| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 11:15 pm: Edit |
MJC:
You quoted John Trauger's comment about C7s and D7Ds not getting free speed upgrades, but then didn't address it. Here's the point I think he was trying to make.
The correct BPV for a C7+D7D in the X2 era is not 333 (i.e. 180 for the C7 + 153 for the D7D with UIM Refit). To calculate the BPV you also add in the cost of drones. By the time X2 ships are available, fast drones will have been standard for over two decades. If the C7 loads its racks with nothing but Type-1 drones, its BPV is 204 points. Now it could load a bunch of Type-IVs to save on cost but that would still leave it at 192 and would run it out of drones faster. Similarly a D7D in the X2 era would cost 165 with nothing but Type-IV drones. Loaded with Type-Is it would cost 177 points. So assuming no special drones are purchased, that C7+D7D force realistically needs to be regarded as about a 360-380 BPV force, depending on exact drone loadout.
Now I assume you know all this. Yet you repeatedly get GW-era BPVs wrong when you compare them to X2 ships. If your hypothetical XCA is, say, a 375 point ship than it should be roughly an even match for a C7+D7D. But a "300-330 BPV XCA" should, in fact, lose to such a force most of the time.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 12:11 am: Edit |
"The drawback: all those phaser charts on the SSD"
One of the reasons I favor the X-Aegis Range 15 Phaser-2 over the Phaser-6 is there are fighters still running around using the P2 as a weapon, even in Y205. I would not want to create an SSD for a Hybrid X2 Carrier that required both the P2 and P6 chart.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 03:12 am: Edit |
Quote:You quoted John Trauger's comment about C7s and D7Ds not getting free speed upgrades, but then didn't address it.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 11:50 am: Edit |
Unless fighters get a swap out for a double shot Ph-6. 
Anyway, I'm not so sure old fighters will be put on new carriers anyway. Even on an XP carrier the expected enemy would be at least other XP ships with at least some X-Ship encounters. Fighters are already moving out of style unless a new fighter or fighter refit is introduced. By Y205 I could see the big fighters getting their Ph-2's upgraded with new targeting systems for range limited Ph-1. Perhaps R20? (this would go along with a general operating upgrade to R20.)
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 12:17 pm: Edit |
I could go with either of these two options and be pretty happy:
Option 1: 1.5 based P5
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 12:38 pm: Edit |
I don't like 3xP6 shots out of a P5, but, if there were a significant penalty then I might be OK with it.
How about a P5:
3 point cap.
1.5 to fire as a P5.
1.0 to fire as a P1 once per turn.
1.0 each shot to fire as a P2/P6 defensively up to three times per turn.
I don't favor this option because I don't favor 3 defensive shots, but at least the power cost would make it only used in case of emergency.
The Phaser is already the best energy to damage converter in the game. I can't see improving it by allowing a P5 to fire at 1 power or a P6 to fire at 0.5 power.
| By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 01:20 pm: Edit |
Which has been my main bone of contention over the P5. At 1 point it would just be to good at what it does. The 1.5 can be supported but not the 1, IMO.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 01:57 pm: Edit |
How about this?
Ph-5 takes one point to fire but has no downfiring or rapid pulse options at all. Technobabble reason: with X2 technology it was possible to dramatically increase the efficiency of phasers but only by designing a pulse generation chamber optimized solely for high-intensity pulses. It cannot be hastily repaired as a weaker phaser. It is what it is.
Ph-1 has improved rapid pulse functionality over X1. A single Ph-1 shot or two Ph-3 shots under X-Aegis retrictions, exactly as per X1. For 1 additional point of power it can fire a third Ph-3 shot during the same turn, also under X-Aegis restrictions. X2 technology was able to increase the rapid pulse rate-of-fire but energy efficiency went down as the rate-of-fire envelope was pushed.
Ph-6 has one unrestricted shot at 1/2 point of power. Two Ph-6s can be mounted in the space required for one Ph-1 or Ph-5.
This seems to me to provide a rationale for all three types on X2 ships.
The Ph-5 is the "offensive option" for shooting up the enemy at medium to long range. But its power comes at the price of poor flexibility. And if the phaser is knocked out it will take a long time to bring it back on line since the unique pulse generation chamber can not be hastily repaired as a less powerful version.
The Ph-1 is the "flexibility option". It provides decent, though not optimum, medium/long range capability and excellent seeking weapon defense, though with an increased energy cost to optimize the latter.
The Ph-6 is the "defensive option". It can provide two Ph-6 shots for the same energy as the Ph-1 provides two Ph-3 shots. Or it can provide those two shots for half the energy the Ph-1 spends to generate three Ph-3 shots. And since the shots are unrestricted, the Ph-6s can be used to shoot enemy ships at close range, which Ph-1 rapid pulse firing cannot do.
