Archive through July 16, 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 16, 2003
By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 08:44 pm: Edit

About using the X1 targetting restrictions? Nothing. I took those as a given.

Allowing a ship to pulse its P-5s at a ship?!?

Ick.

Just say no.

Killing up to 24 drones With a CX assumes you roll no 5's or 6's killing unarmored type-I drones. If you account for average rolls, that tally drops to 18, just what the new ships get.

Sounds like parity to me.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 09:15 pm: Edit

Quote:

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.


If I've got a Fed XCA running scarred of the possiblility that my Kzinti XCA might chuck out an SP and her 2X2B-racks + 2 X2C-racks such that the Fed is moving with a speed of 31...just how much power does ot have to arm photons, generate SSReo AND and ASIF!?!
I'ld say even if the drones never hit, keeping the enemy at that speed would be a good idea.


Quote:

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.


Booster drones and type X drones will take care of that, and probably the HET thing too. The 5 turn endurance helps as well.


Quote:

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


It's not a deal breaker for me, but being able to carve throuigh Type IF drones would be cool.


Quote:

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.


1) I don't really see Full Aegis as being all that powerful, these ships don't have the Phaser numbers to really use the defensive POWER of Full Aegis.
Sure they can ID six incomming drones at R3 automatically...but with 8 Bearing Ph-5s on the un refitted ship, that's not really much to be fending off the drones, particularly if we limit the Ph-5 to rapid pulse as 2Ph-6 shots and only 2 Ph-6 shots as some of us have been saying.

At 300 BPV you are looking at having a Kzinti CMD, CM & DF all hurling drones at you. SEVENTEEN IVF drones is a heck of a lot of 6Ph-5s to stop on their own, Lock-on breaking and your own drones seem fine to me.
At 410 BOV a CD, CMD and CC ( giving a little bonus for Force Dynamics ) will be thrownig out 15 IVFs + 4 IFs and be able to throw up loaned ECM to protect the Disruptor armed ship. Can 9 bearinf Ph-5s really stop all those drones by themselves !?!

2) I've been saying that we should say that drone lock on breaking needed to be linked through the Aegis system and thus could nopt work at R7 or more.

3) Consider a Klingon DXD with a Legendary Weapons Officer.
Can the 8Ph-5s ( 6 of them bearing ) of the Fed XCA really generate enough rapid pulse to work through 6 Type VII ( or possibly Type VIII ) drones and inflict a reasoable return of phaser fire? the 31/36 chance of getting a pair of Ph-6 shots to kill a Type VIII still allows 0.866 drones to slip past the the phaser defenses EVERY time.
We shouldn't just be leaving it up to the Phasers to do all the work...we just don't have enough of them.
At 410 BPV, 2 D5X will be able to put up 8 Type VIII drones every turn and that's hard for 9 bearing Ph-5s to work their way through...with Aegis they might just be able to do it automatically but it'll use 8Ph5s ( as 2Ph-6s ) on the first Aegis Step andthen the 9th Ph-5 to kill off anything still living...but just you look out if the enemy has an unidentified armoured drone or three.


Quote:

Agreed on full-aegis


Full Aegis will not allow our ships to destroy incomming drones.
It'll allow what limited anti-drone capasity we have to be used more effectively...and X2 ships will have very limited anti-drone capasity for their BPV!


Quote:

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:


No that hadn't changed...the consensus is that no one is willing to agree on what it will or won't do.

I for one would prefere, double drone control plus bridge as special thingy drone control than moving to tripple drone control.


Quote:

I think it might be prudent to modify the break lock-on and attract drones functions to a more limited number.


Range 6.

This way you can only really hit the drones "defensively" ( Read Aegis rules to see what I mean ) but you still get the ability to hit an enemy's ECM drone...so long as he isn't flying a spare.


Quote:

but weren't overtly combat related. Playtesting will tell, though, and I'm flexible.


Yeap.


Quote:

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.


Which is why you chuck a few Type VIII drone into the mix.
The 5 in 9 chance that a pair of Ph-3 just won't be enough is why you do that...and taking another Ph-1 out of the enemy fire.

I mean really a Fed CA can deal with 4 incomming type IIs and two incomming Type Vs.
Since the best a Klingon D7 can hope for is to put up two Type Vs in any one turn do we really cry "foul" about the MY ships, that they can't possibly hit with drones!?!
No we find tactics around that situation, like two turns worth of drone wave or an SP.
Same should be true of X2, they should be able to ward off an entire turn's worth of enemy drones...at the cost of most, if not all of their "swing" firepower.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 09:30 pm: Edit

Quote:

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


Theoretically yes, if those drones where Type IFs and you kept rolling between 1 and 4.

