What's the advantage of P-6?

Phaser padding for one, but you covered that. That is no a miniscule advantage. When I played with SFT #1's CDS system, I would always install P-3's for padding. Usually with LS+RF/RS+LF or 360 arcs.

It is never a bad idea to have some specifically defense-oriented armament. Many tactcs have as their jumpoff point: "Once your opponent has fired all his phasers..."

Aesthetically it adds some texture. Part of the blandness of X-ships is the fact they they have nothing but P-1's.

I'm sure I can think of more but that's enough, seems to me.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 04:18 pm: Edit

From a game PoV that stands in part. But what is the advantage to the fictional real designers. Why in a real world would you put two systems relegated to defence only when you could put one flexable system that is probably a little easier to maintain and easier to repair (as a package).

I really like the texture that a 1/2 stand alone Ph-6 brings. It is really easy to keep track of too, just like the Ph-3. And it can be explained by saying that the Ph-5s P6 mode fires a straight beam like other phasers but that the Ph-6 (stand alone) uses advanced technology and a pulsed beam to increase range and damage instead of added power. By coincidence the two different weapons use the same chart and hence both labled Ph-6 but in fact the stand alone is a Pulsed Defence Phaser.

<edit> IMHO

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 04:44 pm: Edit

A P-6 can be put in places too small for a P-5. Most ships would have natural points where a P-5 would not fit. Especially since the P-5 is probably significanty larger than the P-1.

A rationalization can be found for P-6's if it makes for better gameplay.

Try cost: suppose a P-6 costs 1/4 what a P-5 does?

Suppose P-5's are slow to manufacture or or in short supply when the first run of ships are designed? Makes for a mixed P-1/P5 bag but it also means that we'd see P-6's too.

Want more?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 05:23 pm: Edit

Earlier discussions lead me to believe that the advance technology allowed the Ph-5 to be the same size as a ph-1. Size of the weapon is a consideration and amounts to technobabble rationalizing the game aspect. OK.

What is the reason for NOT letting the stand alone have an advantage power wise. What is so difficult to keep track of?

Hmm, just want to point out here that I'm only debating my point and not arguing and mean NO ill will. I'm afraid it may just come down to personal taste. In which case I wont change my position as I hardly expect ALL of my proposals to be accepted. (Heck, I'm happy the Spec. Bridge is liked!)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 05:40 pm: Edit

The primary reason is the disparity between the P-5 and P-6 in that you pay something (extra power) and get something (extra damage) with then P-5. With the P-6 you get something (extra damage) for nothing (no extrta power cost).

It's not a bookkeeping issue with me. There is some defintite KISS advantage to having a phaser shot cost the same regardless of the phaser that made it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Well, I can see the KISS advantage but I think as an isolated case it is pretty small. We are only talking a 1/4 point of power so the gain is not so much as to be covered by BPV and possibly repair cost. What it does though is make each pair cost only one power. The stand alone Ph-6 the require no accounting (until you take damage). It is also a place (besides batteries) to put that extra 1/2 point of power that is so common to have. If the Ph-6 costs .75 then there is no place to put that 1/2 point left over. Sure, that wont always be the case but there is a KISS advantage during game play of having the stand alone Ph-6 cost 1/2. And as far as the P5/P6 thing goes it easy too. Each Ph-6 fired from a Ph-5 cost half the Ph-5 cost (.75).

There is KISS advantage both ways. Remembering the difference wont be a problem. If you can remember 20% of the SFB rule set then the Ph-6 (Pulsed Defence Phaser) rule will be a snap.

To reitterate: My position on this isn't final just that a matter of taste isn't enough for me. I like the flavor of the difference. But if there is a reason that smacks me as big, well, I switch over quicker that a cookie goes "Crunch" in the hands of my Son.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 07:59 pm: Edit

My point is that it's not just "taste" and it's not like taste won't matter anyway.

I think that the ADB would be inundated by mail either demanding that the P-6 be a 1/5 arming at all times, 3/4 all times or asking why the difference. It will stand out. I guarantee it.

Simplicity and conformity suggest that the arming cost always be the same ragardless of the phaser firing as a P-6 (and sidesteps the issue of: is you repair a P-5 as a P-6 does it fire for 1/2 or 3/4?) and expending to pay more power to get more damage suggest a cost of 3/4.

