I guess we really need to settle on a cost for a P-6. I'm fine with 3/4

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 10:04 pm: Edit

I'm perfectly happy having the Ph-5 cost 1.5 but the Ph-6 costing 0.5 as that'll be easier on the math.

0.5s let you build three to the Ph-5 shot and 2 to the Ph-1 shot but with 0.75 you're force to either build two to the Ph-5 shot or 2 to the Ph-1 shot with half a point of power left over ( enough to run a Ph-3 shot but not a Ph-6 ) so it begins to fall over in that you'll be running around with odd and hard to use energy ammount sitting in the Phaser Caps and BTTYs.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 10:17 pm: Edit

I just think if the P-5 costs more, the P-6 shuld too.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 10:26 pm: Edit

You'ld think so I think from a playability point of veiw that 0.5 is better for the Ph-6 even if you do have a 1.5 powered Ph-5.


It's about building clean shots from the fractions of points of power left in the Caps and it's easier with 0.5s.

But then I'm still not convinced that 2Ph-6 and 3Ph-3 shouldn't be the fire modes of the Ph-5 in rapid pulse.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 10:45 pm: Edit

You defeat working in nice 1/2 point bundles when you propose firing a P-1 as a P-6 for 3/4 point.

Then again, I always thought the P-2 should fire for 3/4 point too.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 11:50 pm: Edit

Yeah, BUT, I've also said the X2Ph-1 shouldn't be able to fire as aPh-6 and it and the Ph-5 should instead have a 2 shot ( 1 point of power per shot ) rapid pulsed Ph-2 mode, rendering the X2Ph-1 firing Ph-6 shot moot.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 02:33 pm: Edit

...but MJC, we're discussing your proposal for allowing a P-1 to fire as a P-6.

Do you like the idea or no? If not, why did you propose it?

I disagree with being able to fire a P-5 as a P-2 because it's potentially too powerful a mode. It's why we have the P-6 in the first place.

In general, I prefer to keep apples and oranges grouped together. No P-1/2/3 firing as a P-5/6 and no P-5/6 firing as a P1/2/3. Makes life simple.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 02:57 pm: Edit

I thought that we were operating under these assumptions:

P5 cost 1.5 to fire; may downfire as a P1 for 1 point, or as 2 rapid pulse P6 shots for .75 each.

P1 stays the same as in X1; fire as P1 or rapid pulse P3 for .5 points each.

Seems pretty cut and dried to me; why make it more complicated?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 03:25 pm: Edit

I agree.

In all honesty, we are taking a break from the question of how much power it takes to fire a P-6. There is no real consensus.

There's a bunch of us in the .75 camp (like me) and a bunch of others (including Loren) who like 1/2. Some of those are willing to have .75 when fired from a P-6. Only MJC understands his position on this stuff.

I'm sure there are a few 2/3 advocates running around too.

I think the newer, downgunned P-6 has tilted the balance more toward the .5 side of things.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 05:26 pm: Edit

I thought I have put a post up but now I can't find it. It was to this effect:
I thought the same thing Mike R. said but that we had agreed that a stand alone Ph-6 would fire at .5 cost. The idea being that the Ph-6 was designed for just that and it would be more efficient. So, here is what I thought we were at:

PH-5 cost=1.5 (Cap. holds 3 points of power)
Can fire as Ph-1 for 1.0
Can fire as two Ph-6 for 0.75 each. Once fired as a Ph-6 it cannot fire as another beam type exept for another Ph-6. Opperates under limited aegis. Could be down fired as 1xPH-6 for 0.75 and fired at a ship. If fired at a ship aegis cannot be activated to fire a second Ph-6.