Just call it 2 with your type VIIs and another 2 with tractors and 9 with Rapid Pulsed Phasers for a total of 13 type VII drones...that's pretty hard core as it is.

The XCA will probably be able to deal with 2 by drones and 2 by bridge 2 by tractors and a pair of Ph-6s against each Type VII drones will allow it to spell destruction for another 6 Type VIIs, for a grand total of 12 type VII drones, a reduction in defensive capasity of 1 drone, dispite the 25+% increase in the BPV of the XCA over the CX.
Even if we did allow the Ph-5s to rapid pulse as 3Ph-3s, we'll alone be putting the number of type VII drones taken out down to 15, and it's still a more expensive ship.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 10:45 pm: Edit

Mike Raper: The original proposal for special bridge was all functions less EW. When you did the first SSD for me you made a chart that was what you posted just above. It wasn't what I proposed so I just fixed it my self. Anyway, your list is the bare minimum but I, after listening to the posts of others and giving it much thought, prefer the list I just posted with the recent restrictions added to the Seeking Weapons functions.

Since S-Bridge is based on Scout Channels I feel these functions would naturally be included but perhaps toned down to make it more practical to integrate in to standard ship design. These functions are still valuable especially is a surprise situation.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 10:54 pm: Edit

BTW Mike: No sweat on that. Just though I'd, out of fairness, explain what happened.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 10:55 pm: Edit

I'm still saying that a P6 should be able to kill a Type-VII with all except a roll of 6 at range 1.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 03:38 am: Edit

JT said:

Quote:

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.



I think its essential that we NOT develop one without developing the other. If you mean design the ph-6 to be too strong against the Type-VII, I agree, that's a problem. That was my original reasoning for a ph-6 that hits for 6 points on 1-3. With the ECCM bonus, that makes the ph-6 equally as effective against the Type VII as the ph-3 is against the Type-I. But notice you have to get the ECCM bonus to get the effectiveness.

I put up a ph-6 table that is:
almost a full damage point stronger than a ph-2 at range 1,
more than 2 damage points weaker than a ph-2 at range 3-4,
and equal to a ph-3 at ranges 5+.
(See this thread, July 12, 11:05PM)

Without the shift, 1 ph-6 at range 1 might (50/50)kill a Type VII, and 2 definately will.
With the shift, 1 ph-6 now has a 2/3 chance, and 2 will still be enough.

Without the shift, 1 ph-6 at range 1 cannot kill a Type VIII, 2 probably will, and 3 definately will.
With the shift, 1 ph-6 can't, but 2 definately can, kill a Type VIII. Which is the same conditions as a ph-1 or 2 ph-3 vs. Type IV.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 04:59 am: Edit

Like I've said before, the flow has always been at the last possible impulse 1 Advanced Captial Phaser ( Ph-1 and X1Ph-1 ) work by auto killing the one space drone.

This is as 1Ph-1 against a Type IFs and 2Ph-3 shots from an X1Ph-1 to kill a type VII.

We must make up our minds as to which will be the X2 one space drone before we look at how to kill it.

This could be the Type VII drone ( 18/6/32 latter 24/6/32 )
The Type VII Booster drone ( 18/3/40 latter 24/3/40 )
Or the Type X drone ( 24/8/40 earlier use Type VII ).

The three kinds of drone proposals will require radically different phaser tables to defend againt.

The Type VII can be shot down with 2R1 Ph-3s like always, Type VIIB can be gotten away with defeating with 3R2 Ph-3 shots for example, where as the Type X is really looking at taking 2R2 Ph-2s to kill.

Whether or not we even need a rapid pulse Ph-6 really depends on the answer to that question.
I know what I think will come to be and hence I think we need some kind of Ph-6 table to looks prety much like a Ph-2 with the high end results toned down...but I might be the only one.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 10:28 am: Edit

Mike posted my Advanced bridge proposal. A take off from Lorens Special bridge.

here it is.

For anyone wondering what my version of Lorens special bridge is. I've recopied it here.

Advanced Bridge

I went with Lorens proposal on using Special Bridge. (Renaming it to advanced.) But limited it to Detection type abilities mostly. As shown on the Romulan SSD’s.(With normal rules for being blinded.) Instead of Lorens more capable method. Because we need to leave a role for the true Scout in the Xork era.

