Archive through February 06, 2004
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
The "X" Files:
OLD X2 FOLDER:
X2 disruptors:
Archive through February 06, 2004
If you give the Kzin 2 of these things, a few more drone racks, that would be ok.
A Kzinti able to do 80 points of damage at close range with heavy energy weapons is NOT a kzinti.
Furthermore, trying to give everyone a hard crunch power up close is exactly what happend with X1s phasers before the refit.
How about better weapons and less of them, except for the Fed, who keeps 4 torpedoes but does not get as much of an improvement.
I haven't followed the "X" Files thread all that closely, so I may be suggesting something that has already been suggested and rejected... but here goes.
Has anyone considered extending the range of overloaded X2 weapons? Suppose an X2 disruptor behaved like an X1 disruptor in all respects except that for 6 points of power it could be fired overloaded out to 10 hexes rather than 8. This would allow X2 ships to attempt "Glory Zone" type tactics against X1 or GW-era ships. But it would also carry a risk. The extended range overload requires more power and this might make it impossible to keep beyond range 8 from an X1 ship (depending on total power availability for X2 ships) and if the X1 ship closed to 8 hexes or less it would have an advantage since its disruptors would do the same damage but the ship would be expending less power, hence having more power for other things. (Note that the X2 ship is not required to use extended range overload. It could load the disruptors for 4 points of power and they would behave exactly like X1.) An X2 ship with this capability would be death against slow ships like monitors and some battle tugs, since it could easily engage them in the 9-10 hex range bracket. But against X1 ships, war cruisers, light dreadnoughts, PFs, and similar ships with the power curve to fight at high speed, the tactic would be risky.
I don't know if this idea would be workable or not. If it has been considered and rejected, what was the rationale for the rejection? If it hasn't been considered, I'ld like to discus it.
Alex,
We've been at this for a year now. We thought of it. 12-hex OL ranges was a part of Commander's X2 (piece of crap that it was...) The current wisdom comes down aginst the idea. Here's why.
The problem with extended OL range is it tends to run afoul of a SVC requirement that X BPV of X2 and GW fight as equals.
As the tech difference widens balance becomes harder. A quick thought experiement for you would be to have the CX of your choice fight its weight in EY ships of your choice.
We have to create tech that makes X2 bright, new and fun to play without overwhelming standard SFB tech. Extending OL range, with the attending possibility of being able to inflict unanswered overloads on an opponent, breaks X2 vs Standard rather badly.
John:
Thanks - Though my name is Alan, not Alex. (I did the same thing to Jeremy Gray a few days ago, addressing him as Jeremy GREY.)
I understand your reasoning, though I would add that in a game as complicated as SFB with such different technologies between races and over time periods, you're always going to have some cases where one force is badly imbalanced against some other force of the same BPV. Anyway, just thought I'ld ask.
CFant said:
Quote:A Kzinti able to do 80 points of damage at close range with heavy energy weapons is NOT a kzinti.
Since this is X2 we're talking about, I would expect that the ships would not fly the same way as GW tech ships. If they all did, then what's the point?
Tos said:
Quote:So no way to use it as a single turn weapon? I don't think they would go for it. At that point the X1 disruptor w/UIM is better.
But the DC is different, and may fit more into the Kzinti style. And if we use "better" as the main criteria, then everyone gets a weapon without weaknesses.
Alan said:
Quote:Has anyone considered extending the range of overloaded X2 weapons? Suppose an X2 disruptor behaved like an X1 disruptor in all respects except that for 6 points of power it could be fired overloaded out to 10 hexes rather than 8
Range 10 is an idea, provided that the weapon is not improved in any other respect and probably reduced in some way.
The BPVs have been more or less hashed out that a X2 CA should be in the 300 BPV range (if you disagree, there's another thread for your reply). At that point value, a single GW CA should be toast, 2 CAs or 2 CWs should be an even match (1 destroyed GW CA and 1 crippled XCA), and in a 3-on-1, the X2 CA should be toast.
