Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board

Archive through April 28, 2003

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 ph-1: Archive through April 28, 2003

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 08:56 am: Edit

The Ph-6 is a garrenteed kill at R1 for a Type I drone so a 410 BPV cruiser with 9Ph-5s being brougth to bear if it could rapid pulse 3Ph-6 shots each would at R1 destroy 27 Type IF drones and that before the X2 factors in it's own drones and Type VII MW are very good drone killers.

I think that many drone should be something the X2 cruiser needs to actually deal with rather than work it's way through with a no brainer:- R1 Ph-6 to each drone.
At 27 Type IF I'ld think even a second generation X ship would need to WW or something.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 10:53 am: Edit

Frankly I picked the Ph- V-B since I wanted a phaser that wasn't a certain kill on a std IV.

Frankly I was under the impression that the Ph-VI was a .75 cost to fire. Meaning that at best a CA with 8 of them could handle 16 drones if they were all in arc. I'm not even sure I like the idea of the Ph-VI. The chart needs looking at again. Even at R1 it should let a Type I through on a roll of 6. (Instead of 5-6)

I may work up a chart of my own to place on the Rom SSD's. (Which keep getting pushed further and further from completion by things brought up in these discussions.) Plus the baby keeps me very busy.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 11:04 am: Edit

Something needs to be asked about Drone availibility. But I'll ask it in the right thread.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 01:50 pm: Edit

MJC:

Quote:
Assuming you can mount pair of Ph-6s where the Ph-5 could have been moiunted ( hardpoint, Volume Etc ) and assuming the Ph-6 can be rapid pulsed as 2Ph-3 shots.
Then your pair of Ph-6s gives you 4Ph-3 shots which is better than the rapid fire of 3Ph-3 shots the Ph-5 could give you.

Huh? That's the first time I've heard anything like that. You are the first to propose that a Ph-6 can rapid pulse. Me, I think now way. It's not that kind of phaser.

Quote:
Where is the play testing to back that up? Or do you just like to sound grandios?

Did I insult you or something? I wasn't even addressing you. I never try to "...sound gandios". I do, however, try to offer my point of view and in this case it was a technobabble one (as all explainations of physical properties of SFB weapons are). I don't claim any authority on how the Ph-V works but I have ideas and it can be assumed that my posts are intended to share them.

Mike Raper: Thanks, just what I was going to say but now I don't have to.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 08:42 pm: Edit

Quote:
Huh? That's the first time I've heard anything like that. You are the first to propose that a Ph-6 can rapid pulse. Me, I think now way. It's not that kind of phaser.

Reasons the Kzinti should have a forrest of Ph-6s and a handful of Ph-5s instead of Ph-5 suite.
• Racial Flavour.
• It needs a flaw. With the handful of Ph-5s it will have the Disruptors or worse still the disruptor cannon and drones do their maximum damage all the way out to (get this ) a theoretical 160 hexes.
With that kind of long range blasting capasity ( as supossedly the Feds are the true lonbg range kings ) you need a flaw to give the enemy a chance to get close and still be relatively intact, and that flaw will be that you only have a handful of Ph-5s and the rest are short range Ph-6s that are encouraging you to slip into close range yourself.

.

Reasons to have a Rapid Pulsed Ph-6 firing 2Ph-3 shots.
• By X2 Rapid Pulse tech' has been around for a long time.
• It'll mean fewer Ph-6s to provide the same phaser defense and thus fewer Ph-6s to die in place of the A10 and A4 Phaser hits.

.

Quote:
Did I insult you or something? I wasn't even addressing you. I never try to "...sound gandios".

I was just taking the Mick'.
Although:-
"Three Ph-6 shots is too much."
"Giving every X2 ship limited aegis is a lot and giving them three shots is WAY too much. "

...do seem very forceful for something that hasn't been playtested.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 08:50 pm: Edit

Perhaps I should have posted "IMHO".

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 09:01 pm: Edit

Yup.

It's one of the reasons I've been saying I think alot instead of making just plain statments.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 11:15 pm: Edit

For those that are interested.

Here's a throughput table for the Ph-5 compaired to a Ph-1.

