Archive through July 14, 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 July 14, 2003
By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 08:41 pm: Edit

The P-6 was intended to be a breakeven between the P-2 and the P-3. It should look sort of like a P-2.

To be honest, it looks too much like a P-2. Especially at Range-2. Looking at it, I think maybe it should be downgunned a little more. Its previous incarnation was better than a P-2 at very close range, so the crrent version is an improvement.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 11:05 pm: Edit

I don't think the ph-6 needs a downgrade. It needs to be reworked.

In the X2 period, the 4/12 Type I drone is obselete.
The standard one-space drone in X1 is a 6/18 Type 7.
I haven't seen any proposals that return to the Type I standard drone.

Therefore, a defensive phaser built in the X2 era needs to handle the Type 7 about as well as the ph-3 can handle the Type I. And that means the ph-6 must be stronger than the (also obselete) ph-2 at close range, but can die off much more rapidly. In addition, we can factor in the -1 bonus into the phaser, since the X2 ship should get an ECCM advantage against a drone.

The ph-6 vs. drone interaction is going to be one of the most important yet subtle points on which the whole X2 concept works or fails. Every number in the table needs to be thought out.

Proposed alternative ph-6b
X012345-89-15
16664311
26662110
36641000
46540000
55430000
64310000


Average012345-89-15
no bonus5 1/2 5 4 1 1/6 2/3 1/3 1/6
-1 bonus5 5/6 5 1/2 4 5/6 2 1/6 1 1/3 5/6 1/3

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 01:08 am: Edit

Quote:

I don’t like everyone gets the P6 the same way everyone got the P3 refit in the General War


It shouldn't work that way.
Only races that have historically had Ph-3s should get actual Ph-6s, that is the Orions, the Lyrans and possibly the Tholians.

But everybody should be able to rapid pulse their capital phaser as Ph-6s for anti seeking weapon work. Now this assumes that the drones will be moving at speed 40 ( or else you'ld be better off using the Ph-3 ) but there will be a handful of people how ( because of fear of bad die rolls with small numbers of weapons ) will choose to roll Rapid Pulsed Ph-6 shots at incomming Plasma @R2 which move at speed 40 under sabot ever since X1 and R10.

The Ph-3 is pretty lousey at R2 ( especially if you're one to tend to roll badly ) and so the Ph-6 is needed.


Quote:

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.


I like uniformity of cost so I stand with on 0.5 but trhink of it this way, if the ship can mount ( if it was designed to mount ) pairs of Ph-6 in place of Ph-5s then you have weapons that can be used to take your first 2 A collum PHASER hits.
That's an advantage in and of it'self and the ability of each Ph-6 ( not Ph-6 rapid pulse shot but actual Ph-6 ) would be able to rapid pulse as 2Ph-3s, which would give you a lot more point defense with a pair of Ph-6s than with one individual Ph-5 even if the Ph-5 could rapid pulse as 3Ph-3 shots.


Quote:

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".


Can we please be careful about which keys we hit.
The Ph-1 could become the Ph-2 analog was the implied meaning...atleast I bloody hope it was.

Quote:

The P6 is a good candidate for defensive refits, or as extra defense added to the XCC's over the XCA's


Agree on the XCC over XCA but would rather refits not come until the treaty if found to be unworkable and since it is, why not mount on those capital phaser mounts, Ph-5s!


Quote:

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.


One thing to remember in weapon design uis that throughput isn't even one tenth as important as output.
I like the Ph-5 costing 1.5 because that allows one to downfire as a Ph-1 and actually gain something ( more power left in the Caps ) but I don't like 0.75 for the Ph-6 because of what I asked my prother last night.
Me; "So whats 0.5 times 3?"
Dave; "Ummm, one and a half."
Me; "So what's 0.75 times three."
Dave; "...Ummm...Buggered if I know!"

Almost everybody knows how to multiply by 0.5, it's called halving, but not many people know how to take three quarters of something in their heads.
For playability reasons and the one tenth statement above, I'ld say the Ph-6 should cost 0.5 points of power.


Quote:

and the Hydrans invent a new gatling that fires 4 ph-2 bursts.


I'm in two minds.
I'ld go with either a 5Ph-6 Ph-g analog or a 4Ph-6 with a rapid pulse mode of 6Ph-3s for the Ph-g analog.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 01:25 am: Edit

Quote:

In the X2 period, the 4/12 Type I drone is obselete.
The standard one-space drone in X1 is a 6/18 Type 7.
I haven't seen any proposals that return to the Type I standard drone.

Therefore, a defensive phaser built in the X2 era needs to handle the Type 7 about as well as the ph-3 can handle the Type I.


It's kinda funny:-

At the last possible range (R1) the Ph-1 kills a Type I in the GW and MY period.
At the last possible range (R1) the X1Ph-1 rapid pulse as 2Ph-3s kills a Type VII drone.

