---

Quote:

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.

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 03:29 pm: Edit

I'll agree with MJC here. The Kzinti and hydrans are both examples of phaser-driven racial flavor. As are the Gorns and Frax, come to think of it.

I'll add this: when every X-ship went to all-P1's a lot of racial flavor was lost. Commander's X2 made it even worse with every P-1 functioning as P-G. Yuk.

The loss of X1 racial flavor was emphasized by the sheer damage potential generated by OL phasers. Hence the CL 23 changes cut that damage potential back. And probably why heavy weapons got the ECCM +1 as well as phasers. It returns emphasis to heavy weapons with phasers as swing weapons, which is the essence of standard-tech SFB combat.

I'm still where I started this convo: convinced that a P-6 should act the same everywhere. Add a capability to the P-6, everyone will expect it to be added to downfired P-5's or will clamor for same. Bad idea. which brings me back to 16-18 P-6's is enough defense for a XCA.

If anyone is lookiing for a reason within continuity to put P-6's on a ship, any number can be found, cost of P-5's vs. P-6's, distribution of available space in a given starship design, even crusty admirals/legislators who set design doctrine and won't authorize a big-phaser-only ship (perhaps existing X-ships gobbled expensive X1 P-1s at such a rate that they decided they wouldn't make the same "mistake" twice).

If anyone is looking for a game design reason, racial flavor works for me.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Here is a compromise of sorts.

First we create the P-6 then later give it an upgrade that has the double-damage effect.

Phrased as a refit it shouldn't provoke quite the outpouring of mail and whining that woould occur if we made the double-damage a core part of the P-6. Really, that's what I object to.

There has to be a common idea of what a P-6 is and that has to be the same everywhere. Then we upgrade it, we rename it "hyperphaser" or P-9 or something to clearly differentiate it from a plain vanilla P-6.

The hyperphaser refit could then be set to only be open to smaller phasers: P-3's, P-6's, P-7's, phaser matricies, which makes it easier to understand why a P-5--even a downfired P-5-- can't do it. The P-5 downfires as a P-6, not a hyperphaser.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 09:37 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

There has to be a common idea of what a P-6 is and that has to be the same everywhere. Then we upgrade it, we rename it "hyperphaser" or P-9 or something to clearly differentiate it from a plain vanilla P-6.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 09:40 pm: Edit

For those that think the X2 will be too good at destroying drones.

Consider this.
A Klingon DXD with a Legendary Weapons Officer will be 299 BPV whilst a Fed XCA will come in between 300-330 BPV.

We'll consider a standard attack run, no SPs, WWs or T-bombs for the sake of the calculation.

The XCA doesn't fly an ECM drone wanting to free up drone launches for anti-drone work. The DXD doesn't fly an ECM drone for fear that the XCA will attract it at R15.


The DXD launches 6 Tyupe VIII drones in the previous turn and the XCA launches two Type VII drones to shoot them down.

The DXD then move toward R5, launching 6 type VIII drones to impact just after the DXD has left overload range...so as to avoid WW effects ( even though they won't be used in the calculation ).

The XCA launches 2 more Type VII drones to destroy the incomming drones.


We start our calculation here, 12 Klingon Drones have been launched and 4 destroyed.

When the Drones reach R6, the Bridge as special thingy knocks down two of them.

The remaining 8 drones must be shot down with Phaser.


If the Ph-5s can fire as 3Ph-3 shots then the 6 bearing Ph-5s will fire 12Ph-3 shots and destroy 4 of the incomming drones @ R1, then they'll fire 1Ph-3 at each of the incomming damaged drones and 2Ph-3s at each of the incomming un damaged drones for a grand total of 18Ph-3 shots with a possiblity of 1 or 2 drones slipping through.

If the Ph-5s can rapid pulse as 2Ph-6 shots that can inflict between 4 & 6 points of damage then the type 8 drones can be stopped with pairs of Ph-6 shots killing 6 type VIII drones and either using manouver to kill the other two Type VIII drones or tractors.


When the DXD gets to R5 it has a negative 1 shift to capitalise on ( correct me if I'm wrong but with the Led' W.O. the ship can make 9 ECCM ) and thus hits with all of its UIM disruptors and inflicts 4 points of damage per Phaser for a total of 62 points of damage.
The XCA ( we'll assume both ships went for full ECCM ) fires no Phasers ( haviung spent them all on drone defense ) and Four 24 point Photons ( assuming it doesn't get to capitalise on the -1 shift that's 48 points of damage if it does, that 64 points of damage).


