Archive through February 16, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
The "X" Files:
OLD X2 FOLDER:
X2 Fusion Beams:
Archive through February 16, 2003
Not really. Just put a dot in the middle of the box.
Well, I guess a little.
Hey, it no big deal. I'm not going to push it. Just a quick idea that popped into my head. You have to admit it's different.
The idea I do want to stick with is the Fusion Gatling. A simple design producing a nasty weapon. Did I mention it would have a limited 120° arc? (Too, wide and it would be too dangerous.) Also, maybe it could be introduced as a X1R thing, then carried over to X2.
I dunno.......the X1 Fusion Hydran is terrifying.
Ah but, how do I know if that's an EMP dot, or that it's an empty shuttle box, or a stray pencil mark umpteen impulses later.
And you'd need to record the T/i that a given box was EMPed.
Shuttle boxes would be like hull. The lights go out but that's all. Guys, I think it might well be problematical. I willing to let it go.
Maybe better as a weapon for a new race. A single main torpedo weapon. Combined with the Hellbore it might make Hydrans no fun to play against.
Cfant, I figure the Hydrans would pull back from the fusion in general since it is so short ranged. However, the Fusion Gatling (FG) would become a defense enhancement weapon that IF you do reach short range, becomes a seriously scary offensive weapon. This requires less mainenance as the pods just get exchanged and requires NO hold cost (big plus over X1 fusions). The weapon would be realatively small. It uses current technology (only the rotating drum and targeting programs are new).
So how is the X1 fusion more terrifying than four (albeit over four impulses) R3 fusions in one with no hold cost and no damage like that which is associated with SS OL.
Take a Hydran XCC. Give it 4 XHB, Six Ph-V, 4 Ph-GII, and two FGs[LF-L and RF-R]. (R3 = effective eight FBs and R4-R10 = effective four FB...free) Add fighters and my advice would be, do not EVER get close to one of these.
Looking at it this way I think perhaps the FG really should only be allowed to rotate it's drum during EA. That H-XCC is pretty scarry.
Eliminate the heavy weapon vs drone penalties.
Allow the fusion beam to link directly to the phaser capacitor.
Yipe!
Now that's scary!
Especially combined with Loren's gatling fusion.
I may decide I like this better than my focused fusions proposal.
Loren,
Let me see if I understand it right.
With a fusion gatling, each weapon can fire
- 4 range 0-2 shots, or
- 2 range 0-2 shots and 1 range 3-10 shot, or
- 2 range 3-10 shots?
And not worry about overloads or suicide overload damage?
Loren, congratulations. We have our Hydran XCC. Ill expect an SSD in the SSDs topic ASAP, TY.
~G~
The Hydrans would probably be the only race in X2 that built a CVA.
If the trend continues, then there should be a Ranger, Dragoon, Lord Marshal, and Lord Bishop versions of the X2 CA. (If the Feds get 8-10 in their whole fleet, the Hydrans should build at least 4)
Loren, while the fusion gatling sounds like a good option, I'd like to see the nuclear blaster, if only because someone will fly Orions and "have" to have one on his ship.
The Hydran Ranger has the following:
| RN | RN+ | X1 | X2 |
| Fusion | 4 | 4 | 6 | ? |
| Hellbore | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ph-2 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| ph-1 | 0 | 2 | 9 | 0 |
| ph-G | 2 RA | 2 LS/RS | 2 | 0 |
| ph-5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6? |
| ph-6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Warp | 27 | 30 | 42 | 48? |
| St-2 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| St-H | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| St-EW | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| St-X | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9? |
If you can avoid range 2, you have the advantage.
Jeff T.: I would seem I took the light off your proposal. Sorry about that. The name of your weapon is what inspired me. I ment not to add to or replace your idea.
I don't really see the Ranger class continuing being based on the Fusion as the main armorment (that is unless your Nuke Blaster come to be then there is no doubt they WOULD keep the class). The various Lord classes would be what I would expect. Of course, it pretty early to tell that for now. This thread only has one archive. 
Re: Fusion Gatling.
Stinger fusions have a max range of three hexes. If they put two charges into one shot they can reach R10. That is they can fire two fusions out to 3 or one out to 10. There is no OL option.
So this system is put on a ship by mountion the fusion pods on a rotating barral. Two at a time are exposed to space. These can fire independantly or as one (2 x R0-3 or once 4-10). During EA you have the option to rotate the barral to expose the other two. You can begin loading the previous two imediatly. There is no hold cost. 120° arcs only.
This takes into account the final change in my previous posts as I think firing all four fusion is too much. Especialy if these are mounted in pairs, as I think they should be. (Actually there would typically only be two on a ship.)