And if you are firing a P-6 for 3/4 at any point you are going to have to deal with 1/4 points of power. It's the nature of the way a game will go.

As an aside, a quarter point also powers a transporter nicely (.2 power per) with a nudge left over.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 09:02 pm: Edit

I personally think the P6 should be 1/2 the cost of a P5 regardless of where it comes from. I think that's the best way to go, and here's why.

1. The P3 costs 1/2 the cost of a P1, no matter where it comes from. The P6 should follow this pattern.
2. At .5 each, the P6 is vastly more efficient than a P3.
3. As John suggests, people will immediately want to know why the P6 is penalized for coming from the P5. Keeping it the same removes that issue.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 09:23 pm: Edit

I'm game for that as well. Especially given the relaxed amounts of phasers we're putting on ships.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 09:26 pm: Edit

John: OK you know that "Reason that smacks me" thing?

---

Quote:

(and sidesteps the issue of: is you repair a P-5 as a P-6 does it fire for 1/2 or 3/4?)

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 09:54 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Re. Caps: Double caps all the way. And here is why that is so much better than X1 double caps. The Ph-5 arms for 1.5 creating a 3 point hold. The Ph-1 fires for 1. That's three turns of Ph-1 fire on caps only! In a defencive position a ship might use all Ph-1s to kill drones/shuttles/plasma and run at top speed with some reinforcement up. Ph-5s used as Ph-1s will be not uncommon for crafty players. I expect the Ph-5 to fire as a Ph-5 only at long range (what it was intended for) and big crunch alphas. The Ph-5 as a Ph-1 is more ecconomical for sword fighting.

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 10:02 pm: Edit

Loren,

Glad to finally assimilate you.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 10:18 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

So I'm for power consistancy.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 10:24 pm: Edit

I recognise that the Original Ph-3 had a 0.5 point Cap but I don't like the idea of a 1.5 point Cap for the Ph-6, so I'ld like to see it be a two point cap and since 0.75 doesn't go into 2 nicely I think it should be changed to a 0.5 cost.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 10:29 pm: Edit

MJC: I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not so I'll just say this: For the Ph-5 three point caps and double caps are the same thing (three points of power). That is part of the advantage of the Ph-5. Its cap has enough power to fire three Ph-1s or four Ph-6s.

John, I'm in agreement and have reasoned out why to mount them in numbers. Two Ph-6 take two hits to kill and are not limited by aegis restrictions (they both can fire at ships at the same time). At point blank range they have a good chance of doing 20% more damage than a PH-5.
(These are my current plans but may change.)

My Kzinti XCM will have six Ph-5 and four Ph-6.

My Tholian XCC will have eight Ph-5 and maybe 8 Ph6. It will be a MC1/SC2 ship similar to the D (as the D was really a great BCH.) It will begin with a mixed photon/disruptor arraingement. The disruptors will be X1 types to be upgraded with a refit once the Klingons share the Technology after the Xorks come. I expect the Tholians will be an integral part of turning the tide of that war.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 10:50 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

For the Ph-5 three point caps and double caps are the same thing (three points of power).

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 11:17 pm: Edit

Loren,

Not using the phaser-matrix? I'm hurt.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 12:33 am: Edit

John: At the time you posted that I was distracted and never gave it the attention it deserved. Got a link?


MJC: I see. The difference I see is in the X2Ph-1. I don't see there being one.

I don't see the Caps-to-SSReo either. The closest thing I could see is allowing phasers capacitor energy to be fed into batteries and have that power available on the next turn but that is quite a bit of accounting. The Caps-to-SSReo is going to need its on log. Something I would rather avoid.

Thats just me but it explains the differences in view.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 05:00 am: Edit

I've gotta say that the Phaser Matrix AND the Disruptor Cannon is too much of a Jump from the traditional racial position, it won't really be seen as a Kzinti anymore if it has both.


Personally I thionk the DC is the lesser of two evils.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 08:01 am: Edit

Ok before I was still willing to be persauded. But the difficulties and can of worms that we would open by having different firing cost for a basic phaser in the game are just to much.

Ph-6=.75 period Regardless of mount.

