that the real weapon came to be.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 01:10 am: Edit

As to not addressing the issues.

We take a Fed DDX and give it a CX BPV price tag and a DD phaser suite calling them all Ph-5 instead of Ph-1s.

Against a GW opponent, how does it deal wi the fact that it has more drones going it's way with fewer Phaser shots to defend with. Admittedly the rapid pulsed Ph-6s are better drone killers than the rapid pulsed Ph-3s but it's got to be better by the same percentahge as the increase in BPV ( 240 over 170 is a 41% increase ( Ph-6 over Ph-3 at R1 is only 45% increase ) amd then has to deal with the fact that it only has 66% on the number of phasers...effective making the drone defense some 96% of what it was whilst the income GW drones are some 141% times what they were.

Why am I the only person who seems to be seeing this?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 07:03 am: Edit

I don't want to seem argumentative, here, but the answer to that question is probably that no one else is focusing solely on drone defense as a defining character of 2X.

Taking the XDD as an example (at least, the one I did). In Y205, it has six P-5's, and 2 XG racks. The P-5's can rapid pulse as P-6's, and the XG racks use the new and improved Anti-Drone table. With that, plus a pair of tractors and a good surplus of warp energy for speed, and it has a pretty darn good drone defense. It has the S-bridge that allows drone ID, suped-up labs that make it easier...the whole package is really quite nice. In Y215, it gets better, with the addition of 2 more P-5's.

I know it isn't exactly drone immune, but it's far, far better off than any other SC4 ship ever made up until then, and it comes at a decent BPV...about 220, for the refit model.

In all fairness, why not make an SSD of your design, and show it to us with your reasoning behind it? I'll even volunteer to make it and post it for you.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 11:42 am: Edit

Of the X2 DD or CX?

I've also gotta agree...the improved ADD table coupled with the slow speed of Type VII & VIII drones will provide exceptional drone defense.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 11:48 am: Edit

Whatever you want to do, we can do. XCC, XDD, you're choice.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 03:32 pm: Edit

John Trauger, I created so new tables for you new version of the Ph-6 and a couple Heavy Weapons. These are the SSD types. I'll send them to you if you like. I already sent them to Mike R.

I would like to propose this for the arming cost of your Ph-6. You wanted it to be .75. How about this compromise. A standard (stand alone) Ph-6 costs .5 power to arm. A Ph-6 downfired from a Ph-V costs .75 to arm.
This gives an efficiency bonus to the stand alone model and provides a real reason to mount the Ph-6. It makes sense to me that the Ph-5 wouldn't be as efficient at firing as a Ph-6.

Further, if this is the case, then allow the Ph-V to down fire as a Ph-3 for .5 but keep limit of the number of pulses at two.

That way a Ph-V could be fired as a Ph-1 then (on the next turn) as a Ph-3 (to finish of the extra .5 if that's all that is left). If you wish to make your life complicated you could fire on Ph-6 and one Ph-3 for a total of 1.25. Leaving .25 in the cap. (plus the power from the second cap of course)

The thing is that you have pleanty of tactical options with out being complicated. It's up to the player.

So, how about that?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 05:19 pm: Edit

Except for downfiring the P-5 as a P-3, I'm good.

I find I prefer a separation between X2 and older-tech phasers.

It also saves me rewrite effort on the phaser-matrix.

If a P-5 can freely fire as a P-1 and a P-3, then I have to up the matrix to firing as a P-6 for .5 power in order for it to have a reason for exisiting.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 06:41 pm: Edit

I just wanted there to be something that the Ph-V could fire with .5 remaining in the capacitor. Which is possible with a Ph-1 in the mix. Maybe it not an issue in practice. I do like the idea of the Ph-5/Ph-1/Ph-6 mix.

So then cool with a stand alone Ph-6 arming for .5 while the Ph-V down fires to a Ph-6 for .75?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 07:13 pm: Edit

That makes sense. The P6 is designed to fire as it is, so it should be a bit more efficient.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 01:18 pm: Edit

I'm not entirely happy with this, but I'll compromise.

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

Yeah...the Ph-6 is only getting a few points ( maxing oput at 60% damage over a Ph-3 at point blank range ) and only a few extra hexes over the Ph-3 ( six non zero results out to R3 instead of R2!?! ) it really isn't worth the extra push for 0.75 points of power and the playability would be easier for 0.5!