If the same criteria is used for all races in the design of their heavy weapon then X2 will be entirely predictable and uninteresting.
Races that remain with an existing weapon perhaps should get a weapon with no weakness not inherrent to the design. It should be the culmination of every thing the weapons should be.
Those using a NEW weapon should have some weakness because there is new territory being explored. The Kzinti using the DC is the perfect example. The DC will have some tactical challenges for the Kzinti to overcome and they might even make some ship design changes over the period of Y205 to Y220 as the settle in on their new paradigm. I would point out that the Kzinti got the snot kicked out of them in the GW and beyond. It is not unreasonable that they look to new stratagies and weapons to ensure their survival. One never knows how long they can count on or even desire the assistance of the Federation.
For the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would want X2 to be same ol' same old. X2 should, and in fact is mandated to, shack things up with something fresh and new.
Further more, don't forget that GW designs as well as X1 designs will continue well into the Y200's so there will be some of the same ol' same old for those that desire it.
Then again, perhaps that attitude is healthy on this thread to keep us tempered and from going totally warped. 
Ships tthrowing out as much damage as a Battle Station........
Quote:"1-5 for 10 damage at range 8!?!?!?"
I would not support UIM working with the DC. I could support using a HB style to-hit table to give it some added flavor, particularly if we go with option 3.
I don't really mind if UIM is in there...actually if there was an AUTO BURN OUT on UIM when used as a DC overload and the GW UIM 32 impulse penalty was applied ( I also think DC fastloads would be handy ) then the UIM DC would be okay...in that it is like a drone...there is a limited supply of UIMs to chuck at the enemy.
Standard DC shot would have regular GW UIM penalties with the regular UIM burn out die roll.
I would like to say that on disruptors I am not a MORE is better guy.
I'm for six Disruptors ( and a refit to make them go from four to six to account for poor ecconomy of Klingons after all the wars ).
For Disruptor CAPs.
For Built in UIM.
For six impulse double broadside disruptors.
This doesn't make X2 Klingon Cruisers more deadly than X1 cruisers based purely on the heavy weapon output but it does make them a whole heck of a lot easier to fly which in turn makes them more deadly..
Alan,
You're right. SFB has its RPS cases where one race's tech has a distinct advantage over another.
Thing is, we cannot allow X2 a general RPS advanatge over standard SFB tech. SVC's rules.
In truth, we're not doing anythihng official for the ADB here. It's all sound and fury, signifying nothing until SVC decides otherwise.
Here's a challenge for you, then. Change our minds. I know what I think, but perhaps you can work out a way where a range-10 overload wouldn't be overbalancing. Feel free to propose it here and maybe put together a ship that incorporates it. If you look around the boards, you'll find topics on good SSD-making tools.
I have a partial gallery of X2 tech and ships at this site:
http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/x2.htm
It's still a work in progress. There's tons of stuff on these boards here that need adding to the site. But when you have rules you like and/or a ship or two I'll happily post them. Won't matter if I like your idea or not.
Take it from me guys. New weapons and systems are hard to write and even harder to balance.
I've been to busy plinking away at the Shield Galaxy E-module to really stay fully current on 2X.
My Romulan Proposal was actually very modest. Giving the Roms more arming options but nothing in plasma usage that GW ships haven't faced before.
So lets try setting what we think of as a reasonable benchmark for Photons/disruptors and try them out from that point. Preferably against same race (Fed vs Fed) to get an idea of what the BPV should be. I tried 20 pointers in a couple of quick and dirty games and they seemed to be more than sufficient vs 2 GW ships.
Ken,
Big difference: We're at best an advisory body, at worst just flapping our virtual gums. You're working toward published rules.
This forum is for thinking out loud and tossing out ideas for other people to tinker with and shoot down. There's no gurantee that SVC will go with any ideas the majority here like.
If a *concept* we propose here gets into the game, that'll be great. In a condition close to what we wrote it would be an un-hoped-for marvel.
Can someone distill down the recent discussion regarding X2-Disruptors and give an overview of what's being considered here?
