I just don't see it being a balance problem if it is a primary armorment.

To not be able to repair your primary weapons would be asking for the distruction of your fleet. Everything should be designed to be repairable (exept Excess Damage).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 05:23 pm: Edit

The phaser matrix can be balanced by the way it takes damage.

If you're going to cancel out the ECM disadvantage, it needs to be replaced. One part would be this:

Phaser mateix elements from separate boxes cannot combine. 3 elements from Phaser #3 and Phaser #4 cannot put themselves together and make a P-5. Period.

If each matrix element can only combine with other elements from the same weapon, then a hit on one matrix cuts the best that phaser can do until repaired drops from a P-5 to A P-1. That's different than taking a P-3/P-6 hit that doesn't disturb your heavy phaser firepower.

here's my proposed Kzinti XBC for a quick example:
http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/kz-bc2x.gif

As it was, matrix elements from phasers 6 and 7 formed an effective pool of 6 elements. What I am now suggesting it that each PHM is a separate pool of 3. That will moderately increase how fast the ship's phaser firepower degrades.

I like Tos' pylon-only suggestion. By sheer chance, my Kzinti conforms to this.

If this is not enough, we could also consider some kind of adjustment to the phaser damage precedence (a given PHM can take a max of 1 or 2 phaser hit per volley, for example) rules to force phaser hits to spread around, increasing the effectiveness of phaser hits.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 06:47 pm: Edit

The Pylon only suggestion is the same thing I had considered but that would preclude any 360 ° matices. But is suppose the Kzinti could mount a couple Ph-5s as 360 °.

I forgot to mention the damage thing, John, but you read my mind. Matrices should be independant of others, so we are in agreement.

I think the tactic that will be commonly employed with the P-MTRX is that in an alpha strike they will fire two as a Ph-1 leaving a Ph-3 for defence or what ever later. Very Kzinti.

Well done, John. I like it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 06:52 pm: Edit

Holy Bajeebah's John, that's a monster!

I think you have two to many Matrices. You've got 18 Ph-3s and five Ph-5 behind a lot of drones and four DC!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 11:24 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

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.

---

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 11:31 pm: Edit

I always assumed you intended for each matrix to be independent and non-additive.

I think we should be focusing on the high volume MC=1 SC=3 medium cruiser before scaling up to the XCC, which is a more contentious creature. With that in mind I agree with Loren, that’s too many Matrix arrays. Do/can you have a CM(X2) SSD in the 250 BPV range prepared?

“To not be able to repair your primary weapons would be asking for the destruction of your fleet. Everything should be designed to be repairable (except Excess Damage).”

Not everything is repairable, some things have to be replaced (UIM).

I was thinking each ship could carry 5 - SC (i.e. SC2=3, SC3=2, SC4=1) spares similar to the way a Klingon would carry spare UIM. It could be mounted during a scenario but it would require a docking maneuver to accomplish. Between scenarios repairs would be automatic and would NOT count against the repair limits of the ship. The logistics wouldn’t be such a big deal as the Kzintis have to resupply their drones from a supply depot anyway.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 12:52 am: Edit

But we're talking phasers here. I just can't see not being able to repair phasers. But I did propose that the matrix is destroyed with the last element so that to repair the first element of a fully destroyed matrix you would have to pay double the cost of one element. A element would cost 2 (like a Ph-3) so the first element cost 4 to repair. Then each element after that cost 2 for a total or 8 to repair a full Matrix. That's 3 more than a ph-1. Given those numbers I might even say the matrix should equal 1 per element so the first element would cost 2+3=5 for a total of of nine to repair a full matrix.

MJC: I don't think branching the Kzinti into a new technology path is a bad thing. They are still Disruptors, drones and many small phasers. But I think they will prove to be very interesting.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 08:09 am: Edit

---

Quote:

MJC: I don't think branching the Kzinti into a new technology path is a bad thing. They are still Disruptors, drones and many small phasers. But I think they will prove to be very interesting.

---

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 09:50 am: Edit

As I understand the Matrix proposal it would be incapable of firing as a P6. I'm not tied to repairable/unrepairable; just thought it would be an interesting balance point and something else to make it unique.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 01:49 pm: Edit

Re:Matrix and the Ph-6.

I think it was a good move on Johns part to keep the Ph-6 out of the Phaser Matrix. If it really needs to be upgraded perhaps there can be a refit in the Xork era where the Ph-3's become Ph-6's but otherwise remain unchanged. But for now, that many Ph-6s would make an uber ship.

As I understand it all of those Ph-3's can engage ships but only one per matrix per impulse. So with 4 x P-MTRX I could fire 12 Ph-3's at you over three impulses. Hope you have your turn mode satisfied. Lucky they all cover various arcs!