What ever we go to on X2 defense, it should kill the X2 one spaced drone using the defensive faculties of a single Ph-5 at the last possible hex which will at times be R2.

Type VII drones with boosterpacks ( and therefore double damage ) can be autokilled with 3R2 Ph-3 shots.
Type X (24/8/40) drones could be killed with 2 Overloaded Ph-3 shots ( or most Ph-6 designs as a pair ) or 2Ph-3 shots or killed 11/12 of the time with 2Ph-2 shots.
What kind of drone we go with is going to have a huge impact on what kind of defesive capability we go with.


Of cause the lousey Rolls of R2 are where it really counts so the a better Ph-6 table would be.
.

Proposed alternative ph-6b revised by MJC
X 0 1 2 3 4 5-8 9-15
1 5 5 5 4 3 1 1
2 5 5 5 2 1 1 0
3 5 5 4 1 0 0 0
4 4 4 4 1 0 0 0
5 4 4 3 0 0 0 0
6 3 3 2 0 0 0 0


But better still would have the bolded 2 as 3.


If we go with X2 still running around with the 18/6/32 Type VIIs then their is no real need to move away from rapid pulse pair of Ph-3s.
Even if you have a lot of X drone improvements other than speed, such as advanced external armour, poundal drone motor and high explosive warhead modules, the 24/14/32 drone can still be shot up at R1 by directing enough Ph-3 shots at it ( 5 in the worst case scenario but with limited or full Aegis you'll probably need less than that ).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 01:31 pm: Edit

Actually, the seeking weapon defense argument is the best I've heard of for a .5 cost P-6.

I'd hae to retool the Phaser Matrix, though and I kind of like it as-is. (one of my secret reasons for lobbying for a .75 P-6)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 07:21 pm: Edit

Regarding the Ph-XG: If you give it four Ph-2 shots it range will be too great and it is just one more step to ask for a four Ph-1 weapon since a Ph-2 is a poor Ph-1.

The whole mess is nipped in the bud when if fires four Ph-6 shots since there is no historical design path to another type. Also the Ph-6 is shorter ranged. I just don't want to see a fleet of Hydrans rollong 80d6 at R30 and scoring damage (or worse yet, ten narrow salvoes of two Ph-XGs at R30). A least at R15 the opposing fleet has a good return fire capability. If the Ph-XG had that sort of reach then why would they do everything they could to mount six of eight as the primary armorment on a ship. No, the Ph-2 is too powerful.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 10:04 pm: Edit

Quote:

I'd hae to retool the Phaser Matrix, though and I kind of like it as-is.


Last I heard the Ph-Matrix was:-
0.5 for a Ph-6 shot.
1 for a Ph-1 shot.
1.5 for a Ph-5 shot.

That wouldn't need much re-tooling unless you had some reason to run the Ph-3 shots as anything more than a downfired Ph-3.

Quote:

The whole mess is nipped in the bud when if fires four Ph-6 shots since there is no historical design path to another type. Also the Ph-6 is shorter ranged.


I wouldn't mind the rapid pulse as 6Ph-3s as well but it's still a heck of a lot better than the X1Ph-G.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 10:16 pm: Edit

The matrix would only change if the P-6 goes to 1/2. if the P6 is 3/4 there's no need to update.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 10:29 pm: Edit

Now I'm back with favoring a 3/4 cost for the P-6. I was reminded that the Spacial Bridge can break lock-ons. An X2 squadron has extra drone defense than normal.

No, I don't favor any increase in P-6 firepower. Against hordes of GW-tech drones, it works just fine and X2 drones will never be launched from ATUs so they will never appear in overwhelming numbers.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 11:07 pm: Edit

Think of it this way, if there was a rule that said, Ph-Gs run very hot and need a lot of power to run their cooling systems such that it costs 1 points of power to fire each Ph-3 shot form the Ph-G, would the Orion Phaser Boat ever have been invented.

Why, because the 6 points of SSReo the ships would have still doesn't offset the Huge quantities of damage that can be generated by the weapon.

Throughput isn't one tenth as improtant as output!
Playability on the other hand is.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 10:47 am: Edit

Regardless of whatever we settle on as the P6 minimum kill value.

A 2X Double space drone needs to be able to slip through the R1 point defense fire. Even if it takes rolling 2 6's for phaser fire at it.

IMO thats one of the weaknesses/problems of 1X. The ship is practically IMMUNE to anything but the most overwhelming of drone waves. Even when the drones are from another Xship. Mixing Special Bridge Breaking Lock on will complicate this further.

And that doesn't reflect the effect that all these phaser shots will have on Plasma.

Another potential problem is the speed of the ships. Unless 2X Drones have the ability to HET and move like I proposed for Plasma. Almost any course but the most perfect converging movements of Drone and ship will give the defending ship more than adequate time to kill of the drone.