Advanced Bridge
24 Controlling SW
25 Identify SW
26 Detecting Mines
27 Gather Information
29 Tactical Intelligence

As you can see. It has NO EW capabilities of it's own. I went with the basis that it was improved sensors. Not that you could channel the power used in the other operations. Of jamming breaking lock ons etc etc.
<EDIT>

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 03:21 pm: Edit

Okay, let's try this another way. If we want the P6 to be a purely defensive phaser, then we can play with the charts a bit. At range 0, it might do as much as 7 points, with a huge drop off at range 2...say, a max of 3 at that range. If you further limit it to defensive use only (i.e., usable only against size class 6 and 7 targets) and tie it to X-aegis, you get a cheap but effective point defense weapon; sort of a phaser ADD. At .5 power and a half a space, there would be more reason to put them on the ship instead of trying to use the P5 in a defensive mode.

Personally, I don't like the notion. I thought that the P6 John developed with a .75 energy cost was just fine. But, a point defense phaser that acts like this would have some use. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 06:29 pm: Edit

There are things that are more effective against smaller targets than against larger targets. A possibility might be a Phaser that does Ph-3 damage against ships but is doubled against SC6 and smaller units.

Still, keep the Ph-6 for the Ph-5 to fire.
or not....
Have the Ph-5 fire as up to three Ph-3s. These do not have double damage against Small targets but the Stand alone Ph-3X does. Cost=1/2.

============================
Then again (can you tell I'm brain storming here?), we could go back to the base 5 (original) Ph-5 and apply this rule. Cost=1/2 point to arm. Ph-5 can fire two Ph-6 at a cost of 1/2 point. These are fired as standard chart for all targets. The Stand alone Ph-6 is a rapid pulse weapon and as such does double damage to SC6 and smaller targets out to R3. Now, there is a reason to mount stand alone units. Then give the Ph-GX four Ph-6 shots (on the base 5 chart) with the rapid pulse mode of the stand alone version of the Ph-6.
There, that's my alternative proposal.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 07:20 pm: Edit

I'm with Mike,

I think perhaps the P-6 could afford a slight downgrade at R2 but that's about it.

A P-6 that pushed into 6 points at R1 has too powerfulan offensive potential as well as provides too effective Seeking weapon protection.

If and only IF the type-VII drone is made general availability to all or a majority of ships (and therefore available in vast, ATU-driven swarms), I would be willing to reopen the debate.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 07:40 pm: Edit

John, access to X-Drones would be a major reason for XP refits. In the X2 era the X-Drones should be near standard issue. And this is why I don't want to creat a new drone for X2. The Type 7, 8 and 9 drones are adiquate frames. X2 should just introduce new modules and racks with, of course this comming from me, the Drone Booster Pack.

Do you have a comment or two about the above proposal. I think it solves the power cost of the Ph-6 issue, provides a real reason to mount stand alone Ph-6s, and solves the PhGX design. All this by returning to the original Ph-6 chart for 1/2 power cost, double damage against SC6 and smaller from stand alone Ph-6's. (Then having the Ph-GX fire four Ph-6's is reasonable).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 08:01 pm: Edit

Loren,

I understand about XP *ship* upgrades. But drone amounts stay reasonable until you toss in fighters and PF. When THEY get a XP upgrade (and thus mount VII and VIII drones) is when I'll consider changing my mind.


As for your proposal, there are potential KISS problems. Does the P-6 have the same double-damage property when a P-5 is fired as a P-6?

If yes, then that seems an argument for .75 because your're granting additional capability (extra damage against small targets) than before.

If no, then we have definately registered a KISS violation: a P-6 that acts one way when downfired by a P-5 and another way on a standalone mount. Not advisable. That will be confusing to play.
A P-6 should be a P-6 should be a P-6.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 10:28 pm: Edit

Quote:

I think perhaps the P-6 could afford a slight downgrade at R2 but that's about it.


R2 damage is the real reason to have the Ph-6!
The ability to destroy speed 40 drones is what is needed.

If speed 40 drones never come to be then just have three Ph-3 shots.
If speed 40 booster drones come to pass then just have 3Ph-3 shots as the 18/3/40 drones will be pretty easy to kill.
But if the real speed 40 drone comes to pass; the Type X ( 24/8/40 ) drone then you need something pretty hard core to take it down @ R2, such as 8Ph-3 or 4Ph-6 if the worst possible damage at R2 is 2 or 3Ph-6 is the worst possible damage for the Ph-6 @ R2 is 3 or 2Ph-6 if the worst possible damage for the Ph-6 @ R2 is 4...or slightly fewer if we want a chance of the type X slipping past 2R2 Ph-6 shots.


