Archive through February 14, 2004
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 ph-1: Archive through February 14, 2004
By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 11:21 pm: Edit

..and there's where the problem occurs.

Some of us (namely me for starters) think the P-2 table is a litle much, ESPECIALLY if the power cost is .5

I think it's a bit too much for .75

I think allowing a P-5 to fire as a full-blown gatling is nuts.

2x P-6 is all I'd ever want a P-5 to have.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 11:33 pm: Edit

The Ph-6 is, at close range, better than a Ph-2. With the exception of the low power opion of firing as a Ph-1 the Ph-5 should fire only as advanced weapons. I.e. as a Ph-5 or Ph-6. I don't really care to see the "Dial a Phaser" option. Ph-5/Ph-1/2xPh-6 is pleanty of options and any more would crowd the SSD way too much.

As far as the Ph-5 is concerned the Ph-2 and Ph-3 should be forgotten. Klingon Ph-1s would be equivelent to X1 phasers with the same options.

Again, I'm in full agreement with John here; Ph-5 as Ph-G is nuts.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 12:01 am: Edit

I'm still convinced that P5s are 1.5 and P6s are .75.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 12:47 am: Edit

Quote:

That proved to be too usefully long ranged, so I hit on cutting the *megaphaser* table in half. That's been the generally-accepted heavy phaser table. We dubbed it the "P-5"


We also cut the range bracket so that it inflict the damage in the R9-10 bracket as though it was R11 so as to help GW ships fire overloads on the X2 vessels.

Quote:

I won't go past mentioning MJC and his desire to see the 1.5 cost P-5 fire as 3x P-3 in rapid-pulse mode. The proposal is so excessive on its face that nobody but MJC likes it.


A CX can rapid pulse from her 12Ph-1s some 24 Ph-3 shots.
If an XCA has 8Ph-5s how does she generate silimlar levels of defensive fire particularly as it's BPV worth of GW ships is a lot of Drones to shoot down.
Now if Ph-6s autokill Type IF drones at R1 I'll be less worried about the loss of the defensive fire with a move to 16Ph-6 shots in rapid pulse but I'm still yet to see a Ph-6 table that could do that ( that didn't itself look exactly like an overloaded Ph-3 table ).


Quote:

I think we all agreed on the Ph-5 table its self.


A few people even agreed that 12Ph-1s had parity with 8Ph-5s which lead to the possibility of extra racial flavour.

Quote:

I recommend Ph-5 can fire as 2xPh-2 or 4xPh-3 for 2pts. Also Ph-6 can fire as 1xPh-2 or 2xPh-3 for 1pt. This would cause problems with a bunch of phaser tables on the SSD, but maybe we can skimp there.

I also agree with the 3x(cost) capacitors.


Well there arn't many who think the Phaser Caps should be 4.5 points.
3 points is double Shots for the Ph-5 and X1 had double shots so the Admiralty will be okay as they'll be missing out on nothing.
3 point Caps with the X2 Ph-1s will just be a slight improvement to let them be X2 weapons instead of X1.

I would'nt go sao far as to say Four Ph-3 shots from anything that isn't gatling...it's one of the big mistakes of the old suppliment 2.

Now 1 Ph-5 firing as
1 Ph-5, 1 Ph-1, 1 Ph-2, 1 Ph-6, 1 Ph-3
2 Ph-6,
3 Ph-3

And a Ph-6 firing as
1 Ph-6
2 Ph-3

I'm okay with but I'm willing to see the 3Phg-3 dropped if the 2Ph-6 can generate as effective a defnse against GW drones as the X1 CXs have.


Quote:

I don't really care to see the "Dial a Phaser" option. Ph-5/Ph-1/2xPh-6 is pleanty of options and any more would crowd the SSD way too much


I do...infact Phaser dialing is one of the few ways a vessel can save energy.
And the Overloaded Phaser tables of the old X1 were never actually in the SSD, they were in the bopok, so we don't need more then the Ph-5 table on the SSD and perhaps the Ph-6 and/or Ph-3 as well.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 11:32 am: Edit

I edited the final table that seemed to be accepted. I tried to make it a smoother damage out put over range. In actuallity the Ph-5 is usually just a point stronger than the Ph-1 but it's damage curve is smoother.

