MJC,

No, there is just one type of mega-phaser. The big and little is in the size of the "wing" you can mount; a little wing has 1, and a big wing as 2. In regards to the ships phaser damage output, look at the whole original post; particularly the part comparing a CX's phaser damage to the total phaser damage of the proposed XCC. It's almost exactly the same, but the XCC has way less phaser padding. The Klingons will be just fine; the BCX I'm working has six disruptors, with D5 arcs and integrated UIM and DERFACS, plus 4 point capacitors. They will eat anyone that comes too close alive.

The heavy phaser, as a two turn weapon, would indeed get the most benefit of firing on alternate turns of the fully overloaded photon. It allows the feds, who will have less phasers, to achieve full overloads while avoiding (or at least discouraging) an overrun by an aggressive klingon seeking to exploit a safe turn. The phaser-H simply helps achieve phaser parity; it won't be a big unbalancing factor, at least when compared to the other ships I'm working with. The aforementioned BCX has 12 phasers; four P-5's, and eight P-1's; it won't suffer or need anything to compensate, particularly since the disruptor is improved and the photon is not.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 11:11 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

The phaser-H simply helps achieve phaser parity; it won't be a big unbalancing factor, at least when compared to the other ships I'm working with.

---

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 11:39 pm: Edit

I just don't think a new, much bigger, phaser is the way to go. If the Feds had 8 ph-5 and the Klingons had 3-4 ph-5 + 7-8 ph-1, is that even?

Personally, I'm not as concerned as MJC is about the difference in padding between a ship with 8 ph-5 vs a ship with 12 ph-5. The concept of padding comes in when ships have different types of phasers, such as ph-3 & ph-1.

We all know that the races all fought the General War and have 40 years worth of "lessons learned" that can go into creating the best all-purpose ship. But that's not necessarily the most fun ship to play. In fact, a perfectly optimized ship is boring.

But, if we make ships with more power, better weapons, and new gizmos, but still have some weaknesses, that would make it more fun.

For example, one lesson the Feds learned is that they need as much FA coverage as possible from the phasers to complement the photons. Too often, captains would try to centerline a target to bring the 2-3 offside phasers to bear.

What if, instead of mounting the saucer phasers at FH, LS, RS, they were mounted in FH, FA-L, FA-R? This subtle change would improve FA phaser firepower without adding more phasers.

The drawback: weakened drone defence. But, the designers could assume that high speed a pair of RH ph-5 rapid-pulse phasers, a G-rack, X1-aegis, and a special bridge would more than make up for it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 01:08 am: Edit

Jeff: That's what I did with my design. My Fed XFF design has four Ph-5 which are FA-L / FA-R. They achieved this by rotating the side phasers forward about 20°. The XFF has no front possition phasers, just the four but they cover the front very nicely. The rear is covered by RH Ph-6's.
All in all I agree with your arcs mentioned.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 05:39 am: Edit

I'm not so sure having full firepower across a 120 degress arc is so good for stopping the starcastle.


And I personnally like the idea of the 8Ph-5s having less padding than the 12Ph-1s.

It's the effect of 11on/8off Ph-5s that can take 10 phaser hits against the 12Ph-1s that worries me...it'ld force the Klingons to move to something else ( probably 4Ph-5 and 8Ph-1 as the standard suite )...and I like the idea that it was a TREATY that forced the 12Ph-1/8Ph-5 balance...everybody can refit to 12Ph-5s eventually so that'ld give you practically the same effect as this uber phaser anyway.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 06:55 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I just don't think a new, much bigger, phaser is the way to go. If the Feds had 8 ph-5 and the Klingons had 3-4 ph-5 + 7-8 ph-1, is that even?

---

---

Quote:

What if, instead of mounting the saucer phasers at FH, LS, RS, they were mounted in FH, FA-L, FA-R? This subtle change would improve FA phaser firepower without adding more phasers.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 08:41 am: Edit

Yeah, but in an oblique at R8, the Klingons would inflict ( in a perfect oblique ) ( 4 x 3.5 + 4 x 2.166 ) 22.66 points of damage whilst the Fed with her 3+6 Ph-5s would inflict 31.5!

