Looking for a place to post some technobabble about the Ph-5 and 6 I found there is no actual topic.

My next post is just my view. Feel free to use this topic to talk about other views of these two phasers.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 06:08 pm: Edit

X2 Phaser Technologies

I have refined my vision of the X2 phaser systems and how they work. This also explains why the power requirements are the way I’ve lobbied for.

Basic rules (LK Version): Ph-5

• Uses the Ph-5 chart (by me)
• Arms for 1.5 energy
• The capacitor is double the arming cost for holding 3 energy points.
• Can down fire as a Ph-1 for 1 energy point.
• Can be down repaired as a ph-1 (if so cannot rapid pulse)
• Can fire as two PH-6 under X-Aegis restrictions. (For 0.75 energy points each).
• Can only fire as one mode per turn (i.e. as Ph-5 or Ph-1 or up to two Ph-6).

The Phaser-5 is a weapon that builds on the venerable Ph-1. There are two systems that make the Ph-5 superior to the Ph-1; The Pre-fire Aegis Assisted Targeting System (PAAT) and the Second Stage Warp Attenuator (SSWA).

The PAAT system fires a very short, wide patterned, low energy pulse ahead of the main Phaser beam. This assists the targeting computers with adjusting the weapons trajectory for a significant increase in accuracy.

The SSWA is a second stage accelerator that adds energy to the beam in such away as to increase its impact and lessens decay over range.

These two systems are what require the added ½ point of energy. These systems can be unused (or not repaired) and the resulting weapons output is that of the base Ph-1.

The rapid pulse mode uses these systems as well to a lesser degree. The same targeting system is used but the pre-fire stage is different. In rapid pulse the beam is divided into a dozen pulses and fired in a short arc across the target. The variance in damage comes from the number of pulses that actually pin point on the target. A perfect hit lands approximately 9-12 of the pulses on target. This is highly effective against small targets as the high frequency pulses tend to be less absorbed as with what happens against large targets. The design of the Ph-5 does not allow for the same technology to be used in firing the same type of beam as with the stand alone Ph-6.

Individual Defense Phaser-6

• Uses Ph-6 chart (by John Trauger)
• Energy cost is ½ point.
• Can be fired at any target.
• Can be fired under X-Aegis

The Stand alone Phaser-6 is a model of efficiency. Built on the Ph-3 it uses the proprietary systems to increase beam impact and stability over range (including a new emitter crystal, photon accelerator, and particle influx devices) as well as a more advanced targeting system born form x-aegis technology. Unfortunately these systems are fragile and cannot handle the larger amounts of power required to fire as a larger weapon.

Why, you ask?

I like the dynamics of this system of phaser types as a whole. I like that you can down fire as a PH-1 if the tactics call for it. That the pulse mode cost a bit more for the privilege and that the stand alone Ph-6 gains benefit over the pulse mode P-6. (Let’s call them Ph-6p for pulsed)
Keeping track of the two is very easy as they are clearly labeled differently. It will often be the case that the two types aren’t fired at the same time and this will lessen what confusion there is (if there is).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 03:18 pm: Edit

Naturally the above fits in with my own integrated proposal and may not with others.

Comments?

Hate mail?

Praise?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 12:12 am: Edit

Okay...I don't like limiting downfire.


What is the YIS of the Ph-4?

It can downfire as a Ph-1, Ph-2 or Ph-3 as well as fire as a Ph-4.
Since the Ph-5 has a much more advanced YIS it should be able to downfire as all preceeding Phaser shots.

Indeed the Rapid pulse Ph-6 pair should be able to down fire at least to a pair of Ph-3s...particularly since that will save 0.5 points of power.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 08:42 pm: Edit

I like it all save one thing, and that's the differing cost for firing a P5 as a P6 as opposed to firing a standalone P6. I know the original plan was to do this to encourage actually mounting and using P6's, and to avoid messy record keeping by having a P6 cost .75 to use. So, how about this...

Most of the ships we're seeing that use a lot of P5's don't have as many phasers as X1 did, and several of them have only a few P5's, and the rest P1's...Tos' ships are a good example, and the last few I put up had only a few, as well. Since there are so few, what about letting the P5 pulse fire as 3 P6's for .5 each? It's not as good as a gatling phaser, but close. Drones haven't really been defined yet, and may well be fast enough or tough enough that three shots won't be too bad. Limiting the use of this mode to defense only (i.e., SC 5 or smaller targets) would keep players from zapping the crap out of anyone they got close to with a super mizia.

Thoughts?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 09:15 pm: Edit

I'ld say giving an actual Ph-6 the ability to rapid pulse as a pair of Ph-3 shots would be more than enough reason to mount 2Ph-6s instead of 1 Ph-5...in the defensive phaser mount areas.

Mounting Ph-6s in pairs will also reduce messey record keeping to some extent.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 09:54 pm: Edit

Just say no to rapid-pulsing P-6's

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 10:11 pm: Edit

Mike, it a thought and since it's new should be kept on the books.

I would point out that three Ph-6 out perform the Ph-G by two damage points. 4x4=16 3x6=18

I just have a liking for the difference in cost from the two weapons. I like, for instance, a player might think twice about taking out his Ph-6's first off in some situations.

I'm not going to go on and on about my proposals though. It's the first in the thread and there should be as many ideas as possible logged here.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 11:14 pm: Edit

I prefer not having a 3xP6 or 3xP3 firing mode for the P5 simply because I prefer ships have a reason to mount multiple (smaller) phaser types.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 12:24 am: Edit

Agreed.