Phaser 1
Range 0 1 2 3 4 5 6-8 9-15 16-25 26-5 51-75
Average Damage 6.5 5.33 4.83 4.33 3.83 3.5 2.16 1 0.5 0.33 0.16
Throughput 6.5 5.33 4.83 4.33 3.83 3.5 2.16 1 0.5 0.33 0.16
Phaser 5
Range 0 1 2 3 4 5 6-8 9-15 16-25 26-50 51-75
Average Damage 8.33 7.5 6.5 6.16 5 4.5 3.5 2.83 1.16 0.66 0.33
Throughput 5.55 5 4.33 4.11 3.33 3 2.33 1.88 0.77 0.44 0.22

Those in bold are ranges where the Ph-1 produces more damage for it's power.
Note that the Ph-5 is more effective for it's power at longer ranges which I think might be the effects of the equapment that drives the Ph-6 better than a Ph-3.
I think the numbers work just right.
Basically the Klingons with an All Ph-2 anaolg suite (X2Ph-1s) will be looking to get you into R5 where their 50% more Phaser will not only be more effective but through numerical superiority be more damaging to you, Just like getting DONE at R3 by the 7Ph-2 (perfect Oblique ) of an MY Klingon D7.
Whilst everybody else ( the All Ph-5 suites, except the Kzintis ) will be looking to fight out at R8 in a non perfect oblique to take advantage of the longer reach of the Ph-5s.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 07:15 pm: Edit

I don't want to open an entire ugly can of worms, but I was thinking about the PV, and did some number crunching.

Using the PV-B chart, I ran the numbers to generate the weapons efficiency; basically, what MJC calls through-put. I then averaged the throughput over the entire range spectrum, and did the same for the P1. I then did it again, but with the PV using 1 point of power instead of 1.5. This was the result.

P1 has a net efficiency of 3.31
PV at 1.5 energy has a net efficiency of 2.55
PV at 1 energy has a net efficiency of 3.83

Now, in looking at these numbers, it's easy to see that the PV has a much greater efficiency if it costs one point of power instead of 1.5. The difference between the P1 and 1 point PV is .52. The difference between the P1 and the 1.5 point P5 is .76. This in itself isn't too shocking. But, if you run the same exercise for a P2, what you find is that the PV at 1.5 power is closer in efficency to the P2 than it is the P1. In fact, the progression from P2 to P1 has a net change of 1.38...a massive change by any standard. The change to a PV, at the same power cost, is far less effective. Now, I can't speak for everyone, but that bothers me...the primary X2 phaser shouldn't be less efficient than the primary GW phaser.

All this leads me to wonder if we shouldn't perhaps try a new PV. I know we've been using it for awhile, but looking at these figures makes me think it wouldn't hurt to try it again.

To sum up:

The change from P2 to P1 is more drastic than any PV proposal put forward to date.
The current PV proposals that are based on an energy cost of 1.5 make the PV less efficient than the P1, and closer to the P2 in performance.
A P4, which uses 2 points of power, can dish out 20 points of damage at close range and has a max range of far more than the P1. Having a phaser with only a half a point difference in power requirement that does only half that much damage and has less range seems wrong to me, somehow.

That's my way of looking at it. I almost hate to bring it up, but the more I look at it, the more unsatisfied the current PV makes me. The only way I'd feel comfortable with it is to keep the energy cost at one. I'm sure I'm in the minority, but that's how it feels to me.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 08:09 pm: Edit

My thought is that these ships need way of soaking up excess juice.

I actually noticed the lower efficiency back in January when we were doing different phaser charts. I thought it was intentional.

I decided it was OK and it seemed like we consciously built a pholosophy of "more damage at more power cost" with this as a foundation.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 08:32 pm: Edit

Like a turbo charged engine uses more gas the turbo charged Ph-1 uses more energy. But you still turbo charge both because of the output. Fortunatly X2 ships are rich with energy compaired to their ansestors. I'm OK with the Ph-V as is, though I'm certainly willing to entertain other ideas. Remember, the energy efficiency can still be had by down firing to a Ph-1.

Mike, did you do some Ph-6 analisys?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 08:44 pm: Edit

Yes. From what I can see, John's P6 is nearly perfect, assuming the energy cost stays at 1/2. It's modestly better than the P3, but not as good as a P1. A good, solid choice, I think.

