Archive through August 07, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: New X2 Generic Weapon: Archive through August 07, 2003
By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 03:04 pm: Edit

Very true! We do all need to remember that (or at least I do).

As far as the details go, I'm not sure; I was sort of hoping for buy-in from some other posters, and then we could flesh out the details. Basically, I'm thinking something like this:

During EA, a bank (defined as a contiguous group of phasers on an SSD; for example, the four FH phasers on a Fed BC) is tuned to a specific frequency. They need not be tuned, if the owning player so desires; if that is the case, the phaser performs normally against any target.

When fired, a -1 is added to the damage roll if the target is what the phaser was tuned against. If it isn't, a +1 is added, instead.

Example: Fed XDD with four FX P-5's tunes them to be anti-plasma. Three of these fire at an incoming R torp, with rolls of 3, 2, and 4. These are shifted on the damage chart as 2, 1, and 3, for more damage to the torpedo. The fourth phaser is fired at a fighter; the roll is a 4. It is treated as a 5, since the phaser was not tuned to attack small craft.

Frequencys? I had these in mind for starters:



These may not be quite right, but you get the idea of there being a trade off.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 03:33 pm: Edit

Having a -1 against drones and a +1 against plasma is hardly an historical tradeoff. I doubt their will be any X2 races that mount both drones and plasmas so there would never be a penalty.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 04:05 pm: Edit

None of these are "historical". They aren't supposed to be, necessarily, nor are these by any means definate. Still open to suggestions.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 09:32 pm: Edit

Quote:

Simply allowing a positive shift only would, IMHO, be much more unbalancing because there would be no penalty to offset your decision.


Only allowing a positive shift is balance-able with BPV and not the full 15% of the Leg' W.O. but still a slight percentage increase based on the BPV of the phasers.

There are two drawbacks to choosing the wrong kind of setting to have the shift.
1) If you choose wrong, it'll be not next turn but the turn after that that it can be corrected.
2) The enemy will either have the ability right back at you ( and might have chosen correctly ) or the enemy will have more weapons ( GW and X1 ) because you are of a higher BPV.

Those two effects combined allow the weapon system not to need a -1 shift.


.


I mean really.
You are attacked by a Fed CVA group.
If you set to Drone to shoot down what those F-15s can through at you, you get a +1 shift to all attacks on the ship and the fighters and the escorts.
If you set to fighters then you get a +1 shift to all the drones and the carrier and the escorts.
If you set to the carrier then you get a +1 shift to the fighters, the drones and the escorts.
If you set to the escorts than you get a +1 shift to all the drones and the carrier and the fighters.

Net result, everyone will fly around with the specialised firing mode...off!

It'll only be a Lyran cruiser that gets stomped on by this kind of effect...and they'll get stomped on.
If you don't have all non setting targets at +1 then you fall for the possibility that there will be some races and some opponents that have an advantage.
+Fighters -ships Nil drones seems fine. at the beginining, but what about when you meet a Hydran Fi-Con!?!
All + penalty ( if there is to be a + penalty which I think isn't needed ) should be to everything which ain't the specific thing.


Quote:

(That every phaser of the ship should be forced into a particular mode won't work techno babblewise after the phaser room article in cl25.)


X1s are highly automated, X2s would be also, so we can just say the phaser rooms don't work like they did in the GW era and a the Phaser gunnery crew are all in one central room opperating automated weapons and hence all use the central computer core.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 09:40 pm: Edit

Mike, I would say that a Phaser could be tuned to be effective against specific things with the cost of them being less effective against almost every thing else. That is, there are two settings, specific targeting and general targeting. The chart reflects general targeting. When tuning against a specific target both the energy type/fequency and the targeting routines are adjusted. This increases the damage reflected by a -1 to the die. Since these tuned in a way less effective against other targets these phasers get a +1.

So, to get to my point, I would say each clasification should read " -1 on Specific Target Type, +1 on all other target types."

It should be noted that Ships are not a specific Target Type though there componants (shields, hull, PA's) are.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 09:59 pm: Edit

Quote:

So, to get to my point, I would say each clasification should read " -1 on Specific Target Type, +1 on all other target types."


That's the only way a + bonus could be moved into the rules.


Quote:

It should be noted that Ships are not a specific Target Type though there componants (shields, hull, PA's) are.


You could divide the target up by Size Class.
I wouldn't divide the target up by box type, it's too much like targeting specific locations which IIRC is on the AutRejLis...I couldn't even get -1 to the the DAC and +1 to the DAC for firing at the bow and stren respectively brought about because of "targeting specific locations" being on the auto reject list.
But maybe like X1, X2 was a rebirth of the cruiser being sheer hell on the PFs and fighters and drones and plasma on account of the fact that actual ships couldn't be targeted with the advantage...X-Aegis linked and all.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 11:47 pm: Edit

One idea to make people want to use the FINE TUNNING would be to have a -2 bonus to that one specific class of target but a -1 to all other target types ( and the -2 can not be combined with the -1 that X ships get with a greater ECCM than ECM ).