BTW: Remember the drone rack operation illustration in Cap. Log? That's what inspired this and I think it might have inspired the Hydrans too. They did capture a Klingon Cruiser. (Or did that ship only have F-racks.)
I rethought fusions from capacitors. I'm no longer a fan.
while it is a cool concept, it advances the idea of using the phaser capacitor system as an axuiliary source of reserve power and X2 has enough--perhaps too much--reserve power already.
Hydrans use fusion beams. What Hydran Captain hasn't said "I wish I could trade my futile beam for a P2"? Now take a half step that direction. By tying an X-Fusion Beam to the phaser capacitor does it not just become a defacto short-range high damage phaser? I believe the corollary works, provided the Hellbore is always the primary weapon system. I also believe that granting this one exception to make viable one of the worst weapons still in service does not open the doors to phaser capacitors turning into batteries.
I'm still leery.
I keep looking at an X2 CA having anywhere between 15-25 points of reserve power (assuming 5 batteries on a CA) and think, "why do we need to draw on the phaser caps for fusions?"
I can go for the fusion as a hydran tertiary weapon (say if they decide not to build X2 fighters or can't improve on the ST-X) but I don't see the link to the phaser caps as a necessity toward the end.
Necessity? No.
Leery? Good.
Its just an interesting twist for the Hydrans that shouldn't be overpowering while retaining an otherwise dated weapon system. Think of it as a short range Hydran only phaser, reducing the number of phasers a Hydran can carry on a 1:1 basis.
FF 1 HB 2 F
DD 2 HB 2 F
CL 3 HB 2 F
CA 4 HB 2 F
Don't like it. The whole reason for two reserve systems is that one is a lot more restrictive than the other.
If we loosen those restrictions, then we go down the path of converting phaser caps into another group of batteries. Which is something most of us don't want.
Which is why I'm saying the fusion is converted to a high damage short range phaser used only by Hydrans, not the capacitor is feeding a heavy weapon.
Why not just go with the Gatling Fusion idea? Its simple, elegant, a logical progression of Hydran thought and approaches, and avoids the Capacitor thingy.
Because I hadn't read that proposal. When I can't keep up the HW (and drone) topics are the first to go.
So now I have and my comments are: too complicated. I like the idea that a ship can mount fighter fusion charges in a drone rack thingy but more closely aligned with the plasma rack. I don't like that it requires multiple charges to go out to range 10. Make it like an A-rack with each charge being one range 10 standard load canister. Make the canister the same as that carried by the X2 fighter and I think it would work.
I'd give the X2 fighter 4 fusion charges all capable of range 10. Plus one range 10 Hellbore. Plus a Gat FA and a Gat RX. Double weight, speed 30, lots of free EW, damage 18-20.
Tos,
My answer is in the "X2 Attrition units" thread.
I like the gattling fusion beams, maybe they can be used to replace the Gattling Phaser. If each cartridge of weapon is re-usable, and they are only standard fighter range of 4 shots, or 2 long range shots, and maybe 1 overload shot if all four charges are used. It will take more power than a Phaser-G. But will do more close in damage and have more flexibility.
This way X2 Hyrans won't need 2 versions of each ship class, a hellbore and a fusion version. They will have improved damage against attrition units, or enhanced longer-range damage.
I felt that the X-Fighter fusion was too powerful. The techno babble reason was that it didn't work with the rack system (for now anyway. It's not a bad thing to allow room for future improvement.)
The Fusion Gatling as is has built in limtations and contrubutes to thinking ahead. It's not that hard to track. If they fire under R4 then you know they have another. It not any more complicated than a Stinger is now and you would have less of them. One the next EA flip the rack and you have two more and you can begin reloading the first two. You don't even need to record that you flipped the rack. If you are putting power into it you know it must be loading the empty two and the other two are in firing position. Status can be easily tracked by the power record on the EA.
(note: this is also superior to the standard fusion in that there is no cool down. Of course that goes with the X-Fusion so it's hand in hand.)
The main reason I would push the charge out to range 10 is so it will see some use. If it requires two charges to fire at range 10 I'd rather hold fire and wait for the dream shot I'll get sooner or later.
~nods to Loren~ and has the handy side-effect of being a lovely place to hide power, if your opponent likes to track yours.
Id hesitate to see even the Gatling Fusion replace the Gatling Phaser as the hydrans 'close defense weapon system of choice'. Gatlings are just too wonderful a weapon for the race that invented them to give up.
Then, instead of the fusion gatling, there's the nuclear blaster. (Or some varient of one), as an alternative to consider.
Aaron.
Right, the two should work together.