The Klingons would need a serious boost, thank goodness it only once every second turn.


Now the old Klingon 10Ph-1 ( in a perfect oblique ) would inflict at R8 some 21.66, whilst the 6 bearing Ph-5 inflict back some 21 points of damage.

...All we need to do from there is orginaise the heavies to match and we'll do swimingly.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 09:16 am: Edit

That's true at that range, over one turn. However, over two turns, the Klingon fares a bit better. At Range 0 with a perfect oblique over two turns, the Klingon does an average of 118.6 with a "4+4" phaser arrangement. The Fed will do an average of 125 over the two turns. Without the heavy phaser, the Fed does signifigantly worse; an average of only 100 points.

In the meantime, the Klingons GET a serious boost by having six disruptors with caps and integrated UIM. They'll have more power for EW and a good every turn weapon. Even fastloading photons won't keep up with them at close ranges. The point here is that the XCA does no more phaser damage than the CX did, but that's not true of the Klingon's XBC. It's getting a good boost the Fed won't.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 09:16 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

At Range 0 with a perfect oblique over two turns,

---

---

Quote:

In the meantime, the Klingons GET a serious boost by having six disruptors with caps and integrated UIM. They'll have more power for EW and a good every turn weapon. Even fastloading photons won't keep up with them at close ranges. The point here is that the XCA does no more phaser damage than the CX did, but that's not true of the Klingon's XBC. It's getting a good boost the Fed won't.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 10:16 pm: Edit

Looking at Jeff's Fed X2CA, I had a few comments. Overall it seems fine. I do think tha 52 warp is a bit much, as is 12 labs (even the GSX has only 10). The "any" box looks good, but I'd question it being armor. The other systems are all internal; armor is literally external hull plating covering the surface of the ship. Other than that, it's a good start. What kind of photon proposal are you going with?

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 02:08 pm: Edit

Mike R.

In reference to your FED XDD [revised].

I like the magazine idea a bit. But a magazine takes up the same amount of space as the drone rack itself. But doesnt stress the frame so I can go with your proposal or not.

The most important changed needed. Is that almosty every ship with magazine space has it as an extra space connected to the rack. For example the Z BT.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 08:37 pm: Edit

Moved to correct topic by author.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 03:48 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I do think tha 52 warp is a bit much

---

---

Quote:

as is 12 labs (even the GSX has only 10).

---

---

Quote:

but I'd question it being armor. The other systems are all internal; armor is literally external hull plating covering the surface of the ship.

---

---

Quote:

One rule I have always wanted to use is "multi-system boxes." You have a box on the SSD that, every turn, you can use as a lab, a tractor, a transporter, or maybe two or three other choices.

---

---

Quote:

What kind of photon proposal are you going with?

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 08:10 am: Edit

There are two things I think that disqualify armor as an option for the multi-system box. One, it's external to the ship. Other systems like lab, transporters or hull are all inside, where the box itself is. Another reason is that armor cannot be repaired. This system can, which would mean either invalidating the rules on armor or that once the system was made into armor and destroyed you couldn't fix it.

Oh, and just curious on the photon thing; it doesn't affect the SSD, but it is critical to the overall effectiveness of the ship.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 10:00 pm: Edit

OK, maybe armor isn't a good idea for the "Any" box. But I'm looking at Annex 9, cost of repair, for a list of systems used in the game.

If you limit yourself to non-weapon, non-power, non-ammunition, that leaves lab, transporter, hull, tractor, armor, cargo, and barracks. And the last two seem silly since you couldn't keep the cargo or the marines after you change the box back to a tractor beam.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 04:26 am: Edit

Great so pick the highest of those ( Lab ) and add one for every other function and you'll get your repair cost.