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 02:38 pm: Edit

Loren is correct,

It was intentional to bypass the P-6 and go back to the P-3. It was intended as a balancing disadvantage. We've talked about how potentially fast and high-speed a X2 game could be and I decided the P-3 specifically because it was less effective in that environment.

As for my XBC, the PHM's were placed in the pylons in part because those are the traditional placement for Kzniti P-3's. I think it's a much better ship that has its hard-core offensive phasers--the P-5's on 360 mounts. I considered an all-PHM design and choked on the excess.

If the forest of P-3's is a problem, we could set a rule that the each individual matrix can only fire once per aegis step. Since there is only one aegis step (the first) for non-seeking weapon defense that would keep the kzinti from unleashing a shotgun blast at point-blank range.
That would allow the matrix to fire once in offensive mode, as a P-5,1 or 3. But not do the damage of a point-blank Hydran or Fed escort. The P-1 and P-5 modes are the offensive modes.

If this doesn't bring the XBC in line, we can reduce the forward-pylon PHM's by one per side.

The XBC was designed to be a drone-chucking machine. We can pull two GX racks off of it if it makes people feel better. Maybe make them a later refit.

One thing I intended for the Kzinti that may or may not ease minds is that the Kzinti were intended to continue using type VII and VIII drones even if others upgraded to more advanced drones. They were positiond as "quantity over quality" which is why I allowed their drone capacity to get that big. Then again, I expected X2 to feature more advanced drone types for the Klinks and Feds to balance the sheer numbers coming out of the Kzinti. If we decide not to update to higher drone types, the drone array could be reset to using type I/VI drones. I may do that anyway.

I really don't want to drop the drone array below 6, but if all else fails I could take it to 4.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 02:43 pm: Edit

The number of drones is going to be hard to decide until we figure out just what 2X drones are going to be like. If they're vastly better than 1X, less racks is probably a good thing. If they aren't much better, more racks is easier to accept.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 02:50 pm: Edit

My point is that my vision of Kzintis is that they weren't going to use the more advanced 2x drones, so whatever we decide about 2x drones is important for comparison purposes only. the Kzinti drone arrays (and perhaps even their GX racks) won't be using them.

It didn't occur to me to downgun the drone arrays to I/IV drones when I wrote it, but I did much the same thing for canister plasma and the ISC, rewinding them back to S/F torps in exchange for increased ROF. I may very well only allow the drone arrays to use I/IV drones as a counterbalance. BPV for a ship with a drone array would assume IF's not IS's in the racks. X1 ship BPV's, we remember, assume Type VII drones.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 03:07 pm: Edit

I say keep the X1 drone frames and upgrade the modules and add the Drone Booster Pack.

John, are you saying limiting the Matrix to one firing except for aegis?

I see the possible need for that but it's the same rule for X1 phaser 1s. YOu might want to see if playtesting shows the "Forrest" to not be so dangerous.

Also, John, the back story could include that the Phaser Matrix was THE major phaser research that the Kzinti were doing. They actually did no Ph-5 developement at all expecting the PHM to the their primary armorment. The weapon did perform well but not to the full expectations of the designers. Hence, the technology for the PH-5 was bought from the Federation (or Orions) to augment the suite to meet the full standards of Kzinti Fleet Command.

I think four PHM + four Ph-5 is in order for that ship.

The key to the PHM over the PH-5 is that you could fire it as a Ph-1 in a main strike and the fire a Ph-3 in a follow up strike or as defence against incomming drones.

If you can't do this there is little advantage over the Ph-5 (exept for the amount of damage it can take). The Ph-G can fire all of its phasers at once unrestricted. The PHM fires once per impulse unless at aegis targets.

BTW, I think you should allow the Ph-1 level to be operated under aegis. If it isn't clear why I'll explain.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 07:35 pm: Edit

Absolutely.

There is no restriction on what mode the matrix can be fired in just that the matrix as a whole fires once. You could fire it as a P-1 during the 1st or 4th aegis step. or a P-5 for that matter.

The matrix simply cannot fire as, say, 2x P-3 on the same aegis step. Or as 1xP-1 and 1x P-3. It would fire as a P-1 on one given aegis step and as a P-3 on a previous or following one.

The result is that, if you're being efficient and firing P-3's at ships, you only get to fire one PHM element per PHM per impulse. But the ship can still expend all of those P-3's for seeking weapon or ATU defense on one impulse.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 08:09 pm: Edit

So, that means with one matrix I can fire one Ph-3 at a ship one Aegis step one then a drone on eagis step two and another at the same or different drone on eagis step three (or four) of the same impulse.

I half asking and half summing up.