AFAIK, there are two basic schools of thought on this subject:
- Different "flavors" of disruptor for each race. For example, the Klingons might get a base-six damage disruptor with integrated UIM and DERFACS. The Tholians, a disruptor that will fire through webs. The Lyrans might get one that works from a capacitor system like the ESG, and might even share power with the ESG's for a concentrated pool of energy for weapons. The Kzintis might get an X2 version of the Disruptor cannon, or something else unique for them.
- The other trend is almost the exact opposite...to make one disruptor for everyone, with only minor differences (no UIM for everyone for example).
That's basically where we are, I think. I personally favor the first option.
R. Brodie, you asked for it.
Disruptor Bolt - the traditional disruptor in the GW era.
Disruptor Cannon - a new weapon published in Module Y - Early Years.
Two turns arming (2+2 with rolling delay)
Does double damage (so the same average damage per turn as a bolt.)
Same to-hit as a disruptor bolt.
X2 Disruptor Cannon - add an overload feature. Yes, at range 0, the overload is 1-6 for 20. While at range 8, it's 1-4 for 12. But the arming cost is 4+4. Probably a Kzinti only weapon.
Particle Disruptor - A disruptor that fires twice a turn, similar to a Seltorian Particle Cannon. This balances against the photon, which fires twice as fast since the X1 fastload was invented. But it needs a more maneuverable ship and/or wide arcs to make best use of it. Probably a Klingon only weapon.
Disruptor Bolt with Capacitor - A Lyran improvement for the disruptor - zero hold cost, with a capacitor similar to their ESG.
There are other arguements -
Should these improved disruptors have UIM and/or DerFacs?
Would a XCA have 4 or 6 of these on the ship?
Would any of these have range 10 overloads?
If I've left anything out, let me know.
I'm not convinced a Tholian adaptaion of the Web Caster capacitor can't be applied to the partical cannon therefore eliminating the particle cannon hold cost and making it the Tholian weapon of choice. As mentioned they Lyrans might try the same concept using their ESG.
There are also base-6 damage heavy disruptors.
Some poking around in this thread led me to this archive that seems to have summarized some of the original ideas on 4/18/03:
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/23/3998.html?1051735525
I don't remember the ESG having a hold cost...
IIRC the PC is the only weapon that has a capacitor and a hold cost.
Eight months since that post, and we haven't settled anything.
Technically you loose one point from your Phaser caps every 25th turn ( in order to re-engerise them )...so it have a Hold cost of 0.04 point of power per turn.
I think the biggest question for the Disruptors is to go ask our selves if there should be four on a cruiser or 6.
I'll ask in the Poll Thread.
That's only part of the question. A bigger better disruptor may mean you only need four. One that isn't much improved may rate six instead. That issue has to be settled; the degree of improvement we're looking for, and how powerful in general X2 ships should be.
I think there will be 6 Disruptors on the Klingon XCA because of the Pseudo-engineering of "If you do it once; you can do it again".
Moving from Base 5 to base 6 or double damage for two turn loading; just aren't really big enough improvements to warrent a 33% reduction is numbers...and why not just take a shock penalty and mount the six!?!...If you don't need to fire all six then you'll skip out on the shock so the only reason the admiralty would have for not mounting them is COST or that they think their captains arn't competant...and only one of those is likely!
Another possible reason is treaty. This creates hulls that are less then maximized giving us somewhere to go when the Xorks arrive.
Adding integrated UIM and DERFACS to range 40 disruptors is a huge improvment...it ain't all about raw damage.
'why not just take a shock penalty'
Perhaps because the various government do not have the money to be building and supporting self-destructive ships, and/or because these ships are built in such limited numbers that putting one in stardock for six months because the captain felt that firing all of the guns was a Good Thing is unacceptable.
Shock is not a Good Thing. Ships that tear themselves apart are a Bad Thing, and accepting designs that do that under wartime conditions is not the same as accepting ships that do that when the primary mission of said vessel is not to 'kill the other guy'.
Agreed. Nobody builds a general-use ship that incurs shock.