Yeah. I mostly fond of the +2 UIM becuase it all such a small change.

It's a great statemnt piece...Heavy Disruptors will make Klingons even better and they're already pretty good ( The X1 Klingon cruiser is so close to the X2 Klingon cruiser it isn't funny, indeed it a lot like what the X2 Federation cruiser will be like ).

We may Find that simply 6 Disruptors and Disruptor Caps ( particularly if linked to the Phaser Caps ) and a 6 Impulse double braodside rule over the turn break will allow the Klingons to retain parity with the cruisers of other races, by themselves.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 10:16 pm: Edit

I don't think a +1 to hit is ever a "small" change.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 10:40 pm: Edit

Since it doesn't apply at R0-2, R9-15 and R31-40 ( assumming the +2 Defracs came to pass ) it doesn't really do all that much at a lot of the critical ranges for the X2 ships.

It'll be hell on wheels at R8 which would be the number one critical range for the X2 ships but an X2 Fed attacking an X2 Klingon could spend a lot of time attacking with narrow volleies of 12 point Photons ( or 6 point proxies ) in the R9-12 range bracket arming as 4+2 or fastloading as 6 at the Fed players discression, whilst the Klingon Ph-1s would be in effectual and the UIM wouldn't help the Disruptors at those range brakets.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 02:12 pm: Edit

You say with one breath "It doesn't do much" and the next "It'd be hell on wheels at range 8".

Kinda makes my point for me.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 07:27 pm: Edit

Yeah like every fight is fought at range 8!


Here's a clue...against an MY Fed don't go to range 2!...the Fed is Hellonwheels there!!!

Does that make the MY Photon broken!?!

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 07:52 pm: Edit

Not necessarily.

But a lot of battles are fought at overload range. Generally fights outside overload ranges take on the character of preliminatry maneuverings.

Which means a +1 in any part of OL range is vastly more important than what happens outside OL range.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 08:25 pm: Edit

Okay let's look at overload damage at R8.

4 Disruptors:- 4 x 4/6 x 6 = 16.
4 UIM Disruptors:- 4 x 5/6 x 6 = 20.
4 +2 UIM Disruptors:- 4 x 6/6 x 6 = 24.
6 Disruptors:- 6 x 4/6 x 6 = 24.
6 UIM Disruptors:- 6 x 5/6 x 6 = 30.
6 +2 UIM Disruptors:- 6x 6/6 x 6 = 36.

4 Fastloaded 12 point Photons:- 4 x 3/6 x 12 = 24.
4 Fastloaded 16 point Photons:- 4 x 3/6 x 16 = 32.
Alternating pairs 24 point Photons:- 2 x 3/6 x 24 = 24.

Now I don't know what you're seeing from these numbers but to me the smallest possibly increase to the Disruptor is what's needed to keep the photon in competitive with Disruptors.
Heavy Disruptors will give the Disruptors even more of an edge over the Photon and with Disruptor Caps a 6 Impulse delay the Disruptors can probably "double broadside" the Feds so well as to elimitnate most of the crunch power of four 24 point overloads.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 08:41 pm: Edit

Equality in a toe-to-toe slugging match isn't everything, otherwise disruptor-armed ships wouldn't have gotten as far as they have.

Tell me the standard GW disruptor is equal to the photon. I bet it isn't.

So the X2 version doesn't need to be either.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 08:54 pm: Edit

Your right...the Disruptor is better.

But most people think that it isn't because they think it's hard to deploy the damage of two turns on against the same shield.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 08:58 pm: Edit

The photon has always been less accurate, but more "crunchy". The disruptor has been more accurate and fires more quickly...and more cheaply, too. Making the disruptor even more accurate than it is doesn't feel balanced to me. Further, conisder that the example above, while true, doesn't take the power cost into account. The Fed has to pay six points each for those four fastload photons, while the disruptor pays only four. On top of that, at range 5-8, the +2 UIM disruptor won't miss, while the Fed has no such guarentee. So, for four points, you get a guarenteed result of six points of damage per disruptor; for six, you get the usual photon gamble, with no improvement. Hardly sporting, especially when shields are down and those disruptors start mizia-ing the crap out of the opposition.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 09:01 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

But a lot of battles are fought at overload range. Generally fights outside overload ranges take on the character of preliminatry maneuverings.

---

---

Quote:

Equality in a toe-to-toe slugging match isn't everything,

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 09:18 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Making the disruptor even more accurate than it is doesn't feel balanced to me.