I'm leery but not formally opposed to the downfiring as a P-1.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 12:31 pm: Edit

How about this:

Ph-5: fires as 1xP5 for 1pt, fires as 1xP1 for 1pt, under AEGIS fires as 2xPh2 for 2pts

Ph-6: fires as 1xP6 for 1/2pt, fires as 1xP2 for 1pt, under AEGIS fires as 2xP3 for 1pt

The drawback: all those phaser charts on the SSD
The benefit: very flexible phaser fire

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 12:34 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I would point out that three Ph-6 out perform the Ph-G by two damage points. 4x4=16 3x6=18

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 03:27 pm: Edit

Well, I'd have to say they, IMO, it at least AS good.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 03:39 pm: Edit

Oh, no doubt. But that's just why I think it'd be okay to use it that way. And, it avoids messy fractional accounting.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 03:49 pm: Edit

You know, it occurs to me that my vision of X2 is not for novice players. The fractional accounting doesn't bother me because its sort of 'Advanced SFB' to me. As an experienced player I don't mind a bit more complexity because I'm looking for more advanced play. When I want simple play (and I don't mean in competitiveness) I play Tourney rules. It's a simplified rule set and the ships are the most balanced.

Anyway, I'm probably the only one. It seems most people way X2 to return to rudimentary SFB. That seems backwards to me.

Heh, I just hit me. I don't really play Module Y for that very reason. (Though, I'll admit I haven't explored playing it thoroughly enough to judge it conclusively.)

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 05:10 pm: Edit

Valid point. X2, in particular playing some of the multi-race, multi-generational Trade War scenarios is not something suitable for the newbie. Even if we make X2 simple try keeping the rules straight when you have a GW + XP + X1 + X2 ship all in the same scenario.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 05:54 pm: Edit

Brodie,

I'm not thrilled about up-firing a P-6 as a P-2.

Nor am I thrilled about downfiring a P-5 as a P-2 as it eclipses the P-6.

Wat's wrong with P-5 fires as P-5 for 1.5, downfires in concert with X-Aegis for 2x P-6.

I'm open to downfiring a P-5 as a P-1 for 1 point, but not thrilled by the idea or convinced it's worthwhile.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 08:12 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

The drawback: all those phaser charts on the SSD

---

---

Quote:

Yeah, I know. What I meant about it not being as good was that for one, it only gets three shots, where the PG gets four.

---

---

Quote:

Wat's wrong with P-5 fires as P-5 for 1.5, downfires in concert with X-Aegis for 2x P-6.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 08:22 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I'm open to downfiring a P-5 as a P-1 for 1 point, but not thrilled by the idea or convinced it's worthwhile.

---

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 08:45 pm: Edit

I don't think that the minor yield increase from P1 to P5 warrants a .5pt power requirement increase. If it was a 12pt phaser or more I could see it costing 1.5pts.

As far as the P6 upfiring to P2, remember it would cost 1pt vice the normal 1pt for a P6. I'm not real hardcore about that one but I thought it would be a reasonable option. I can see 2xP6 under AEGIS for P5.

How about this version then:

Ph-5: fires as 1xP5 for 1pt; under AEGIS fires as 2xP6 for 2pts...can be hastily repaired as P1

Ph-6: fires as 1xP6 for 1/2pt; under AEGIS fires as 2xP3 for 1pt...can be hastily repaired as P3

Optional rule: under AEGIS P5 can downfire as P1 with a -1 die roll bonus and P6 can downfire as P3 with a -1 die roll bonus

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 08:59 pm: Edit

MJC,

C7s and D7Ds don't get free speed upgrades.

Also if a alot of Drones doesn't push X2's drone defense, there's something wrong.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 09:02 pm: Edit

RBN: There is a pretty big difference between the two weapons. It just isn't as apparent in any single range bracket (though the difference at some long range brackets show a significant improvement.)

The Ph-5 doesn't gain as much in crunch as it does in stability over range. You can plan your tactics better with this weapon as it gives you a more even damage distribution that the Ph-1. For instance, it is easier to answer the question "I need to do this much damage, how many phasers should I use?"

This is why RL Captains would LOVE the PH-5. It does what's expected more often.

However, at closer ranges where the situation isn't as critical the Phaser-1 portion can be enough and save some power. This savings needs to be enough to make it worth while. THis combination, game wise, add color to the system and thus more tactics are involved. Anyone familiar with SFB will adapt pretty easily.

I don't think I've ever proposed a system that would take more than one game to learn to opperate and many just take a careful reading of the rule and a basic understanding of the rule it modifies.

I certainly haven't come up with anything nearly as complex and say, Mid-Turn Speed Changes, or Cloak, or Web or...

BTW: Did you really mean under AEGIS fires as 2xP6 for 2pts...?

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 09:06 pm: Edit

No I did not. Correction: under AEGIS fires as 2xP6 for 1pt

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 09:58 pm: Edit

Another reason to down fire the Ph-5 as a Ph-1 is deception.

I'm not sure if the Tac intel rules allow this but firing as a lower version after repair may fool the enemy into thinking you've repaired the Ph-5 as a Ph-1 whcih you may be able to capitalise on latter.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 10:03 pm: Edit

C7s and D7Ds don't get free speed upgrades.

Also if a alot of Drones doesn't push X2's drone defense, there's something wrong.

Actually they could get 16 drones on the board over two turns ( oops ) which would be even worse for both ( but more so the XCA than the CX dispite the higher BPV price tag ).

If a DNH fought the XCA, how many drones could it pile up in two turns and what kind of speed upgrades could they have for an equal BPV with a 300-330 BPV XCA ???