I also think Hull is silly for the same reasons as Barracks.
I wouldn't mind on the other hand if both probe launcher and Reapir were added so...

You would have a repair cost of ( including hull ) 8.
And I would have a reapir cost of ( including repair and probe but not Hull ) 10.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 11:14 am: Edit

ISC XDD

Has 28 points on it's #1 and 4. The other shields have 30. Is this intentional? The XFF has equal shields all around.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 01:57 pm: Edit

Are you referring to my Xdd? I would have wanted 30-30-30-30

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 02:55 pm: Edit

John, Yep it's your XDD. It only has 28 shielding on #1,4 but 30 on the rest. You may want to update your SSD. I can make the changes on what I have with no trouble for SFBOL testing.

I figured it was a mistake since the XFF had equal all around shielding.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 07:29 pm: Edit

K, thanks.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 10:22 pm: Edit

I just sent JT four SSDs, a reworked Fed, Klingon, Kzinti, and Hydran XCA.

Since I'll be hopping a plane to go on vacation tomorrow (4 nights in Vegas), I wanted to get my thoughts about the ships out on the board.

In general, the biggest thing I'm concerned about is the power problem (or lack thereof). I had always seen 48 as a logical number for the progression of warp engine capabilities. But is it too much for a speed 31 ship? Even a ship that is supposed to be an even money matchup against TWO GW cruisers?

Fed: After taking a second look at range 10 OL with improved to-hits, I decided it probably wasn't going to "play nice". I went back to look for something that would cause the Fed to drain his power. So I changed it back to Range 8, kept the regular to-hit chart, installed megaphotons, and allowed the X1 fastload (that everyone else seems to want to keep). I also gave the ship a C turn mode, to reflect the improved engines (I did this for all 2 engine ships, but left it unchanged for 3 engine ships)

Klingon: Built to dance. At range 15, the ph-5, with 4-3-2-2-1-0, does the same average as the disruptor 3-3-3-3-0-0, but the disruptor now fires twice. The rear ph-5s were moved to the back of the ship, similar to how the Klingons have always designed their frigates.

Hydran: I reduced the size of the fighters down to 15, that way a T-bomb would still cripple a fighter.

Drones, er, Kzinti: Last year when this thread started, I envisioned the Klingons getting better drones while the Kzintis would work on being able to fire more drones. This is reflected in the Klingon keeping 2 racks, but filling them with X2 drones; while the Kzintis would mount 6 C-type racks, but filling them with X1 drones, and putting Triple-drone control on the ship.

Disruptors:

The Klingon Particle Disruptor fires twice a turn, as long as it does not fire two overloads.

The Kzinti Disruptor Cannon fires once a turn, or the charge can be built up over two turns.

The Lyran Disruptor Capacitor (once I publish a Lyran ship) will fire once a turn for normal disruptor damage, but it has a capacitor that has no hold cost.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 11:09 pm: Edit

lack of power problems is why my Fed XCA uses efficient rather than powerful warp drive.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 11:48 pm: Edit

Jeff's SSDs are up.

http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/x2/jefftonglet/jeffs-x2-ships.htm

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 11:48 pm: Edit

I think it would be easier for players if the "efficient" warp drive were stated as:

"For purposes of allocating energy for movement, the XCA has a MC of 2/3. For all other purposes (towing, etc.), the XCA has a MC of 1. This reflects the efficiency of the warp drive".

Rather than:

"The ship has a MC of 1. But, for purposes of movement, multiply warp power allocated by 1 1/2."

I think it's harder to calculate and conceptualize it the second way. But players understand how to allocate power to an NCL.

For example: If you have 32 warp, and want to go speed 23, how much power do you have for other purposes? If you look at it from the "MC 2/3" point of view, look at the MC 2/3 chart on the SSD, and go.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 12:02 am: Edit

I would state that as an example instead, that a XCA's MC is functionally 2/3.

The problem comes when you do XCL's. I guess you could do a 4/9 MC chart if you wanted...