The above sounds fine to me. It would be the primary strength of the weapon over the Ph-5.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, June 21, 2003 - 11:38 am: Edit

Exactly.

You could fire a P-1 or 3 at a ship on aegis step 1 and then a P-3 for seeking weapon defense on Aegis 2-4.

Heck, you could fire a P-3 at a ship and a P-1 at a seeking weapon or ATU. Doesn't matter.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 12:01 am: Edit

What's the consensus arming cost for a ph-6?

I was trying to post a chart in the library, but got that part mixed up.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 12:11 am: Edit

I would like to the See the Ph-6 have a cost of 0.5 power, especially because 0.75 will make life hell for any Ph-6 using Ph-G analog.

But the majority of people seem to think that it MUST BE HALF what the Ph-5 costs to fire....and therefore MUST be 0.75!


Although uniformity of cost is parramount ( even thought the Ph-3 shots from a Ph-G have precident, we don't needed that kind of confussion in just about every race, some races will have Ph-H and some Rapid Pulsed shots and other actuall Ph-6s and others the Phaser Matrix. Uniformity of cost is going to be critical.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 01:13 am: Edit

Mentioned elsewhere but it belongs here.

I'm not convinced we need a P6 as a general every race weapon. I like the Phaser Matrix for the Kzinti. I like PG(X1) for the Hydrans. I like P1(X1) as the ‘minor’ phaser used by heavy phaser races like the Feds/Tholians/Gorns. I like the flavor of the P6 as a historically P2 replacement for races like the Klingons and Lyrans. I don’t like everyone gets the P6 the same way everyone got the P3 refit in the General War.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 01:36 am: Edit

It a point defense phaser. I can't see every one not getting it.

I also felt that the stand alone unit would have better efficiency so could fire for 1/2. This would be an additional reason to mount a Ph-6. However, I generally was out voted on this.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 09:03 am: Edit

I don't really like the idea of the P1 replacing the P3 as a "minor" phaser. For one, it's a full space. Two, it's hardly "minor".

If we plan to make X2 ships somewhat less armed than X1 (i.e., no phaser-boats) then having P5's is a must. The P6 is a good candidate for defensive refits, or as extra defense added to the XCC's over the XCA's.

Power cost? Personally? I'd go with 1 for the P5 and .5 for the P6, though I was voted down and agreed to 1.5 and .75. A 1 point cost, to me, makes the P5 much more efficient, stretches the capacitors to three shots instead of two, and keeps the pattern of primary phasers at 1 point consistent. That would make the P5 a significant improvement over the 1, not just a "more power for more damage" system.

Just my 2 cents.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 12:18 pm: Edit

What if we use the ph-5 to replace the ph-1 as the primary offensive phaser,
the ph-1 to replace the ph-2 as the weaker offensive phaser,
the ph-6 to replace the ph-3 as the half-space, 1/2 point arming, primary defensive phaser,
and the Hydrans invent a new gatling that fires 4 ph-2 bursts.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 12:52 pm: Edit

I was with you up to the gatling P-2.

No way in hades. Way, way too powerful.

The Hydrans get a gatling P-6 and like it.

For the new P-G (P-7) I can go with a 1/2 point per P-6 shot, but then the standard P-G charges 1/4 point per P-3 shot so it's not like there isn't a history of discounted power cost for P-G's.

I definitely think 3/4 is best for the P-6 or a P-5 firing as a P-6.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 05:47 pm: Edit

Actually, John, the ph-6 and ph-2 are very close to each other:

ph-2	0	1	2	3	4-8	9-15	16-30	31-50
1	6	5	5	4	3	2	1	1
2	6	5	4	4	2	1	1	0
3	6	4	4	4	1	1	0	0
4	5	4	4	3	1	0	0	0
5	5	4	3	3	0	0	0	0
6	5	3	3	3	0	0	0	0

ph-6	0	1	2	3	4-8	9-15	16-20
1	6	6	5	4	3	1	1
2	6	5	4	4	2	1	0
3	5	5	4	3	1	0	0
4	5	4	4	3	0	0	0
5	4	4	3	2	0	0	0
6	4	4	3	1	0	0	0

Range		0	1	2	3	4-8	9-15	16-20	21-30	31-50
ph-2	Avg:	5.5	4 1/6	3 5/6	3 1/2	1 1/6	2/3	1/3	1/3	1/6
ph-6	Avg:	5	4 2/3	3 5/6	2 5/6	1	1/3	1/6

The reason I proposed "ph-XG is 4xph-2" is because the ph-2 is old technology, while putting it in a gatling would be the new invention. But, the ph-6 is a brand new invention, and to convert it to a gatling seems a bit far fetched.