I am NOT advocating Speed 33+ drones. But all this debate on killing drones seems to be ignoring the fact that the 2X ships can and probably will spend much of the Turn at speed 31.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 03:59 pm: Edit

In my mind, on a roll of a "6" at range-1, a P-6 needs to do 4 points of damage.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 05:23 pm: Edit

X2 should not be as immune to drones.
1) Full Aegis should not be in an X2 design, X-Aegis is perfectly adequate.
2) Breaking lockons is too powerful for every X2 ship, though I could see the idea of attracting a drone.
3) The IF drone is not what we should be comparing drone defense to. I suspect before Y205 every unit will be upgraded to launch X drones, including X2 ships. This is just way to convenient logistically for them not to do it.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 05:36 pm: Edit

Not necessarily. Since outstanding crews are required for X-ships, most of the fleets will be GW-tech ships with a large installed base for I and IV drones.

Attracting one drone is no big deal. I would allow a Spacial bridge to go wild though.

Agreed on full-aegis

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 05:49 pm: Edit

I agree that drones would be more likely than anything else at being fitted out to the rest of the fleet.

The X1 Type VII would at some point, after the GW, become the "standard" drone used I think.

Assuming that, a P6 should probably do at minimum, 5 damage at range 1, I would think at most it should do around 7 or 8. It is one less than a Type VII takes to destroy at minimum, and at maximum it should have a good chance of killing a Type-VIII.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 05:52 pm: Edit

On the special bridge, I should have said "would NOT" allowm a special bridge to go wild

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 06:25 pm: Edit

I still don;t like the idea of the S-Bridge at all.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 06:32 pm: Edit

I have no particular objection to the special bridge, but I was under the impression that seeking weapon control or attraction weren't part of it's abilities. Has this changed? I thought that of the scout functions, it only had:


I wouldn't want to give the S-bridge too many anti-drone abilities. For one thing, it makes it that much harder to successfully use drones on a 2X opponent, and makes plasma the seeking weapon of choice in the 2X era. Not sure this is a good thing.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 06:41 pm: Edit

I think it might be prudent to modify the break lock-on and attract drones functions to a more limited number. Perhaps a single unit for break lock-on and sensor rating for attracting. Which drones that are attracted would be the choice of the player (of the attracting ship). So each ship could attract up to six drones.

An alternative would be to require one point of power for each drone attracted or has lock-on broaken (up to standard limits for Scout Channels). This would only require a small note in the X2 rule set and would be easy to remember.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 06:59 pm: Edit

Since they are part of the Scout Channel Functions I think they should be included. However, since this is a scaled down version of the Scout Channel I would suggest this list:

22 Break Lock-ons (one seeking weapon)
23 Attract Drones (one drone)
24 Control Seeking Weapons (one seeking weapon)
25 I.D. Drones (as standard)
26 Detect mines
27 Gather Sci. Info.
28 Tac. Intel.

I think this scales it down while still being useful. I would add that a seeking weapon controlled by Function 24 cannot have its lock-on broken if within 15 hexes of the controlling S-Bridge and that ship has a lock-on to the target.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 07:43 pm: Edit

I much prefer Mike's list. It give the ships the benefits of a Fleet scout for exploration duties without making each ship a pseudo scout.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 07:54 pm: Edit

Truthfully, I could swear that was the original proposal. Like Chris, I liked it because it gave the ship some cool abilities that "felt" very advanced, but weren't overtly combat related. Playtesting will tell, though, and I'm flexible.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 08:01 pm: Edit

I think calibrating the P-6 to the type-VII is a mistake. One of the key problems of X1 was it's extrodinary, close to overwhelming seeking weapon defense. And this was against Type-VII drones.

In many ways we're condensing 12 P-1's into 8 p-5's and the resulting P-3's into P-6's. Our seeking weapon defense is just as good as a X1 ship's and even better with groups of special bridges.

I don't feel concerned about seeking weapons defense.

I certainly DON'T want to see the P-6 built into something with more damage potential than a P-2 at ANY range.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 08:20 pm: Edit

Why not? IF it does heavy damage at range 1 and 0 but negligable damage past range 1 then it is the ultimate point defense weapon.

With only 8 P-5s and 2 P-6s (say on the Fed for example) the ships will be able to kill 2 normal drones without losing offensive capability, but any more than that and it starts cutting into the damage output to the enemy.

I see that as a fair trade off. At most, this ship could kill 18 drones, but have nothing left to shoot with but its heavy weapons.

Considering that a X1 CX can kill up to 24 drones with its phasers, that's not too bad.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 08:22 pm: Edit

We put the same restrictions of the pulse mode that is on X1, so you can't pulse your P6s at ships, but you could use them on PFs or fighters or drones.

What about this bothers you John?

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