Wow. Lots of posts! Here are my thoughts on this.

---

Quote:

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.

---

---

Quote:

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

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

---

1. Easier bookkeeping, especially when down-fired as a P6
2. It makes technological sense, following the progression from P2 to P1. It also makes X-refits to non-X ships much easier to explain because it doesn’t require complete replacement of the phaser itself…only the fire control system.
3. It makes the P5 a very efficient weapon, following a theme that I, at least, would like for X2…increased efficiency, rather than just brute power.
4. It allows us to keep X2 ships smaller and retain a power curve similar to X1.
5. With triple capacitors, it does make for a somewhat more balanced battle between the 8 P5 ship and the 12 P1 ship, allowing both three turns of combat without re-arming. At 1.5, the 8 P5 ship is going to be sadly disadvantaged, especially on that third turn when he has to recharge his phasers...and the 12 P1 ship does not.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 10:01 am: Edit

I wonder how the original P-5 proposals stacked up in the comparison above.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 11:26 am: Edit

Mike R.: Strangely enough some of your arguements against could be arguements for. I would have to take issue with arguement #2. Here is why:

To me the die roll of one equals the perfect shot. This is the maximum damage that the weapon can do if 100% of the beam hits the target. By this then we get that the maximum damage of the Ph-5 is greater and if note explained by energy cost then at least by physical design. Perhaps the efficience of energy conversion or even the type of beam generated makes it more distructive.

also

By the first part of my statement and careful obsevation of the Ph-5 chart one can see that the targeting system is far better. Take the R0 column for instance. The weapons max damage is acheived on a 1 or 2 as opposed to only a 1 for the Ph-1. This becomes clearly evident at longer ranges.

SO (sorry so long)

I would have to say that it is improvements to both the actual phaser generator and the targeting process/system.

AND

Could not be an upgrade of the Ph-1. I don't want to see Ph-5's on non-X2 as a refit. If GW is to get upgrades it should only be to partial X1 and X1 should be maxed out. Asside from the technobabble above I would like to see X2 be unique to X2.

Mike Fannin:

It's hard to say that this weapon isn't an original proposal. With exception to the power cost the Ph-5 and this chart came very early on. Indeed it is, IMO, one of the victories of this board in that we worked together swiftly and politely and came to a concensus on a very reasonable weapon. We didn't create a monster weapon and that showed mature restaint. If only one thing get used from all this I would hope a prey and LOBBY BIG TIME for it to be the Ph-5.

We did start big and it was clearly too big. So compairing those with this would stand. The pre-edited Ph-5 (purely 1/2 a mega-phaser)would be slightly worse off.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 11:38 am: Edit

I do have some issue with triple caps as well. If the Ph-5 is 1 point to power then I think the capacitor should be two each. I have always wanted to stick with double caps.

That was part of the beauty of the 1.5 power cost. It double cap had three points and you could down fire it as a Ph-1 for a power savings.

X1 only gets two turns of free fire from their cap. Three turns from the X2 would be a definate advantage that could only go to raise the BPV of X2.

However, if X1 can gain some advantage over X2 with good tactics then GOOD. That's perfect. The X2 system is clearly better but not purely and this should make for more interesting play. Thats what I meant by some of your agruements against my be for, Mike (Raper). This type of disadvantage is just the thing we've wanted from early one (I believe).

I agree that X2 should be pure combat oriented but should be a powerful unit that is more multi-roll. So the advantage of X1 as a pure combat unit is a good thing. Against X1, X2 will HAVE to dance at range a bit where it is clearly advantaged. This will be hard since X1 can move pretty fast too. Sounds like a fun interesting game.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:11 pm: Edit

Agreed. Double caps.

To be honest, I'd love to rip some X1 tech back out (double caps being part of it) because it can make X2 too good.

MikeF

Just curious, what was your P-5 proposal?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:13 pm: Edit

John, then see my Photon proposal.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:19 pm: Edit

OK Loren. I'll grant that.