As can be seen the drones didn't strike their targets but they still did exactly what was expected of them, they radically changed the ability of the target to fire phasers at the drone chucker, dispite the supposedly immence anti-drone capasity of the XCA.


Admittedly if the X2G-racks can launch as E-racks with type IX drones then the anti-drone defense grows quite a bit, but then the Klingon didn't use any special warheads of anykind, and Type VIII poundal drones with a full space of external armour are kinda hard to shoot down.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 10:45 pm: Edit

Think of it this way.

An Orion unrefitted XCA will have pairs of RA+L and RA+R Ph-6s.

By allowing them to rapid pulse as 2Ph-3 shots, this allows 8Ph-3 shots to cover the rear arc of the ship...thus having a an auto kill on 4 Type VII drones chacing it but only a 16 in 81 chance of killing four Type VIII drone sent after it.

If those HAD to be Ph-5s and the Ph-5s could only be rapid pulsed as 2Ph-6 shots ( which did 4-6 damage at R1 ) then the 1 RA+R Ph-5 and the 1 RA+L Ph-5 could on provide in the Rear Arc a defense of 4Ph-6 shots which would auto kill two type VIII drones and have a slim chance of killing four type VII drones.
If the those rear phasers had to be Ph-5s but the Ph-5s could rapid pulse as three Ph-3 shots then the rear arc could be protected automatically from just 3 type VII drones and wouldn have an 8 in 27 chance of killing three type VIII drones.
Indent An Advantage being that if obliquing against a Ship, there would be on either side and extra Ph-5 shot to kick in ( which at R8 will be a heck of a lot better than 2Ph-6 shots ).


But the Question has got to be asked...which is more racially flavoursome for the Orion ships, the four Ph-6s guarding the rear 240 degrees or the 2Ph-5s guarding that same area!?!

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 01:12 am: Edit

The problem with your calculations is that you exclude too many anti-drone measures.

Forgetting the WW, X2 has tractors, T-bombs and a lock-on breaker.

You also assume that the XCA will continue to stupidly close against 12 drones and an opponent with a phaser advantage. He might not.

Moving at speed-31 a ship can manage a few tournament andro tricks to dodge some drones and force others to chase.

The final thing if the following turn. to push the X2's drone defense hard, you needed 2 turns' worth of drones. What happens on the following turn when the DXD doesn't have the previous turn's drones. the XCA does spend for its depleted phasers because it has 2x caps, dives in and make life really miserable for the DXD.

Yes the results is a depeleted phaser system, but phasers recharge and drone racks must be take offline to be reloaded. The X2 can afford to dance outside OL range with the DXD until the DXD's drones run out. The DXD must try to force a range-closure and get its shots in while drones occupy the XCA's firepower.

I don't see anything out of balance or requiring a P-3. The the simplified elements make it too different from actual battle conditions to prove any deficiency in X2 drone defense.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 08:12 am: Edit

I agree with John that the X2 ships I've seen thus far have no real issue with drone defense. Can we agree, then on at least these things:

The PV

1. Is the X2 analog of the P1
2. Uses the chart proposed by Loren
3. Cost 1.5 energy to fire
4. May fire as 2 P-6 shots for .75 each
5. May downfire as a P1 for 1 energy
6. May be hastily repaired as a P1

1. Is the X2 analog of the P2, and used in early model (and maybe later model) X2 ships by traditional P2 users like the Hydrans and Klingons
2. Uses standard P1 chart
3. Cost 1 energy to fire
4. May fire as 2 P-3 shots for .5 each
5. May be hastily repaired as a P2

1. Is the X2 analog of the P3
2. Uses the P3 chart proposed by John T.
3. Cost .5 energy to fire, unless downfired by a PV in which case the cost is .75*
4. May be hastily repaired as a P3

• does the PVI use X aegis for better defense?(my personal answer would be yes)
• If a PV downfires as two P6 shots, how quickly can it do so? What is the impulse delay, if any?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 11:58 am: Edit

Mike thanks. I think it’s the easiest solution and SVC has never had a problem with saying "That’s just the way it is". If people clamor for a consistent power cost. It makes sense to me that the PH-6 fired from a device not specifically designed for such a shot would be less efficient than one that is. It’s really easy to remember too. If your firing from a Ph-6 mount the cost is have the arming of the main weapon. I think it makes it interesting too. It speaks some about the technology. Also, all X2 ship armed with Ph-5s will have this huge arsenal of PH-6s for drone defense. Maybe upping the cost of using THIS arsenal will balance things a bit by draining your phaser reserve faster. We've got to make X2 sweat some...this is one way.