---

---

Quote:

Further, conisder that the example above, while true, doesn't take the power cost into account. The Fed has to pay six points each for those four fastload photons, while the disruptor pays only four.

---

---

Quote:

On top of that, at range 5-8, the +2 UIM disruptor won't miss, while the Fed has no such guarentee. So, for four points, you get a guarenteed result of six points of damage per disruptor; for six, you get the usual photon gamble, with no improvement. Hardly sporting, especially when shields are down and those disruptors start mizia-ing the crap out of the opposition.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 09:46 pm: Edit

Mike, I would add to your post by pointing out that part of what makes the Heavy Disruptor great is that though it only gains one damage point it does get it for FREE. The six based disruptor still costs only two to arm. Base twelve OL for only 4 of ANY ENERGY.

The photon will cost 6 WARP ENERGY to get 12 (though it warhead maintains it damage over range). But even compair at a bit further range where the Disruptor will be doing 10 damage for 4 energy the Photon would cost 5 to do the same. Additionally the photon damage is mitigated by the difference in energy because of shield reinforcement. Effectively the Photon is doing a point less for more energy.

And thats no counting accuracy.

No, the heavy disruptor as previously stated is a great match for the X2 Photon, IMO. (partly based on my own photon proposal which is a 20 max war head, 16 point max fast load, 12 point standard max. There is a slightly modified table.)

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 06:49 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Like the Feds can't find an ECM drone!?!

---

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 01:10 pm: Edit

This discussion predisposes that the photon and disr need to be 'pound for pound' or 'kg. for kg.' equal.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Rodger, they were before. They don't have to be perfectly matched though now, but they should be fairly close. If either can be balanced by tweaking the ship a little by addding a phaser and a couple hull or what ever then that's close enough for me. Klingons will still have better turn modes, similar hull volume, power, a more damage resistant phaser suite. The disruptor may be a bit lighter than the photon but ON a Klingon ship it holds its own just fine, IMO.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 08:50 pm: Edit

Let's look at average damage per turn over the entire overload range group for the GW UIM Disruptor and the GW Photon.

Range	0	1	2	3-4	5-8
1 Pair UIM O/L Disruptor	20	16.66	13.33	13.33	10
Alternate Pair of 16 point Photons	16	16	13.33	10.66	8
Percentage Dis better than Pho	25%	4%	0%	25%	25%

The Disruptor is not Pound for Pound better than the Photon, it's ever so slightly better at some range brackets and the same at others but far better at a few others.


Quite frankly something like Intergrated UIM, Disruptor Caps and a 6 Impulse Double Broadside penalty are going to be more than enough to keep the Disruptors competative with the 24 point Photon, especially after the Klingons mount 6 Disruptors instead of 4.


Without the UIM the Disruptor drops in the 3-8 brackets to 10.66 and 8 which are both 0% increases over the Photon mean the Disruptor and Photon are pretty close with the Disruptor being slightly better.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 09:46 pm: Edit

Lets look at the X1 Disruptor array against the X2 Photon.

Range	0	1	2	3-4	5-8
Trio OL Disruptor	30	25	19.5	16	12
Trio OL UIM Disruptor	30	25	19.5	19.5	15
Pair Fastloaded 12 pointers	24	24	20	16	12
Pair Fastloaded 16 pointers	32	32	26.66	21.33	16
Pair alternate 24 pointers	24	24	20	16	12

An intergated UIM, Disruptor Caps and a six impulse double broadside penalty is all the Disruptor needs to remain competative.

The Klingon will have a lot of other advantages ( and I'ld like to see them have cheaper ships in the early X2 period than the Feds.
12Ph-1s is more resistant to mizia than 8Ph-5s.
6 Disruptors ( after they are gotten shall be more resistant to Mizia than four Photons.
The Klingons will have more drone racks ( even if it's just an X2E-racks ).
The Klingons will have better turn modes.

The Disruptor users don't need much to remain competative becuase the Disruptor is already a hellish weapon.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 10:51 pm: Edit

Disruptors are indeed a good weapon, particularly in fleet strength. The same is true of the Photon. For non-X ships the two are pretty even, with small advantages one way or the other depending on the rules and game conditions. The disruptor may have slightly better statistics, but the photon has other advantages.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 11:04 pm: Edit

I'm pretty much finished with this debate until there's playtest results to chew over.