I'll also grant that the 1/2 Ph-M table had a very wide variance of damage. I guess I'm just not quite satisfied with a minimal increase in damage at range with a sacrifice at shorter range. This is, almost certainly, an artifact of my play group where we've determined that it's impossible to keep someone at range without playing a retrograde game, and that's just boring.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:30 pm: Edit

Let me make one thing clear. I like the P5 table as is. I think it works just fine. What I don't like is the notion of "downfiring" the P5 as a P1. As I have shown, the P1 isn't that much worse than a P5. Allowing three shots out of it instead of two for the P5 will just encourage people to constantly downfire. Make it so the P5 cannot downfire as a P1 (exception: hasty repairs) and I can live with it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:37 pm: Edit

MF: There is no sacrafic except in numbers. Remember that this is a compairisom between X2 with 8xPh-5 with X1 with 12xPh1.

12 Ph-5 would kick but over the same number of Ph-1. It is interesting to note that 8xPh-5 beat 12xPh-1 at longer ranges. This is good. I think the Ph-5 chart is...well, perfect at either energy cost.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:41 pm: Edit

I liked the dynamic of the downfire. At range they wont. At close range it's a toss up. If you down fire as ph-1 and do less damage will you survive to use the third turns cap? Depends.

I think people will only down fire as Ph-1 when the ph-1 will do the job and the only time when a limited amount of damage is enough is against small targets.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:47 pm: Edit

A P5 should only be able to fire aas a P5 or 2xP6s..


Mixing and matching does not appeall to me at all.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:50 pm: Edit

Well, if powered with one point then ya, no ph-1 in the mix. If powered by 1.5 then the downfire add good dynamic IMO.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:57 pm: Edit

I can see firing as P-1, kinda.

I can also see the point of 2x P-2 and that's it, too.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 01:03 pm: Edit

I can see a P5 firing as:
P5 1.5 power
P1 1 power
P2 0.75 power (tied into X-Aegis and limited to 15 range)
2xP2 1.5 power (tied into X-Aegis and limited to 15 range)

For the record I'm against any increase in phaser capacitor over X1.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 01:43 pm: Edit

Mike I don't need a justification other than the fact that the P1 is a benchmark weapon. All of the other phaser weapons from Omega were balanced against it. (The only real source of new phaser weapons.)

Nothing is going to exceed the P1 in general effectiveness. While I can't point to a specific post, I really doubt that I'm wrong. The photon and Disr are the benchmark HWs after all. Plus the fact that SPP hasn't bounced any of my material yet being built around the listed benchmarks.

Anything that exceeds the P1 has enough tactical drawbacks that they are limted to specific roles.

PG is point blank and never realy useful except on def. or in over runs.

P4 Limited to bases It cant be used to chase a ship down.

PM The real oddball but limited to Mauler arcs and being a simulator weapon.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 02:05 pm: Edit

Ken,

For standard tech, I'd agree with "nothing is to exceed the P-1". But this is X2.

I still agree that I wouldn't want to see a more power-efficient offensive phaser. Another reason for a 1.5 P-5, but admittedly not a really strong one.

Tos,

Too much of a good thing. Personally, I wouldn't want to bend any further than allowing a P-5 to downfire as a P-1.

I would be opposed to downfiring as a P-2 period. That's part of what we have P-6's for.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 02:10 pm: Edit

Kenneth: But this is X2. Your material is not X2 so should be bound by that benchmark.

X2 cannot be bound by GW benchmarks, IMO. You can't come up with anything new then. BPV can handle the minor difference of efficiency in a 1 energy point Ph-5.

==========================
I don't want to see the Ph-2 in the mix. The Ph-6 was developed because the Ph-2 didn't work out. To use that chart for a defence phaser base is too powerful IMO. Besides, it isn't new. I like that the Ph-6 is a new weapon.