Mike Raper lowered the power generation of his personal proposals and so one point to power the Ph-5 works. The amount of extra damage that the Ph-5 out puts is not so much as to not be explained by better targeting computers (among other hardware enhancements).

However, this takes away the reason to fire the Ph-5 as a ph-1. That's not so bad except I liked the dynamic of saving power firing as a Ph-1 when the tactical situation allowed. Of course, I suppose Mikes Ph-5 could be repaired as a Ph-1 for less cost. Additionally that Ph-1 would be an X1 type (?). Mikes Ph-5 also does eliminate the need for the Ph-1 table on the SSD.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 12:41 pm: Edit

I liked the P-5 that was sure-fire damage out to range 10, but I prefer ships that are quite a bit lighter than most people seem to. A ship that doesn't have the direct-fire firepower of a CX needs to be about to stay out of OL range but still be more effective.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 01:52 pm: Edit

Quote:

Mike Raper lowered the power generation of his personal proposals and so one point to power the Ph-5 works. The amount of extra damage that the Ph-5 out puts is not so much as to not be explained by better targeting computers (among other hardware enhancements).



Yeah, that's true. One reason I know we went with a power cost of 1.5 for the P5 was to help with the excess power problem some of the early X2 designs we saw had. My personal opinion is to keep the power down to a manageable level - say 50 total points for an XCA/CC - and leave the P5 at one point, and the P6 at .5. It works just like the X1 P1 or P3 did, but due to advances in targeting, performs a bit better. As a player, if I had to pay 1.5 for a P5, or could fire them as P1's for 1 point and get three free turns with my phasers instead of two (thanks to triple capacitors) I'd go with the P1's every time to save power. Again, it's all my opinion, but I say keep it simple and leave the primary phaser as a 1 point weapon and the defensive one as a .5 point one.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 02:06 pm: Edit

Mike, it's a fine option. Currently it holds as much sway to me as my previous proposals. I think I can keep my old designs and adopt that paradigm with some not too major changes.
I'm thinking on it. You have good points that are sure to have influence!

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 05:35 pm: Edit

If X2's power were to drop to or below X1 levels, I might like 1-point P-5's more.

I have a Fed CA proposal that has 34 warp and a rule that says warp used for movement is multiplied by 1.5. Having a power curve closer to an advanced GW ship, a P-5 costing 1.5 would be excessively draining.

At actual X1 power levels, I'd probably still want a 1.5 to force harder power choices on the player.

X1 just has it too easy.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 08:04 pm: Edit

Quote:

As a player, if I had to pay 1.5 for a P5, or could fire them as P1's for 1 point and get three free turns with my phasers instead of two (thanks to triple capacitors) I'd go with the P1's every time to save power. Again, it's all my opinion, but I say keep it simple and leave the primary phaser as a 1 point weapon and the defensive one as a .5 point one.


You'ld trade-in 3.5 points of damage per capital phaser for 2.16 just to save 0.5 points of power...so with the 6 bearing Phasers in any standard attack, the XCA would generate 13 points of damage and have 3 points of power left in the CAPs ( and Caps-to-SSReo when the way of the dodo ) instead of 21 points of damage.

Could I perhaps interest you in a Klingon XCA with her 12Ph-1s you'll oblique for 8 (or 10 in a perfect oblique ) for 17.33 damage ( or 21.66 in the perfect oblique ). With tripple caps on those X2 Ph-1s it'll be a long time before you need to refill.
And IF you do get the enemy into a perfect oblique at R5, your 35 points of damage will be ahead of his 30.


Quote:

If X2's power were to drop to or below X1 levels, I might like 1-point P-5's more.