Quote:

The Stand alone Ph-6 is a rapid pulse weapon and as such does double damage to SC6 and smaller targets out to R3.


How about the Stand Alone Ph-6 can be rapid pulsed as 2Ph-3 shots, thus giving a pair of Ph-6s; 4Ph-3 shots which is something the Ph-5 will never get ( unless Suppliment 2 ideas start seeping back in ).
Note that rapid pulsing only works against SC 5 or smaller.


Quote:

If no, then we have definately registered a KISS violation: a P-6 that acts one way when downfired by a P-5 and another way on a standalone mount. Not advisable. That will be confusing to play.
A P-6 should be a P-6 should be a P-6.


The Ph-5 doesn't become a pair of Ph-6s when it rapid pulses as a pair of Ph-6s, IT MAKES TWO Ph-6 SHOTS.

The Rules governing the Ph-5 and the rules coverning the Ph-6 will be as different as the rules governing the X1Ph-1 and the X1Ph-3...did they create confussion even under the old Overloaded Phaser rules?
Did people say; "Hey, I've reapired this XPh-1 as an X1Ph-3 and I'm funnelling 1 point of power trough it ( for an overloaded Ph-3 shot ) shall I roll on the Ph-1 table instead because I am spend 1 whole point of power!?!"

At a certain point we've got to start beleiving that people will follow the rules.
We should make the rules as simple as uniform as possible but we shouldn't remove the possibility that one weapon ( which has a completely different designation rather than being a different kind of shot ) might be good for one kind of fighting and another weapon might be good for another kinbd of fighting.

If the Ph-H fires 4Ph-6 shots or rapid pulses as 6Ph-3 shots...
And the Ph-6 fires 1 Ph-6 shot or rapid pulses as 2Ph-3 shots...
And a Ph-5 can fire as a Ph-5 shot or rapid pulse as 2Ph-6 shots...
The differences in there functionality might be greate...but that's good thing, because each weapon will have it's advantaged and disadvantages....the Ph-5 has reach, the Ph-H has damage, and the Ph-6 is cheap and you can afford to loose `em `cause you've got so many of `em.

What each weapon can do is completely different to how much power it costs to fire the shot from each weapon, which should remain constant.
But then does the 0.25 power of a single shot from a Ph-G really mess up the game and make it horrendously complex!?!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 10:33 pm: Edit

John T.:

Then call the stand alone Ph-6 a Pulse Phaser-6. Opperates as a Ph-6 in all ways except when targeted against SC5 and smaller units WITHIN Range 3. In which case the damage is doubled. This requires the old Ph-6 chart which is base 5 damage. The Ph-5 does not pulse mode its downfired Ph-6s so they just use the standard chart. BUT since the old base 5 chart is used the power cost is 1/2 point (something many seem to like for its KISS value).

So the Ph-6 is only a moderate improvement over the Ph-3 but against small targets it is vastly improved. Could say the cost of such an item is as much as a Ph-1 but the power to damage ratio for point defense is unbeatable by other weapons. The cost, however, would tend to limit them to two to four units per ship (this would be a designers phylosophy not a rule).

Then, by using the old base 5 PH-6 chart, I don't think that a four shot Ph-GX using this chart would be too powerful.

It is not much to remember that a Ph-6 fired from a Ph-5 uses the standard chart and does not get a double damage bonus against small targets. I mean you have to remember that a Ph-5 can fire two Ph-6's. It's not much further to go.

Currently, I see NO reason to mount Ph-6's as stand alone weapons (with out some like the above). Even if they take two hits to kill a Ph-5 has more versitility and can contribute to ending the battle before damage come in, so the Phaser padding is not an issue. The stand alone Ph-6 needs a tactical reason to exsist. Other wise I think, for simplicity, the PH-5 should just down fire as three Ph-3's and eliminate the Ph-6 all together.

Please, I hope I'm not sounding condecending. I'm only trying to present my view.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 11:19 pm: Edit

Quote:

It is not much to remember that a Ph-6 fired from a Ph-5 uses the standard chart and does not get a double damage bonus against small targets. I mean you have to remember that a Ph-5 can fire two Ph-6's. It's not much further to go.