I like our heavy disruptor, AI disruptor and Disruptor Cannon and would like to see how they work in combat.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 12:17 am: Edit

Artificial Intelligence Disruptor? Hey,that's a new one!

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 12:38 am: Edit

After some thought, I have redone the AT Disruptor Proposal. Here it is.


AT Disruptor (Arced Trajectory)
X2 Disruptor Bolt REVISED

Background: The Kozenko Design Bureau, along with the Klingon High Command faced an impasse with the past developments of the disruptor bolt. After the GW, attempts were made to increase its effectiveness. All attempts failed to increase its damage output and rate of fire. Moreover, the UIM and DERFACS modules were already examples of technology that pushed its basic accuracy to the limit. In the past, the solution was to increase the amount of disruptors by 50%, and add redundancy to existing technology, i.e. UIM and DERFACS and have holding capability.

Recently, however Klingon scientists discovered a way to 'curve' the trajectory of their disruptor bolts. They discovered that depending on the direction of the 'arced' bolt they were able to hit shields that were adjacent on either side to the facing shield.

Arming: same as STD disruptor; 2 points for basic damage plus point to be added from Reserve power at the instance of firing. There is no holding AT Disruptors.

Firing: a ship armed with AT Disruptors can arm as if they were standards and use the standard to hit and damage charts (UIM and DERFACS included) or as explained above pay 1 point of reserve power to place it into AT mode. At that moment of adding the extra point the disruptor (in AT mode) must fire.

Rate Of Fire: same; 1 per turn, standard 8 imp. delay
To Hit: see chart below
Damage: see chart below

AT Disruptor To Hit and Damage Chart

Range	0	1	2-3	4-12	13-17	18-24	25-32
To Hit	-	5	4	4	3	2	2
Damage	-	5	4	3	2	2	1

Targeting Advancement: The firing ship can choose to hit one of three shields: either the facing shield, or one of the shields directly adjacent to it. Example: If shield #6 is the facing shield, then the firing ship could target this shield (#6)or #1 or #5. In the case of a split hex facing, there would only be two choices.

Restrictions:If fired in AT mode, UIM & DERFACS cannot be used.

Notes: I thought of what would Klingons develop if they could not drastically improve on the basic to hit or basic damage. They are lovers of battle. They would admire skill and tactical cleverness. They fly very manuverable boats. They would want consistant effectiveness from their weapons. Changing the disruptor into a more of a 'crunch' (more photonish) or power hungry (AKA manuverability limiter) weapon is not in their milleu. The AT Disruptor might be the Klingon answer.Inspired by a technique in fencing called Coupe': also cut-over; an attack or deception that passes around the opponent's tip. [pron. koopiyay].

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 12:28 am: Edit

New proposal for Kzinti-only disruptor change:

Advanced Disruptor Cannon:

The original disruptor cannon used by the Carnivorons was a two turn weapon that did double the damage of a disruptor. The description says that the Kzintis might have used cannons instead of bolts if they had been able to figure out an overload. The Advanced Disruptor Cannon has that breakthrough.

The disruptor cannon fires on the following chart:

Range	0	1	2	3-4	5-8	9-15	16-22	23-30	31-40
Standard	x	1-5	1-5	1-4	1-4	1-4	1-3	1-2	1-2
OL	1-6	1-5	1-5	1-4	1-4	x	x	x	x
Standard Damage	x	10	8	8	6	6	4	4	2
Overload Damage	20	20	16	16	12	x	x	x	x

This is identical to a disruptor without UIM or Derfacs, except the damage is doubled.

Arming cycle:

Standard (2 turn) 2+2 with rolling delay. Cannot be overloaded once 2 power is allocated to the weapon.

Standard (1 turn) 4. Cannot be held as a standard shot, but can be upgraded to a two-turn overload.

Overload (2 turn) 4+4 with rolling delay. Cannot be converted back into a standard shot.

Overload (1 turn) 8 power. Cannot be held. If fired as a one-turn overload, there is a one turn cooldown period. If armed as a one-turn OL and not fired, the weapon must be discharged (without a cooldown).

I would expect there would be 4 of these on a Kzinti XCA replacing the 4 disruptor bolts on the BC and CX.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 08:04 am: Edit

Been talking about this one for months, Jeff. This is exactly what a couple of us also propose for the Kzinti.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 12:11 pm: Edit

Yup.