Small correction: Uses P6 chart by John T.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 01:34 pm: Edit

Mike,

Addressing your questions:

There is every reason to assume that a P-6 uses X-aegis. Every last phaser on a X1 ship uses X-aegis (it's required for the rapid-pulse mode) so there's no reason to assume differently for a X2 ship. I took it as a given that a P-6 would be in the X-aegis loop.

On P-5 downfired as P-6's: How fast can a P-1 rapid-pulse as P-3's? Same thing.

On what we can agree on:

The only quibble point for me is I prefer a P-6 fire for the same cost everywhere, to wit .75. That's simpler still. It comes down to the fact that we asked the P-1 analogue to pay for its added damage with added power, so the P-6 should too.

With that caveat, Mike, yeah. Common-ground-city.

I wouldn't give a native P-6 both the .5 cost and the 2x effect against SC6 & 7, though. That's just too good. I'm leery of either by itself. Both would be over the line.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 02:30 pm: Edit

I wouldn't give a native P-6 both the .5 cost and the 2x effect against SC6 & 7, though. That's just too good. I'm leery of either by itself. Both would be over the line.


I agree. One or the other, not both. The less power cost is my first choice for the native Ph-6. The other is more powerful but carries a greater BPV cost and I would like to keep BPV down where possible.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 02:43 pm: Edit

Yup. A lower cost P6 is fine, and gives some added incentive to actually mount a pair. But the extra damage is too much, IMHO.

By Shannon Nichols (Scoot) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 04:55 pm: Edit

Have a stand alone PH-6 cost .75 power to fire. It can be used against all targets. An have it have a rapid pulse mode. Where it can engage only SC6&7 targets. The rapid pulse mode would fire as 2 PH-3s for .5 power per shot

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 06:53 pm: Edit

The rapid-pulse idea would carry the same BPV-inflating results as double-damage against SC6 and 7.

It does carry the interesting drawback of overusing the capacitor system.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 07:38 pm: Edit

If you want a 0.5 cost phaser make a long range P3 with a max damage of 4. The P6 as described should cost 0.75. I'm still not convinced it is needed as a general solution and would prefer races take a slightly different design path for defensive phasers.

Fed, Thol, Gorn, Rom, ISC: P1X
Kzinti: Matrix (cannot be placed in option mounts)
Klingon, Lyran: P6 limited to range 15 and tied to X-Aegis
Hydran: PGX

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 08:36 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Forgetting the WW, X2 has tractors, T-bombs and a lock-on breaker.

---

---

Quote:

You also assume that the XCA will continue to stupidly close against 12 drones and an opponent with a phaser advantage. He might not.

---

---

Quote:

The final thing if the following turn. to push the X2's drone defense hard, you needed 2 turns' worth of drones. What happens on the following turn when the DXD doesn't have the previous turn's drones. the XCA does spend for its depleted phasers because it has 2x caps, dives in and make life really miserable for the DXD.

---

---

Quote:

The X2 can afford to dance outside OL range with the DXD until the DXD's drones run out. The DXD must try to force a range-closure and get its shots in while drones occupy the XCA's firepower.

---

---

Quote:

I don't see anything out of balance or requiring a P-3. The the simplified elements make it too different from actual battle conditions to prove any deficiency in X2 drone defense.

---

---

Quote:

May fire as 2 P-6 shots for .75 each

Cost .5 energy to fire, unless downfired by a PV in which case the cost is .75*

---

---

Quote:

The only quibble point for me is I prefer a P-6 fire for the same cost everywhere, to wit .75. That's simpler still. It comes down to the fact that we asked the P-1 analogue to pay for its added damage with added power, so the P-6 should too.

---

---

Quote:

I wouldn't give a native P-6 both the .5 cost and the 2x effect against SC6 & 7, though. That's just too good. I'm leery of either by itself. Both would be over the line.

---

---

Quote:

Yup. A lower cost P6 is fine, and gives some added incentive to actually mount a pair. But the extra damage is too much, IMHO.

---

---

Quote:

The rapid-pulse idea would carry the same BPV-inflating results as double-damage against SC6 and 7.

---

---

Quote:

If you want a 0.5 cost phaser make a long range P3 with a max damage of 4. The P6 as described should cost 0.75. I'm still not convinced it is needed as a general solution and would prefer races take a slightly different design path for defensive phasers.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 09:05 pm: Edit

Just to throw some light on the ideas.

Here'a table of damaged generated by Ph-3s and Ph-6s at R1.