Such a bonus would actually be enough to offset the ALL phasers must be switched penalty that would keep the game simple.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 01:04 am: Edit

Quote:

That's the only way a + bonus could be moved into the rules.



It's not a bonus, it's a penalty.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 05:30 am: Edit

Oops, that what I meant.

We'ld have to make the rules a + penalty to everything that wasn't "THE MODE" of the weapon or else certain races ( on account of their tactical doctrines ) would slip through the cracks.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Eagle) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 07:58 am: Edit

Since the energy output is likely to be constant I can't see the different effects on shielded, or not shielded ships. If it's hit it's hit, right?
Not should size class on SHIPS matter. They are a little to big to miss. A small drone otoh...

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 10:13 am: Edit

A few points.

MJC, allowing a -1 shift with no penalty not only makes no sense, it overinflates BPV for no reason. Re-focusing a phaser to do more damage against a particular type of target cannot help but effect how that same phaser will effect another. Picking the right frequency is a challenge for the player; pick wrong, and you suffer the consequences. Even if you do, though, you aren't exactly helpless. A +1 shift doesn't mean your phasers are now worthless against some other target type.

Loren, your suggestion about -1 vs. a particular target and +1 against all others seems okay to me. Just have to define the various target types.

Carl, energy output is constant, but how it effects different substances matters greatly. You can melt steel armor, for example, with a primative shape charge round. That same round with the same output won't scratch ceramic composite armor. For a phaser, a shield can affect it differently than the physical hull of the ship.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 10:49 am: Edit

Also, the bonus/penalty should apply to all firing modes. If a Ph-5 is set for drones then it gets a -1 against them if fired in Ph-5 or pulsed Ph-6s. The Phaser UNIT is commited for the turn.

A small SSD chart could do the job of notation. This would only be practical if the phasers were to be grouped in few large groups.

But on ships with many groupings, like normal, it would be a greater advantage.

By Shannon Nichols (Scoot) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 05:50 pm: Edit

Have phaser be able to fire in a warp field disruption mode. Instead of causing damage the phaser fire can generate a anti movement warp field at the target. This field would cancel one point of movement for every (7-target SC) of damage. Targets speed could not be reduced to less than half of its plotted speed or power put into movement. Or every two or points of damage reduces the targets speed by one no matter what its size is.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 09:14 pm: Edit

Is this "tuning" feature toggled at EA?

If so, it would make the hack-and-slash devestating, since, if you fire on impulse 1, you know exactly what to tune your phaser to.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 09:52 pm: Edit

Quote:

MJC, allowing a -1 shift with no penalty not only makes no sense, it overinflates BPV for no reason.


Perhaps so but a penalty on EVERYTHING THAT AIN'T is pretty steep and a lot of players will simply opt not to take it and thus opt not to spend BPV on it and thuis opt to not fly an X2 ship.


Quote:

Is this "tuning" feature toggled at EA?

If so, it would make the hack-and-slash devestating, since, if you fire on impulse 1, you know exactly what to tune your phaser to.


Another reason why I'm for toggling off on one EA and then toggling on to the different system during the next or latter EAs.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 10:54 pm: Edit

An impulse one firing oppertunity and tuning your fire for such, has always been a frightful play but usually goes both ways.

Big Impulse one strikes usually take place at close range where most things hit pretty good anyway.

If all ships have the ability then it balances out.

Against X1 and GW? Well, the would indeed be a BPV value to tuning that could be balanced. We could possibly introduce a damage rule for these phaser that once a group of phasers is hit the next phaser hits must be scored on that group until distroyed. That would give X1 and GW a sligh advantage over the X2 phaser group.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 11:49 pm: Edit

Another possible problem is for races that don't have other stuff to shoot at.

Take a Klingon vs. Tholian scenario:
Klingons choose to tune phasers for ships
Tholians have to choose between drones, fighters, PFs and ships. With this rule races with less tuneable stuff will fight at a significant disadvantage.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 01:47 am: Edit

Good point Tos. Its actually "Most Anyone Vs. Tholians" (unless the Tholians are sporting fighters).

On the other hand (and with further thought) the Tholians have web which can make weapons useless all together no matter what they are tuned to. It might not be such an effective disadvantage.

And if the Tholians get something like my Sticky Web Fist... :)

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Eagle) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 04:40 am: Edit

A phaser that works better vs. cloaks but sucks against uncloaked ships (like the "carronade")?
"Do my opponent stay under cloak,... or not?"

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 04:45 am: Edit

Quote:

Another possible problem is for races that don't have other stuff to shoot at.

Take a Klingon vs. Tholian scenario:
Klingons choose to tune phasers for ships
Tholians have to choose between drones, fighters, PFs and ships. With this rule races with less tuneable stuff will fight at a significant disadvantage.