Ph-6 cost 0.5 (Cap holds 1)

John: I did for a while want the 1/2 like you say but I came around to this compromise, which is actually better I think. I seem to remember you were on board with this too.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 06:12 pm: Edit

How about this:

ph-5 Offensive phaser
The main heavy phaser on X2 ships.
Energy cost: 1 1/2

Rapid fire options (under XX-Aegis):
Option 1: 3 ph-3 shots (1/2 power each)
Option 2: 2 ph-6 shots (3/4 power each)

Damage chart - Loren's proposal.

ph-1 Light offensive phaser
A cheaper, tried-and-true alternative to the ph-5. This weapon proved impossible to convert to X2 technology.
Energy cost: 1

Rapid fire options (under XX-Aegis):
Option 1: 2 ph-3 shots.

ph-6 Defensive phaser
A defensive phaser, but rarely seen due to the ability of the ph-5 to rapid-fire 2 ph-6 pulses.
Energy cost: 3/4
Rapid fire options: none.

ph-H Hydran phaser
The hydrans improved the ph-G into a stronger defensive weapon than the ph-5.
Energy cost: 2

Firing modes:
Mode 1: 4 ph-6 pulses (1/2 power each)
Mode 2: 8 ph-3 pulses (1/4 power each)
The firing mode is decided separately for each pulse: (2 ph-6 and 4 ph-3 is one legal combination)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 07:13 pm: Edit

The P-H's P-3 mode is too, too good.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 07:16 pm: Edit

We all couldn't see the Ph-V not being able to down fire as a Ph-1. It should be able to down fire as a Ph-2 but I don't know why any one would since it would cost the same power and no one is going to get tricked into thinking a X2 ship is carrying Ph-2's.

We also wanted to keep the Ph-3 out of the new tech. It think it also added complexity to the PH-5.

The Ph-1 should remain as is.

I sort of liked that 1/2 point cost for the standalone Ph-6. I gave an additional reason to mount it besides having them take two hits to kill two phasers.

Question: Would you put aegis restrictions on the 8 Ph-3 mode of the Ph-H? If not you are really increasing the damage output a lot.
Ph-6 at R1 max is 5. 4x5=20
Ph-3 at R1 max is 4. 8x4=32

I would think a 4 shot Ph-6 would be pretty heavy duty. Especially if it cost 1 to arm.

One of the other reasons I wanted to keep the Ph-3 out of X2 was to get the Ph-3 chart off the SSD. Right now there is the Ph-5, Ph-1 and Ph6, the same number as before. There are new charts to go on the SSDs for new technologies. On my existing SSD I can't see nearly close enough room to add the Ph-3 chart. I did put out the idea of a Ph-6/Ph-3 combo chart but people really didn't like that idea. I suppose it would suck to make a mistake and get killed by a drone that should have been destroyed but you accedentally read the wrong column.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 08:30 pm: Edit

Agreed about keeping the P-3 chart off the SSD. In my designs at least, SSD real estate has been at a premium, especially on XCA/XCC's.

To be devil's advocate, if a P-6 can fire for 1/2 by itself and 3/4 downfired out of a P-5, why not look through the other end of the telescope and and have a P-5 (or P-1) downfire as a P-2 for that same 3/4?

The moment you make the cost of a phaser shot situational instead of set, you open that can of worms.

Even as an aegis-only thing, 8x P-3's is extremely useful. I think too useful. That's still around 30 points of anti-seeking weapon damage per phaser.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 08:39 pm: Edit

A ship with four would fall into the Phaser Hose syndrom. That would be 32 Ph-3s at a minimum or 3 and close range. So, 96 before or after the rest of the ships weapons...every turn.

Hell, give me a fast ship with six of those and no other weapons. (well, a good battery suite and a couple tractor beams!)

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 08:41 pm: Edit

I can agree with all of it but the Ph-H. Too good, too cheap. I'd rather just see a four-shot P-6, with the appropriate energy cost.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 08:59 pm: Edit

Agreed.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 11:22 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Do you like the idea or no? If not, why did you propose it?

---

---

Quote:

P5 cost 1.5 to fire; may downfire as a P1 for 1 point, or as 2 rapid pulse P6 shots for .75 each.

P1 stays the same as in X1; fire as P1 or rapid pulse P3 for .5 points each.

Seems pretty cut and dried to me; why make it more complicated?