Roll	Ph-3	Ph-6a	Ph-6b	O/L Ph-3
1	4	5	6	6
2	4	4	6	6
3	4	4	6	6
4	4	4	6	6
5	3	3	4	4
6	3	3	4	4

Personally I can see the Ph-6a paying 0.5 and have a great deal of trouble trying to see it as costing 0.75!
Considering there is a two tech level jump from the Ph-3 to the Ph-6 I can even see the Ph-6b costing 0.5 points of power, but I can see why so many people want it to cost 0.75.


Note that whilst a pair of rapid pulse Ph-6bs autokills a Type VIII drone, the Ph-6a only increase the chance to 20 in 36 which isn't all that much of a jump from the previous 16 in 36 of the X1 traditional pair of Ph-3 shots.


It really depends on what Ph-6 table we choose but I would prefere some that does a sizeable ( 2 but 3 better ) amount of damage at R2 on a roll of 6, as that is the main reason for the existance of the Ph-6, to kill speed 40 seekers, such as the Type X drone or the Type VII booster drone.

At anyrate the power usage is a bit much of a muchness, it's so little power ( 1 point over for Ph-6 shots ) that I think playability issues will come to the fore.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 09:13 pm: Edit

What is a PVI A? That isn't like the chart we're using (John's.) At R1, it has a damage like this:

Roll	Damage
1	6
2	5
3	5
4	4
5	4
6	4

I have no problem with this being .75, if that's what the majority pleases. I personally think the P5 is fine at a cost of 1, and the P6 is fine at .5. But, as you yourself pointed out, throughtput/efficency doesn't matter as much as output. This P6 is much better than a P3.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 09:35 pm: Edit

I'd like a 1.5 P5 and a .5 P6. P5 can downfire as 2xP6s and saves .5 power.

What's wrong with that?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 12:08 am: Edit

What's wrong is the power to damage ratio of doing 6 damage with 0.5 power; 12:1 is too high.

I also agree that I'd rather have a 0.5 power phaser than 0.75 but then we have to modify the damage curve.

Consider the P9 @ 0.5 power:
# 0 1 2 3 4 5-8-15
1 4 4 4 4 3 2 1
2 4 4 4 3 2 2 1
3 4 4 4 3 2 1 0
4 4 4 3 2 1 1 0
5 4 4 3 2 1 0 0
6 4 3 2 1 0 0 0

Same max damage and power as the P3 but with greater accuracy at longer ranges. Power to damage ratio is 8:1.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 12:11 am: Edit

Roll	Damage Ph-3	Damage	Percentage
1	4	6	50%
2	4	5	20%
3	4	5	20%
4	4	4	0%
5	3	4	33%
6	3	4	33%
Average	3.66	4.66	27.3%

Considering the 0.75 power is a 50% increase in the energy of the weapon for a 27.27% increase in damage ( a decrease in the throughput of the weapon of ( 1-(3.66/0.5)/(4.66/0.75) ) 15% ) I would dare say that a 0.75 power cost is very steep and would rather say that the jump in damage was generated purely by the fact that the Ph-6 is two tech levels ahead of the Ph-3 rather than the added power!
Maybe if the Ph-6 was doing damage along the lines of the old overloaded Ph-3 I might think along different lines.

---

Quote:

I'd like a 1.5 P5 and a .5 P6. P5 can downfire as 2xP6s and saves .5 power.

What's wrong with that?

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 12:20 am: Edit

---

Quote:

What's wrong is the power to damage ratio of doing 6 damage with 0.5 power; 12:1 is too high.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 12:25 am: Edit

Considering that the Ph-1 has a power to damage ratio of 10 on a roll of 1 ar R0 and the Ph-4 has a power to damage ratio of 10 on a roll of 1-4 at R0-3, I'ld say having a 20% increase in our damage to power ratio ( two tech levels on ) would be allowable, particulalry in a point defense weapon and particularly on a roll of 1 in six.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 01:02 am: Edit

Tos:

What I mean is that taking the average R1 damage from 3.66 to 4.66 is only an increase of the damage to power ratio of 7.33:1 up to 9.33:1
Considering that that is a two tech level increase of the Ph-6 over the Ph-3 ( does the Ph-3 exist in the Y period as a stand alone weapon?) the 27.27% increase in damage to power ratio can probably be ENTIRELY attributed to the advance of technology.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 02:30 am: Edit

Well, the P3 has a 8:1 damage ratio at the ranges it is meant to be used at.

I would like to see the P6 be at or around 10:1 or better at ranges 0-1, with a sharp drop off after that. Making the point defense phaser, REALLY, a point defense weapon. Say, a max range of 10. So, more bang for the buck than a P3 but shorter range.