Since power in caps can only be used for phasers.
We're looking at 8 by 3 for 24 points of power in the caps.
If we oblique to fire 6 of them and pay 1.5 each then we are paying 9 total each attack run and 24/9 yeilds 2.666' attack runs before needed to refill the Caps.
If we oblique to fire 6 of them and pay 1.0 each then we are paying a total of 6 and 24/6 yeilds 4 attack runs before we need to refill the caps.

1.3333 attack runs by 6 Ph-5s and 1.5 each is 12 points of power late in the battle...assume no Phaser loses in the mean time.
3+9 power in the 4th and 5th turn ( if using fastloads ) or 8th & 10th ( if going for two turn arming ( or somewhere in the middle if looking for a mix ) really doesn't break the game...especially since it'll be unlikely that the caps will be intact that far into the game.

I'ld say it's just not a big deal...sure it's a quantifiable and measurable thing but it's not a game breaker.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 08:27 pm: Edit

Quote:

You'ld trade-in 3.5 points of damage per capital phaser for 2.16 just to save 0.5 points of power...so with the 6 bearing Phasers in any standard attack, the XCA would generate 13 points of damage and have 3 points of power left in the CAPs ( and Caps-to-SSReo when the way of the dodo ) instead of 21 points of damage.



•••• right I would. The damage difference is minimal, and buys me a full third turn of high speed combat where I don't have to re-charge my capactiors. That's every bit worth the minor difference in damage. And, if you look at the cost in power vs. damage over that three turns, you'll find that three phaser 1's at one point each do one hell of a lot more than 2 phaser 5's at 1.5 each. It's more efficient, buys you time, and doesn't do that much less damage. You'd be crazy not to do it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 08:38 pm: Edit

The Ph-5 was about encuraging the long range game. Well, that was my perception, anyway.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 08:52 pm: Edit

Quote:

You'd be crazy not to do it.


It depends on your play style...I'ld rather have the extra 8 points of damage twice over in my first two attack runs.

Assuming all attacks are at R8.
2.16666/1 yeilds 2.1666 damage to power ratio.
3.5/1.5 yeilds 2.3333 damage to power ratio.

The Ph-5 is doing ever so slightly better at R8 from a damage to power ration point of veiw.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 09:00 pm: Edit

Quote:

Assuming all attacks are at R8.



Not a good assumption. I'm not fighting at range 8, I'm fighting closer than that.

But, let's say I do fight at that range. The point of using only P1's isn't the damage I do, it's the extra turn of free phaser capacitors for such a miniscule cost in damage. I'd much prefer the third turn of filled capacitors than getting a whopping .1667 extra damage per phaser.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 09:09 pm: Edit

Well...

4 attack runs by 6 phasers by 2.1666 => 52
2.333 attack runs by 6 phasers by 3.5 => 49

It is in the long run more effect and you won't move so slow during a 4 turn period...but firing the Ph-5s as Ph-5s gives you the damage up front.

I guess it depend on the play style...I would expect an extra 8 damage per volley to dish up a Phaser hit which would to some extent reduce the effectiveness of the enemy being able to "hold his breath" longer.

But this is the nature of phaser tactics...there isn't really a right or a wrong, only that which suits your plan and that which doesn't.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 09:14 pm: Edit

Quote:

X1 just has it too easy.


Consider taking a Fed CLa+ with free drones up against a Fed FFX.

X1 ship's don't have it easy, they just seem to because the CX doesn't really have a GW ship to duel with short of a DNG and then you have to mess around with S8 restrictions.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 09:46 pm: Edit

At 3.5 damage for 1.5 power versus 2.17 damage per 1 power (I assume this is correct, I haven't checked the P5 table), if three turns of shots are wanted from 18 power in caps, just fire four Ph-5 each time as this does slighty more average damage and keeps two as a threat. Personally, I'd fire all six and skip a heavy weapon or two to power the third volley.

FFX v CLa+ - the FFX is pretty sad as X-ships go but I'd still bet on the FFX.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 10:46 pm: Edit

Guys before everyone invests a lot more time into this discussion you need to figure the power to damage ratio of the various power settings compared to the p1.