---

---

Quote:

We all couldn't see the Ph-V not being able to down fire as a Ph-1. It should be able to down fire as a Ph-2 but I don't know why any one would since it would cost the same power and no one is going to get tricked into thinking a X2 ship is carrying Ph-2's.

---

---

Quote:

I sort of liked that 1/2 point cost for the standalone Ph-6. I gave an additional reason to mount it besides having them take two hits to kill two phasers.

---

---

Quote:

The P-H's P-3 mode is too, too good.

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 11:40 pm: Edit

It's not like phasers are the only defense against drones through.

There's speed, tractors, weasels, T-bombs, ESG (if you're Lyran)...and phasers.

Phasers are rather more important to plasma defense.

I'm not worried about drones.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 05:36 am: Edit

Yeah.

I'm not sure if rapid pulsed Ph-6s shots are better or not than the singular Ph-5 shot being half the maximum damage as the maximum damage but Ph-3s are pretty poor at R2 and the X1s already have the plasma Sabot...doing an average of 6 points of damage for 2R2 Ph-3 shots and 5 for the Ph-1s...but pretty bad luck ( say two 6s ) will yeild a lot less damage than one 6 on a Ph-1.


Still I'm not sure that giving the Ph-1 races a Seeking Weapon defect built straight into the game mechanics is a great idea, the Klingons will probably already have problems with going back to four Disruptors ( refitting latter to 6 ) and several defects piled up on eachother will create very low relative BPVs making X2 Vs X2 matchups difficult.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 09:02 am: Edit

---

Quote:

The Klingons with a full suite of Ph-1s will get torn to ribbons the day the Kzintis introduce the Type X drone ( unless the phaser upgrade comes before the introduction of the X2 drones ) but will find the forrest of Ph-6 and the rapid pulsed Ph-6 shots of the Kzinti Ph-5s will defend the Kzinti against any Klingon drones launched.

---

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 10:00 am: Edit

Phaser based drone defenses should be similar but less than an equivalent BPV of X1/X0 drone defenses. If a CC(X1) = CM(X2) = 250 BPV then X2 should have slightly less drone defense as many other areas have been improved to justify the BPV.

X-Aegis is very effective when dealing with drones so X0 ships are more difficult to compare against. 250 BPV of ships would be about two CW. Since the Klingons mount LA on their D5K I'll use that to simplify the accounting.

2D5K = 8P1 + 8P3 + 4ADD-12 + LA
DX = 11XP1 (or 8P1+6P3 or 7P1+8P3)+ 2GX + LA
CM(X2) = 4P5 + 4XP1 + 4GX2 + LA (based roughly on a 250 BPV MC=1 D5X)

Using the above proposed CM(X2) armament a P5 could pulse as a pair of P1 to have the same drone defense as the 2D5K (better than a DX).

Based on this one analysis I would say at a maximum the P5 could be pulsed as 2P1 against X-Aegis targets. If we make the P5 any better than this I would say we have to either reduce the number of phasers or increase the BPV, making the comparison no longer valid.

BPV = Power + Weapons + Defense + Special Abilities. If X2 has equal power, improved defenses and improved special abilities then the only thing left to reduce to keep an equal BPV are the weapons.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 12:17 pm: Edit

I think the maximum through put of the Ph-5 should be 1.5 power. Firing as two Ph-1 would be 2. I would tend to sway to letting it fire as two Ph-2 but the latest Ph-6 (for 0.75) is nearly its equal and more believable (IMO). This also follows the same Ph-1 paradigm, which is good (again IMO).

I think MIke R. has that phaser on his site. It was developed by John Trauger. At a cost of 0.75 from a Ph-5 and 0.5 from a stand alone Ph-6 it's a really good weapon! Gives a reason to have stand alones besides taking two hits to kill both.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 12:32 pm: Edit

I took both of the PH-V and PH-6 from Mike's site. Just look at the romulan ssd's in the intergrated proposals section.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 02:22 pm: Edit

I would completely oppose allowing a P-5 to fire as 2x P-2. It fires as 2x P-6.

If we decide to make the P-6 a limited range P-2 that's another matter.