The Hydran Gatling is an exception to this. But then the Hydrans generally dont have Gatlings AND Phaser 3 mounts on the same ship so this is limited.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 01:25 pm: Edit

Loren,

Here's a link to all of the X2 I have proposed seriously enough to put in keyboard time over.

Plunder at will.

http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/x2-tech.htm

I have at least one SSD that uses each bit of tech.


MJC,

In many ways, the Phaser matrix restores the Kzinti to the way they were before P-1 mania got ahold of them and they become like everyone else.

Also, if X2 isn't the time to get a little different, there will never be a time. Heck, SVC left the door open for something other than phasers on X2. Compared to how wierd we *could* get, this is tame.

(for the benefit of the newcomers, we actually discussed how "out there" we were going to get. My opinion is/was that if you don't have the heavy weapon/phaser dyamic, it isn't SFB. It's another game that uses the SFB engine. If you want to reopen that discussion, "Major X2 tech changes" would be a great place for it)

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 02:10 pm: Edit

Just reviewed your phaser matrix. I like it. Except for the added ECM part which fails the KISS test. Without the ECM penalty it is, as you note, better than a P5 but not so much so that it can't be balanced with BPV. What I think you do need is design limits to prevent too many on a hull or the damage absorbing capacities would be too great.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 02:14 pm: Edit

Agreed. Something along the lines of the Ph-M rules which impose limits based on size class. Not as restrictive, of course, but something simple like "SC3 = 4 phaser matrix", or the like.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 02:50 pm: Edit

John: I agree with Tos. The ECM penalty is not needed. It is OK for it to be better than the Ph-5. Its three times the size of a Ph-3/Ph-6 and probably has additional equipement. A ship with P-MTRX would probably have only these plus a couple PH-5s. A Kzinti XCC might have four P-MTRX and Two Ph-5. While that gives them a lot of Ph3 and a lot of PHASER hits they only end up with six PH-5s for mainline battle. As soon as they start taking phaser hits they will end up with Ph-1s. Every PH-5 shot reduces their Ph-3 alotement by 3 phasers.

What I'm saying is, if the Phaser Matrix is the PRIMARY phaser armorment it is self balancing. The Klingon can lob a bunch of drones at the Kzinti and then not fear a heavy alpha attack. OTOH that is a further reason to have the Kzinti use the DC, to bring back the strength of their Alpha.

I suppose the big Kzinti XCB might have four P-MTRX and four Ph-5. The P-MTRX might be mounted on the forward pylons and two in the center hull with a 360° arc, with the ph-5s mounted in the foreward hull.

John, with out the ECM penalty I like it and would use it. Giving up point defence is enough when firing a larger phaser type. Just say that the matrix is big as part of the technobabble. Also, you could say that it a matrix is separate from the individual elements and is destroyed with the last element. So for repair the the first element cost double and each element after cost the same as a Ph-3. IF REPAIRED IN SEQUENCE THE ENTIRE MATRIX COUNTS AS ONE SYSTEM FOR PURPOSES OF CDR. EXAMPLE: A MATRIX IS REPAIRED TO TWO ELEMENTS AND IS THEN USED. THEN THE THIRD ELEMENT IS REPAIRED. THIS COUNTS AS TWO SYSTEMS TOWARDS THE LIMITS OF CDR.

BPV can be the final balancing factor. Once again, so long as other phasers are limited the Matrix is self balancing and not needing of the ECM penalty. (IMO)

Sorry I didn't look at that better sooner, John.

Kzinti only. Lyrans might steal it for their side mounts. Wont fit on Klingon ships, nor the Feds. Plasma folks want heavies and the Tholians will not see it as being woth it to change every thing for. Hydrans have their P-G2. ISC might consider it and put the matter to study for possible implementation in Y252. Orions could mount it where they have a three box option mount but probably wouldn't.

SC4 or larger only. The Phaser Matrix system is larger than a shuttle and would be the only weapon on a PF.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 04:33 pm: Edit

I would say the Matrix, like a mega-phaser, discharges too much radiation to be directly mounted to the hull. Kzintis use weapons pylons on which it is safe to mount them.

If you want to take this logic further you could say that a Matrix is not repairable. Once damaged it has to be jettisoned into space and replaced with a new unit. That would help with the balancing issues and dissuade race other races from its use.