No way will SVC/SPP approve any phaser weapon that exceeds the power-damage ratio of the P1. Without a LOT of tactical drawbacks to balance it. Some variation above/below it is to be expected. But every time it goes above it needs to go below as well at the least.

Heres a list calculating the power to damage of a perfect distribution of die results.

Explnation: P5/P1 is the type. 1p or 1.5p is the power. Then theres the average of 6 perfect rolls.

P5 R1 1p=7.5
P5 R1 1.5p=5
P5 R1 1p=5.33

P5 R5 1p=4.5
P5 R5 1.5p=3
P1 R5 1p=4

P5 R8 1p=3.5
P5 R8 1.5p=2.33
P1 R8 1p=2.16

P5 R15 1p=2
P5 R15 1.5p=1.33
P1 R15 1p=1

P5 R50 1p=0.66
P5 R50 1.5p=0.44
P1 R50 1p= 0.5

*Note: I took the P5 table directly from one of Mike R. recent submissions.

I hope this is helpful for the discussion. Because I have spent a LOT of time constructing weapon/power ratios for the Shield Galaxy project.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 10:50 pm: Edit

Another consideration:

It has been stated that 12xP1 are approximately equal to 8xP5.

12xP1 take 12 power to fire.
8xP5 should take 12 power to fire.

At one power to fire a P5 the X2 ship just got a 4 point power boost.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 11:37 pm: Edit

There is very good reasons to use the Ph-5 over the ph-1 and one is a more predictable damage output. There are ranges that the Ph-1 will be expected to do nothing where the Ph-5 will likely do some.

Indeed, at close range the Ph-1 will do very well and the power saving option is a good choice. However, at long range phasers become an actual option and not so much a waste of energy. That's what the Ph-5 was all about. I've always expected the Ph-1 option to be regularly used at close range except when maximum crunch is vital.

The trade off was a dynamic I was hoping for. When to use each is something a player should have to decide for each situation.

Could be that, in recent light of things, the Ph-5 is a tad weak? Maybe it should get a point boost for the 1.5 power cost?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:02 am: Edit

I like the Ph-5 table as it is.

Basiacally when you attack in the Realm of R6-15 the 8Ph-5 suite is better and when you do so at R5 the 12Ph-1 suite is better and the Ph-1s get better at slightly faster rate than Ph-5s as you get closer...creating a techonlogical and Racial Flavour:- X2 ships shouldn't let themselves get too close to X1 ships or Klingons.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:07 am: Edit

Well, I've always wanted X2 to lend it's self to a longer range battle.

I want to get away from the close and hose as much as possible. At longer range it a better chess match though a bit longer game in general.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:08 am: Edit

Quote:

FFX v CLa+ - the FFX is pretty sad as X-ships go but I'd still bet on the FFX.


They're both pretty sad ships.

The big drawback for the FFX is that to get the 7 ECCM she needs to garrenttee the -1 shift, she needs to invest 21 points of movement or a big hunk of her BTTY power.

The Fed CLa+ can generate 6 ECM without much drama ( 8 movement points )...party because she's under gunned.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:17 am: Edit

The CLa+ is actually a very good ship for its time period.

Now, years and years later, it is undergunned, but comparing it to an X-ship is a little unfair.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:40 am: Edit

Well the FFX has 2 X1 Photons & the CLa+ has 2 GW Photons.

So the battle isn't going to be a cake walk for the FFX.

The CLa+ also has 6Ph-1s, 2Ph-3s and a G-rack to compete with the FFX's 5 X1 Ph-1s and 2 X1 Gracks.

The CLa+ also has 30 Power producing boxes and four 1 point BTTYs whilst the FFX has only 20 power producing boxes and three 3 point BTTYs.

The biggest drawback of the FFX is lack of power to perform EW and the biggest drawback of the CLa+ is her paper thin shields ( marginally compensated for by armour ).

All in all it's no cake walk for either ship which makes the battle reasonably fair.

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