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 04:08 pm: Edit

Actually, I disagree, I think it is worth the .75, but I'm willing to let it go.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 05:29 pm: Edit

If the PV we have is worth 1.5, then the PVI is definately worth .75. But, I understand Loren's point, that a PV downfiring as a PVI might not be as energy efficient as the "real" PVI is...so, I can go either way.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 05:46 pm: Edit

Has anyone asked why X2 needs a ph-3 analog?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 07:11 pm: Edit

Because you still will have situations where you have many small targets. The Ph-6 will be just as important as the Ph-3 was.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 09:09 pm: Edit

...ad if we didn't make one, people would ask for one.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 11:03 pm: Edit

Quote:
If the PV we have is worth 1.5, then the PVI is definately worth .75. But, I understand Loren's point, that a PV downfiring as a PVI might not be as energy efficient as the "real" PVI is...so, I can go either way.

I would hassard a guess that the Ph-6 is only so much more dealy than the Ph-3 by a mechanism that was justifyible through the same mechanism that the Ph-1 is more accurate than the Ph-2...thatis a simply high accuracy computer can make as much difference between the Ph-1 and Ph-2 maybe a simple high accuracy computer can make a similar ( though I suspect smaller ) difference bewteen the Ph-3 and the Ph-6.

Quote:
Has anyone asked why X2 needs a ph-3 analog?

The trobble is that you either A) have rapid pulsed Ph-3s to destroy the HUGE number of GW incomming drones that have been fired at you so we need about 4Ph-3 shots ( which falls into the Sumpliment to is broken so we couldn't possibly let our capital phaser fire as Ph-Gs ) or B) we build a point defense phaser that can deal out lots of damage...insto-killing Type IF drones @ R1...and yet can be rapid fired bout as well as the X1s did their Ph-3 shots.
Anything else means you either have lots of other drone defenses ( E.G. everybody gets a pair of X2E-racks ) or you have your weight in BPV of GW ships hurling more drones at you than you can possibly deal with, renedering the X2 ships dead by even races that use small numbers of drones in their attacks like the Feds.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, June 14, 2003 - 02:54 am: Edit

I was thinking about the X2 Ph-1 and the h-6 shots it'll need to make.

Would this be overly complicated.

Ph-6 shots from a Ph-5 will cost 0.5 points of power and have the listed maximum range but...
Ph-6 shots from an X2Ph-1 will cost 0.75 points of power and be limited to a maximum range of 8 because the only way for a Ph-6 to be generated by an X2Ph-1 is to effectively overload the a Ph-3 shot.

That may be better than saying as I've put forward before that the X2Ph-1 and Ph-6 should be able to rapid pulse Ph-2 shots to defend themselves from Type X and XI drones.
But is the above system too complicated?

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, June 14, 2003 - 06:32 pm: Edit

Yes, too complicated.

A ph-6 shot that is downfired from any X2 phaser should cost the same amount of power.

It's no different than firing a ph-3 shot from either a ph-1 or a ph-2.

Second, I don't like the term "X2 ph-1".
If it has the ph-1 name, it should act the same as a regular ph-1. X1 OL ph-1 was confusing enough. Let's just use ph-5, ph-6, ph-7, ph-8 for the different types of phasers we'll see in X2.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 03:45 am: Edit

Even with the new X1 rules the X1 Ph-1 is a different thing from the GW Ph-1, so it should be okay to use the X2Ph-1 lable.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 11:22 am: Edit

In some cases, on my designs, I'm am using the X1 Ph-1 with no improvements. It is a light weapon used by Klinons in the aft and by some small ships. I'm planning to have the Romulans come out late with the Ph-V. They have knowledge of the weapon and design their ships to accomodate them but for a few years they are stuck with Ph-1s. Eventually they become pure Ph-5 users.

Just some comments because I see a place for the Ph-1 with no special added abilities.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 09:02 pm: Edit

Well the rapid pulsed Ph-6 shot ( or the Rapid pulsed Ph-2 shot ) is only needed to stop type X, XI & XII drones.

If one is to be fighting either speed 32 drones only ( type VII & VIII ) or bosted drones ( that take double damage ) then one doesn't need a heavier shot than the Rapid Pulsed Ph-3 shots of the X1Ph-1.

Even with rolls of 6 at R2 against a boosted type VII drone one will only need to direct three rapid pulsed Ph-3 shots to destroy the drone.
At R1 against regular type VII drones one only needs a pair of rapid pulsed Ph-3 shots.

It's only when we need 8Ph-3 R2 shots from our rapid pulsed capital phasers ( because we kept rolling 6s...but that's pretty unlikely and hard to do with four Aegis steps ) to shoot down a Type X drone that we need to switch to Ph-6 or Ph-2 defenses.

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