I'm all for more power = more damage, believe me, and I do agree that at some point, more power gets you diminished returns...that is, that the efficiency ration cannot remain constant. I'd just want to see it a bit better, that's all. Not a huge amount, mind, but at 1.5, I'd like to see a roll of 1 at range zero produce 11 points, and adjust somewhat from there. I may whip a chart up and use excell again to make it model the P1's efficiency, and see what comes up.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 08:45 pm: Edit

"Turbophasers" Sounds kinda Star Wars.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 08:48 pm: Edit

Quote:
The change to a PV, at the same power cost, is far less effective. Now, I can't speak for everyone, but that bothers me...the primary X2 phaser shouldn't be less efficient than the primary GW phaser.

Well perhaps you didn't look at some of the systems availible for the X2 period.

Consider the Fastloaded 16 point Photon warhead.
Now under my instability rule ( IYRC ) you could not hold more than the 12 point warhead of the X1 fastload.
What are the chances of that you don't actually get the chance to use your photons because you don't get into overload range ( you've got 8 more warp power than an X1 so what ever range you do get would be exactly the rangwe the X1 would have got to )?...One in ten!?!...great!...We know that a Photon has a throughput of 1.0 at R5-8 but it just jumped to 0.9 ( even though holding does cost power and thus it'ld drop to 9.25 ) which me means that dropping the unstable Photon lowers your throughpout capsity over the X1 ship.

Consider the Overloaded Proximity Photon. Half strength warheads in the R5-8 bracket hitting on a base 1-5 drops the through put to 0.833 but it's still worth your while doing it to stop EW from killing your ship's capasity to hit.

I wouldn't say that X2 runs on the theme of MORE EFFICENCY but rather runs on the theme of more flexibility.
Consider switching the Photon to proximity mode with a four impulse delay instead of during EA only. Compair that with being able to build both PLasma Shotguns and EPT with reserve power and being able to switch a plasma armed as one to the other.
It's about Flexibility ( but what does that say about how many rapid pulse modes the phasers should have ??? )!!!

Quote:
The change from P2 to P1 is more drastic than any PV proposal put forward to date.

Yeah, it's something we deliberately factored into the Ph-5 development.
Remember the rules of the Ph-5 design.
•You buggared the game if X2 ships can kill GW ships without getting hurt...(read:- from outside R8 ).
•You must make X2 wholly compatable with "their weight" in GW ships or else our X2 concept just won't fly.

These two forces drove the Ph-5 design more than any other and it's good that, the Ph-5 isn't that much more powerful than a Ph-1 so that the Ph-1 them becomes the X2 Ph-2 analog.
I wonder if you subtracted out ( or added to the Ph-5 the 0.5 points of extra damage it will be protected from ( particularly with Caps-to-SSReo but SSReo could be directly allocated which is how this calculation is done ) for the Ph-5 ship ) the 0.5 points of damage from the Ph-1 using ship for every Ph-5 fired against it.
You're actually taking about the Ph-5 if it costs 1 point of power to run having a POST REO THROUGHPUT of 4.33 averaged across all ranges.

Quote:
The current PV proposals that are based on an energy cost of 1.5 make the PV less efficient than the P1, and closer to the P2 in performance.

Great so we technobable that the Ph-5 is raw energy high energy weapon for attacks with great damage and effective longer ranges.

I'm willing, so long as no body hates the idea to developed a Phaser comoputer module to be added to the Ph-5 (maybe we'll have to go back to calling the Ph-6 a Ph-7 to make room for the this phaser ) a better longer range weapons ( kinda like the UIM and Defracs make the Disruptor a better longer weapon, at longer ranges.
That is chance the results of table only for longer range attacks.
Something like this.

Ph-6 Phaser	R9-15	R16-30	R31-60	R61-75	R76-90
1	4	4	3	2	1
2	4	3	2	1	0
3	3	2	1	0	0
4	2	1	1	0	0
5	1	1	0	0	0
6	1	0	0	0	0

The rest would opperate like the Ph-5 as is.

Quote:
A P4, which uses 2 points of power, can dish out 20 points of damage at close range and has a max range of far more than the P1. Having a phaser with only a half a point difference in power requirement that does only half that much damage and has less range seems wrong to me, somehow.