I would like to see the Ph-2 go into retirement for X1 and X2. Heck, I'd like to disallow down repairing a Ph-5 to Ph-2. Should be either repaire as Ph-5, Ph-1, or Ph-6.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 02:48 pm: Edit

I'm sorry to throw gas on the fire here but if we go with double-caps then I'd like to see 4pt batteries (I can hear your eyes rolling). Mike brings up a good point in his integrated proposal for the XCA: X2 power management should give you an edge in reserve power. You can stay in the fight just a little bit longer than the other guy. I agree with that point.

Early-X2 era strategic planners are going to want ships that are tougher and have more endurance. If the batteries can dump into shield reinforncement, great. Or dump to capacitors, great! Or dump more reserve warp to movement, great! Whatever it takes to keep that ship in one piece long enough to escape or scare the enemy away.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 03:09 pm: Edit

"I would be opposed to downfiring as a P-2 period. That's part of what we have P-6's for."

That's the thing. I'm opposed to the P-6. The P-2 table limited to range 15 is fine. In the end it doesn't matter as they are nearly equivilent. Note I'm not saying they are using a P2 anymore then the Andros do, just a weapon with similar capabilities and a power cost of 0.75.

In my designs the P1 is the offensive/defensive phaser and can fire as 2xP3 just as X1 can. The P5 is the offensive phaser and can downfire as a P1 to save power or as a limited range double shot P2. Note again this isn't a P2, just a weapon that uses the same chart.

I'm not gonna jump up and down and complain if we go the P6 route. The proposals and tables are nearly identical in all but name.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 03:31 pm: Edit

As far as power management goes, perhaps we've hit the limit as to how much power can be dumped from the batteries to the shields.

No X1 ship has more than 15 batteries, and only a mauler has more than 10 in the GW.

I propose a new rule for X2: No ship (except a mauler) may use more than 15 points of reserve power for shield reinforcement on any specific shield.

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 04:29 pm: Edit

R. Brodie and Jeff,

I don't think increased battery capacity is a smart idea. I really think that X-ships have too much reserve power to begin with and that X2-ships should in no way increase the amount of power stored in batteries. My reasoning is that if you feel that need to create additional rules restricting the amount of reserve power to SSReo would be a prime indicator that there is a problem.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 04:40 pm: Edit

Jeff Tonglet:

Romulan KEX and SKX have 6 batts/18 points of reserve power. The SKX is particularly interesting since it has a movement cost of 1/2.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 04:51 pm: Edit

Well, I say a restriction is a mistake too. If four point batts are to much reserve then stay with three.

I like four point batteries but understand the agruements against. If the power curve is to be along the lines of 10% over X1 the adding one three point battery box to the X1 typical should be just right and more resiliant to internal damage. This is a good thing. Perhaps the X2 improvement to batteries could be easier repair and long term charging (I.e. always charged). This is a very minor SFB change but would be a major plus for actual RL opperation. Could say the X2 three point battery takes less actual space. They could have made them bigger and hold more energy but this would sacrafic the long term capacitance and it was felt that having them more decentralized in the ship made them and the ship more durable and easier to maintain.

Hey, I just sold myself on three point batteries!

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 05:06 pm: Edit

I don't see any reason to extend X2's combat endurance over X1.

It's good enough as it is.

2x Caps, 3x batts sound fine to me.

Tos,

Fair enough viewpoint. I can agree to disagree on the P-6.

Nobody says we have to all agree on anything. We just think we have to.

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 05:39 pm: Edit

Once upon a time I had thought that the proposed 5 point batteries for X2 would be fun. However, when the X1 revision was being discussed back two or three years ago, I really began to think that reserve power was going to be a problem; I believe I even posted that X1 batteries should be limited to two points per box. I would have to say that at current 2x Caps, 3x batteries is probably going to easier to balance the rest of the X2 game around than 2x Caps, 4x batteries or 3x Caps, 3x batteries.