Just use the rapid pulse rules that everybody is already comfortable with.

A Ph-5 has a Rapid Pulse capasity...as 2Ph-6 shots.

A Stand Alone Ph-6 has a rapid pulse capasity, 2Ph-3 shots.

Since rapid pulse is already limited to X Aegis targets you basically get the "forrest" of Ph-6s as an immencely powerful point defense system with pretty weak long range abilities and the "usual" Ph-5s have some point defense capasity ( which apparently is better than X1s ) and a goodly ability to reach targets at range.
One system is great for ship to ship fighting and the other is great for anti drone work but neither is grewat at both.

And you don't have to invent a new double damage on smaller units rule to perform it.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 11:26 pm: Edit

2Ph-3 shots @ R1 ( at R2 you'ld use the Ph-6s as Ph-6s because they're more depenable ), you generate damage between 6 and 8.

What will one Ph-6 shot generate 3-5, 4-6!?!
Doubling the damage, that's 6-10 or 8-12 on those incomming drones, BUT to kill drones isn't 6-8 enough???

Rapid pulse Pair of Ph-3 shots is the simplest solution for a strong point defense weapon, we don't need a double damage against Size class 6 & 7 rule.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 12:49 am: Edit

...That was another problem with Old X2, every P-1 functioned as a P-G and rapid-pulsing a P-6 as 2x P-3 has that net effect.

everyone will want to fire their P-5 as a P-6 as 2x P-3's.

Loren,
What's wrong with a .75 P-6 with the 2x damage against SC 6 & 7? P-5 downfires as 2x P-6 against X-Aegis targets and gets the same 2x if firign against an apropriate target. Simple, same across the board, easy.

By your same logic, nobody needs P-3's either.

I'll admit I'm a little leery of giving the P-6 its added punch against small targets. I just don't think X2 needs that degree of seeking weapon defense. X2 ships are no less defensed from drones than X1 was, probably better. How much more do you need?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 01:15 am: Edit

John T.:

The problem I have with a Ph-5's down fired Ph-6s getting the Pulse Fire bonus (2x damage against SC6&7) is that its too much. With all those Ph-5s were talking at least 16 Ph-6 shots. Each of those having the Pulse bonus is way too much. But two or four stand alone Ph-6's with this ability makes for a unique weapon that has a strong tactical aplication.

"By your same logic, nobody needs P-3's either."

For X1...yes. For GW no, they need Ph-3's a lot. They are cheap to arm and have a dependable damage curve at short range. X1 ships, with rapid pulse Ph-1's have little need for a Ph-3.

Remember I'm asking for the old base 5 Ph-6 chart for this aplication. That would do 10 points against a drone at R1. A lot but the numbers are limited and the double damage thing is limited to R3. (BTW, there is the question of whether or not the double damage thing should apply to Plasmas. If so then we would see the Plasma folks mounting stand alone Ph-6's. If not the they would probably be Ph-5 only.)

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 02:33 am: Edit

Quote:

everyone will want to fire their P-5 as a P-6 as 2x P-3's.


As X2 stands now, I'm sure people want to be able to declair their X1Ph-1s as 2Ph-3s the instant they take damage in order to double the number of PHASER hit the ship can take.

It doesn't happen.
Why?
Because people know that there is a difference between the SHOT and the WEAPON!


All we need to do is be really clear about what we can do with our weapon in the rules.
E.g. have a table that goes something like this.
Phaser Ph-5 X2Ph-1 Ph-6 Ph-H
Fire Ph-5 Ph-1 Ph-6 4Ph-6
Down Fire Ph-1 Ph-2 Ph-3 4Ph-3
Down Fire Ph-2 Ph-3 3Ph-6 etc.
Down Fire Ph-3 3Ph-3 etc.
Rapid Pulse 2Ph-6 2Ph-3 3Ph-3 6Ph-3
Rapid Pulse 3Ph-3 2Ph-6+3Ph-3
Rapid Pulse 1Ph-6+4Ph-3
Rapid Pulse 3Ph-6+1Ph-3


People will know from this that they can not fire a Ph-5 as 4Ph-3 shots.


Quote:

X2 ships are no less defensed from drones than X1 was, probably better. How much more do you need?


I'm becoming more convinced that Ph-5s ( although Ph-1s won't need it ) will need 3Ph-3 shots in their most rapid rapid pulse mode.
8Ph-5s can only generat 24 Ph-3 shots ( as the X1s can ) if they get 3Ph-3 shots per Ph-5.
The Bridge as special thingy might take out two more than usual but with the BPV price tage we have, the enemy can buy a DXD and a legendary Engineer and have all the drone warheads he wants.