Ph-4 analogs were found to killing quite well at R13.
Couple it with the Fastloaded Standards of most X2 ships and you got Fire from R13 on ships that would never vist R8....which put every other kind of ship exchanging standards for fasloads and in effectual phaser fire for killing blows.
Ph-4s should not only be restricted to units with positional stabalizers but also are way too powerful.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 09:03 pm: Edit

Quote:
My thought is that these ships need way of soaking up excess juice.

I actually noticed the lower efficiency back in January when we were doing different phaser charts. I thought it was intentional.

I decided it was OK and it seemed like we consciously built a pholosophy of "more damage at more power cost" with this as a foundation.

That's were I stand.

Quote:
Like a turbo charged engine uses more gas the turbo charged Ph-1 uses more energy. But you still turbo charge both because of the output. Fortunatly X2 ships are rich with energy compaired to their ansestors. I'm OK with the Ph-V as is, though I'm certainly willing to entertain other ideas. Remember, the energy efficiency can still be had by down firing to a Ph-1.

And Assuming the X2Ph-1 has a tripple cap, then the forrest of Ph-1 ships ( Klingon and Hydran ) still get an advantage ( which is something they'll need because of ther short comming of short range ) in that they have more power in their caps ( 36 points compaired to 24 (for say an unrefitted Fed XCA )) which means even though they are firing more Phasers thet are using a lesser total of their Cap...10 Perfectly Obiqued Ph-1s is 10 power from a cap of 36 and 6Ph-5s from a Cap of 24 is 27.7'% and 37.5% respectively.
That coupled with the Ph-1 A4,B3, B11 and B10 results being 1/12 instead of 1/8 of all your phaser hits will be two advantages that those two races can capitalise upon, just having one such advantage is probably a bad idea.

Quote:
I'm all for more power = more damage, believe me, and I do agree that at some point, more power gets you diminished returns...that is, that the efficiency ration cannot remain constant. I'd just want to see it a bit better, that's all. Not a huge amount, mind, but at 1.5, I'd like to see a roll of 1 at range zero produce 11 points, and adjust somewhat from there. I may whip a chart up and use excell again to make it model the P1's efficiency, and see what comes up.

If anyone can graph the curves of through put at varrious ranges for the Ph-2, Ph-1 and Ph-5 (and Ph-5 for 1), that would be handy.
People just don't spot things when looking at a table.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 09:58 pm: Edit

Mike, I'd like to see it. There has been apart of me that wants to see the Ph-V max out at 12 actually, which would be twice the max of the Ph-6 (new).

I would like to point out the strength of the Ph-V and 6 is the way they maintain strength over range better. They don't peeter out like the other weapons.

However, how about upping the efficiency a bit but still a little less than the ph-1. This could relate to a physical wall and part of the reason the Ph-IV is so darn big.

Here is a odd idea. You all wanted refits? How about a "+" refit for all ships that installs a new technology that improves the Ph-V's efficiency so that it takes 1 point to arm instead of 1.5. Make the refit for after the Xork invasion at 1 BPV per phaser-V. Then keep the same chart. Up until the Xorks the Ph-V is left as is.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 10:10 pm: Edit

I like.

But I'ld like to add my Ph-5 targeting computer sub table aswell.

Maybe we could have both, so by the end of the X2 period the Phasers are running around working just like Ph-1s over Ph-2s.
One point of power and better at longer ranges.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 10:13 pm: Edit

I'd rather see the P-5 keep the 1.5 and simply have a later efficientcy refit.

It has the advantage of novelty.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 10:14 pm: Edit

I do have them graphed...that's where all this came from. It's just a very big file, so I can't post it. I'll see if I can make it smaller. You can very clearly see, though, that the PV at 1.5 and the P1 are similar, but the P1 is better overall.

I know we also intended it to be better at longer ranges, and the graph shows some of that, but it actually gains the most at ranges of less than 6-8. In fact, it has the same average damage as the P1 at range 9-15.

Also, understand that my complaint isn't with the PV table...if you'll recall, I've been involved with it from the get-go. It's the power cost that bugs me. Keep it at one, and I'm happy as can be. 1.5, though, is too much for what we're getting, IMHO.