Thanks, Tos...I've been trying to say that for a while.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 06:56 am: Edit

That's not quite fair. It could just as easily be Klingon vs. Tholians, with Klingons choosing between ships, web, fighters, and PF's while the Tholian chooses between ships and drones...it depends on the makeup of the force in question. Being forced to use phasers for uses other than direct offense is old hat, and part of the game.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 10:40 am: Edit

Taking Fine tunning a little further.

Fine Tunning has got to be an Electronic Warfare Form and so a standard shift isn't really all the proper!

Now.

The Fine Tunned target gets a treated as though the attacker has 3 Free ECCM and all other targets the phaser could fire at will be treated as though it has 2 Free ECM.

That would do.

I would also consider linking the Boarding Party Combat Diagrams with the weapons if linking all the weapons to geather would be too restrictive.
So in a Fed XCA the Phaser in the Left Saucer section would be labled A, the center saucer section B, the right saucer section C and the Engineering Hull:- D.
And the target type would be listed ( again I'ld rather not have a function to speciifcally target ships and say it's limited to X-Aegis targets ) as PFs 5, Fighters and shuttles 6, Drones D, DefSats S, Plasma P and Mines M.

Then one could just list in the notes on the EAF, CD and it would be read that all the phaser under the boarding party diagram in section C of the vessel shall be fine tunned to target drones.


The levels of ECCM and ECM ( probably stick between 3ECCM-2ECM and 2ECCM-3ECM ) can be selected depending after playtesting on whether or not EVERY TURN TOGGLING ( or 8 even 8 impulse toggling ) and grouping sizes ( Wholeship/BPCDiagram/IndividualPhs ) and playtesting evaluations shall that 3ECCM-2ECM is too restrictive or not.
A shift generated this way can be used with the regular capasity of an X ship to use a shift such that if there is a total of four or more ECCM on the target then a -2 shift can be applied. This shift is not a function of Leg' WO nor Outstanding crew and is cumulative with those effects.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 12:22 pm: Edit

Quote:

Fine Tunning has got to be an Electronic Warfare Form and so a standard shift isn't really all the proper!



Actually, when Mike Proposed it, I pictured that the targeting routine and the energy type/phase were ajusted to be more effective.
PLASAM
A quick analisys of the Plasma gives an adjustment factor that allows the phaser energy to disrupt the plasma energy a little better. Targeting routines for plasma can better track plasmas energy signiture that type movement.

SHUTTLES or DRONES

Combining some aegis routines and the type of phased energy that is similar to the type that is more disruptive to hull is the solution here.

PA PANNELS
Taking advantage of the attraction factor that PA pannels use to absorb energy the phaser beam is a bell curve energy type. Once the energy is attracted to the PA the output is sharpely increased. Targeting is improved by focusing on the null energy field that is present in close proximity to PA pannels.

SHIELDS

Micro-pulses send more ofthe phaser energy into shilds than into other targets.

TERRAIN
Similar to the hull type slower moving objects that are terrain a vulnerable to a more direct heavy beam.

MONSTERS
NOTE: I don't think monsters should be included in this (or any) special tuning system. One exception might be after a certain level of scientific information is attained. The it could have its own catigory against THAT SPECIFIC MOSTERS IN THIS SCENARIO. (Not yelling :) )


Now, of course, this is ALL techno-babble but illustrates how Mikes system needs not be EW based. With this shift the maximum damage is never more than what the phaser can normally out put but, using the tuning routines, gets more of the energy into the target.

However, EW is still involved. If there is an ECM shift the target is still harder to hit and so also applies to the die roll.

There is a possability that a X2 ship equipped with Tunable phasers could gain a -2 shift to the die roll for phasers tuned to a target and who has an ECCM advantage. In this case a rule limiting the number of column shifts to one might be in order.

A -3 could be attained via a X2 ECCM advantage + Tuned to target Phasers + Leg. Wep. Off. A two column shift should be allowed here.

So, it the combination of ECCM + Tuning can only result in ONE column shift in the case of a die roll rulsuting in a One. LWO can shift the column in addition to this.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 03:35 pm: Edit

How about a "seeking rule" for Direct Fire weapons that allows them to fire at a target, move out to 1/2 their max. range at (for sake of argument) 3-4 hexes/impulse, can only sideslip every other HEX to track target, and hit with better odds than while in DF mode? The trade-off is better chance to hit w/ DF weapon vs. target might evade shot. Volley-fire shots would all move the same, and target must still be in weapon arc on firing.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 03:49 pm: Edit

RBN: A seeking Photon??

Hmmm....

Speed 64, max range 8.
No OL.
Roll at R1 to hit when the Photon reaches target.
Can't turn but can side slip.
Target must remain in ships FA arch.

Target can avoid being hit by latteral movement beyond the Photons ability to side slip, move out of the firing ships FA arch, or move beyond R8.


Hmmm....

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