Quote:

X1 ships, with rapid pulse Ph-1's have little need for a Ph-3


X2 ships will probably want a Ph-3 analog for those races that historically had them ( the Lyrans, Tholians, Kzintis ( although they might get the matrix ) and the Orions.
• They are cheap!
• Easy to Repair!
• Take the same amount of damage to destroy as a full Ph-5!
• And defend you well against your seeking weapon using opponents!
That is why some races will want a stand alone Ph-6.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 08:19 am: Edit

What if we just don't have a P6 as a stand-alone weapon? If we say that the P5 is the standard X2 phaser and has two modes (offensive and defensive) then you get a few benefits. For one, economy of design...you have only one phaser to build and create parts for. For another, it gives a new dimension to the phaser in that it starts to take on different firing modes like a heavy weapon does. Not overloads or proximities, mind, but an offensive-defensive mode.

Maybe the P5, for 1.5 energy, can fire as either a normal P5 in offensive mode, or can fire two rapid pulse defensive shots that use the P6 chart. Saying that these "defensive" shots can only be used against small targets and are tied to X-aegis would be a balanced approach; you get targeting benefits, but only against small stuff. Downfiring could be included, too; 1 point gets you a phaser 1 shot, or two phaser 3 shots.

There would be some book-keeping benefits, too. No more worrying over .75 points or anything; you just decide to use your 1.5 points in one of two ways.

The more I think about it, the more this grows on me. The Hybrid X2 phaser with multiple firing modes. No need for defensive phasers anymore. X1 does this to some degree already; why not try it for X2?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 10:07 am: Edit

Quote:

What if we just don't have a P6 as a stand-alone weapon? If we say that the P5 is the standard X2 phaser and has two modes (offensive and defensive) then you get a few benefits. For one, economy of design...you have only one phaser to build and create parts for. For another, it gives a new dimension to the phaser in that it starts to take on different firing modes like a heavy weapon does. Not overloads or proximities, mind, but an offensive-defensive mode.


Then you get X1 were every ship and every race fires Offensively as 1Ph-1 and defensively as 2 X-aegis restricted Rapid Pulses Ph-3 shots.


Fun...but too cookie cutterish.

By having some race ( Orions, Lyrans, Tholians and Kzintis ( although Tholians and Kzintis are debatable ) ) you ragain lost racial flavour.

If races can keep up supplies of both Type VII & Type VIII drones, they sure can keep up supply of both Ph-5s and Ph-6s.


Quote:

There would be some book-keeping benefits, too. No more worrying over .75 points or anything; you just decide to use your 1.5 points in one of two ways.

The more I think about it, the more this grows on me. The Hybrid X2 phaser with multiple firing modes. No need for defensive phasers anymore. X1 does this to some degree already; why not try it for X2?


I'ld still rather Ph-6 shots for 0.5 power for ease of calculation but the reason for having SOME RACES use a defensive point-defense ( rear facing ) would be to restor RACIAL FLAVOUR.
The Klingons would be running around with lots of Ph-1s and the Feds with a handful of Ph-5s.

It'ld create a lot of situations for tactics to be reinvented.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 10:10 am: Edit

Oops.


Quote:

Rapid Pulse 2Ph-6 2Ph-3 3Ph-3 6Ph-3



Should read :-

Rapid Pulse 2Ph-6 2Ph-3 2Ph-3 6Ph-3

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 10:19 am: Edit

Quote:

I'ld still rather Ph-6 shots for 0.5 power for ease of calculation but the reason for having SOME RACES use a defensive point-defense ( rear facing ) would be to restor RACIAL FLAVOUR.
The Klingons would be running around with lots of Ph-1s and the Feds with a handful of Ph-5s.

It'ld create a lot of situations for tactics to be reinvented.



I disagree. You're putting too much emphasis on how phaser type effects racial flavor. Module Y has everyone save the Tholians using P2's. In X1, they all use P1's exclusively. There was no loss of racial flavor in either of these eras, because racial flavor comes from much, much more than the type of phaser a race uses.

The arcs they use, type and number of heavy weapons, general design (lots of hull vs. spartan hull, etc), shield layout, turn-mode and its interaction with the ships firing arcs all effect racial flavor to a much larger degree, and will remain consistent with previous products.

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