I can email the graph to anyone that wants to see it, of course.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 10:32 pm: Edit

Yes, send it. It Excel right. Why not same it as a bit map the convert it to GIF or JPEG in Paint?

Anyway, send it. Maybe a point of two here and there might fix it. But like before, so inefficiency is OK. X2 can spare the power. Besides, 1.5 gets you a double cap that holds three points. If you choose to use Ph-1's that's pretty efficient.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 10:34 pm: Edit

The problem is that there's nothing that isn't bad to work with between 1 and 1.5

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 10:39 pm: Edit

Skip that...made it smaller. Here's a look at the graph, and the tables it came from.

Phaser comparison graph

P1 Table
0 1 2 3 4 5 6-8 9-15 16-25 26-50 51-75
Avg. Dam 6.5 5.33 4.83 4 3.83 3.5 2.16 1 0.5 0.33 0.16
Energy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Efficiency 6.50 5.33 4.83 4.00 3.83 3.50 2.16 1.00 0.50 0.33 0.16

PV Table at 1 Energy
0 1 2 3 4 5 6-8 9-15 16-25 26-50 51-75
Avg. Dam 8.33 7.5 6.5 6.5 5.66 4.5 3.5 2 1.16 0.66 0.33
Energy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Efficiency 8.33 7.50 6.50 6.50 5.66 4.50 3.50 2.00 1.16 0.66 0.33

PV Table at 1.5 Energy
0 1 2 3 4 5 6-8 9-15 16-25 26-50 51-75
Avg. Dam 8.33 7.5 6.5 6.5 5.66 4.5 3.5 2 1.16 0.66 0.33
Energy 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Efficiency 5.55 5.00 4.33 4.33 3.77 3.00 2.33 1.33 0.77 0.44 0.22

Things that jumped out at me:

The P1 compares very well against the 1.5 point PV, outperforming it in most short ranges save at range 3 and a bit at range 6-8.
All three narrow the gap in performance at extreme ranges.
At range 9-15, all three look very similar.
The PV at 1.5 only really shines at ranges of greater than 8. Given the very low damages done at that range, though, I'm not sure this is going to be of major benefit, or will offset the better performance of the P1 at ranges less than 8.

What I propose to do is to use the charts to craft some numbers we like, and translate those to a real phaser table...sort of reverse engineering the thing to get a better result, but one we can all live with. Make sense at all? Again, let me emphasize...I am NOT necessarly unhappy with the PV chart, just it's cost (though I must admit I'd like to see a bit more consistent performance at longer range, if that's the goal we have in mind for it)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 10:42 pm: Edit

I agree. There is also the problem with making it too powerful. Say we put the Ph-5 damage up so the at 1.5 it equals the efficiency of the Ph-1. That may be too powerful. If the Alpha strike ability is too great it may start to mess with backwards compatability.

Just things to keep in mind.

I would like to see your chart Mike. I'll wait untill then.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 11:26 pm: Edit

Quote:
I know we also intended it to be better at longer ranges, and the graph shows some of that, but it actually gains the most at ranges of less than 6-8. In fact, it has the same average damage as the P1 at range 9-15.

Just check my post...either we are using different Ph-1 tables or you made a boo boo.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 11:15 pm: Edit

Just checked the Ph-1 at R9-15...3,2,1,0,0,0 in my book averages out at 1.0 not 2.0!

Have you been rolling D3 again!?!

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 11:33 pm: Edit

D'oh! ••••. I fixed it. Looks a bit better, but the discrepency between the short range disadvantage and long range advantage still bug me.

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

Phaser 1
Range	0	1	2	3	4	5	6-8	9-15	16-25	26-5	51-75
Average Damage	6.5	5.33	4.83	4.33	3.83	3.5	2.16	1	0.5	0.33	0.16
Throughput	6.5	5.33	4.83	4.33	3.83	3.5	2.16	1	0.5	0.33	0.16
Phaser 5
Range	0	1	2	3	4	5	6-8	9-15	16-25	26-50	51-75
Average Damage	8.33	7.5	6.5	6.16	5	4.5	3.5	2.83	1.16	0.66	0.33
Throughput	5.55	5	4.33	4.11	3.33	3	2.33	1.88	0.77	0.44	0.22