Different races might adopt different philosophies regarding how many of each Phaser type they would mount. And any given race might use different proportions on different ship types, due to different perceived missions for the ships. But all three seem to have their place in X2.
What do you think? Is this worth considering or do I need to recheck the dosage on my medications?
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 03:05 pm: Edit |
Dunno. The question is definately one of the tougher ones to balance and still get it to feel right.
I don't really worry overmuch about the capabilities of a rapid-pulse P5 as a three P6's. Granted, it's a great defense, but there are some considerations.
The PG, while quite rare, is a GW weapon that can outperform three P6's at close range, at least in efficiency. Consider these charts:
| Phaser G | ||||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4-8 | 9-15 | |
| 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 shot | 3.8 | 3.7 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| 4 shots | 15.3 | 14.7 | 12.0 | 4.0 | 1.3 | 0.7 |
| Efficiency | 15.3 | 14.7 | 12.0 | 4.0 | 1.3 | 0.7 |
| Rapid Pulse Phaser 6 | ||||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4-8 | 9-15 | |
| 1 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 |
| 2 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| 3 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 shot | 5.0 | 4.7 | 3.8 | 2.8 | 1.0 | 0.3 |
| 3 shots | 15.0 | 14.0 | 11.5 | 8.5 | 3.0 | 1.0 |
| Efficiency | 10.0 | 9.3 | 7.7 | 5.7 | 2.0 | 0.7 |
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 03:29 pm: Edit |
I actually had thought about the options Allen Trevor post above. That sort of thinking give a weapon that is still superior in ways to the Ph-1X but also inferior in others. Only one very important change I would make to Allen’s post is that the Ph-5 should definitely be capable of firing as at least a single Ph-6. I couldn't accept the proposal with out at least that. With out that it is too rigid. The weapon my need to be use as a defensive weapon and the down firing as a Ph-6 wont waste energy and with a reduced number of PH-5’s on a typical hull this option is vital.
Mike Raper’s option #1 would satisfy me except 3 Ph-6 is too much IMO. I would be more willing to accept the rapid pulse as 3x Ph-3. (An upgrade to 3xPh-6 at a much later date would be OK. This would show that X2 still needs a little tweaking. I like the color that adds.) This option would also give greater support for mounting SA Ph-6's.
(SA=Stand Alone for future reference.)
| By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 03:34 pm: Edit |
Or we can set a standard for X2 phaser defenses and build X2 drones around that. I think that's more realistic for SFB since the phaser is as benchmark a weapon as the photon torpedo.
Keep in mind that we haven't even scratched the surface on drone defense. The X2-ADD is just something (no offense here) that was tossed together. It's a "bigger/better" rather than a "different." I'm working on something for that and I'll post it in the appropriate thread once I have a draft ready. For another thing we're not even thinking about drones (non-ADD) shooting down drones or for that matter using fighters to shoot them down. We've hardly touched X2-AEGIS yet (something else I'm working on). The P5/P6 could be where they need to be for the early-X2 era.
That being said it never hurts to look into the design further.
| By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 03:39 pm: Edit |
Alan I just re-read your post and it's making a lot of sense. Don't change your meds. Part of me is saying, "that's too many phaser types for any given ship." The other part is saying, "there's what we're looking for." Is there a compromise position?
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 03:41 pm: Edit |
Mike Raper:
My previous proposal was partly a response to my perception (perhaps erroneous) that most people didn't want X2 ships to mount all Ph-5s. They wanted more differentiation. But if the Ph-5 has a rapid pulse mode it becomes more difficult to justify mounting any other type of phaser. Multiple Ph-6s may be a bit better at close range but are significantly worse at long range, and it's not at all clear the former advantage is sufficient to make up for the latter disadvantage.
So the problem with the rapid pulse Ph-5 is not, in my view, that it's too powerful per se. Rather, it encourages the mounting of nothing but Ph-5s (except perhaps for the Hydrans) and thus works against the phaser differentiation that I thought people wanted. Now if I'm wrong and everyone is fine with the notion that X2 ships mount only Ph-5s, than my proposal makes no sense and should be withdrawn. But if phaser differentiation is desirable than perhaps the simplest way to achieve it is to state that the technology won't support rapid pulse in a system combining the compactness and power of a Ph-5 (not a problem for the much larger Ph-4).
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 04:15 pm: Edit |
Loren Knight:
Though my original proposal disallowed it, I don't have any real heartburn about downfiring as a single Ph-6. It's the rapid pulse capability that I think is really problematical if you want to justify mounting other types of phasers.
R. Brodie Nyboer:
Until SVC makes his final decision, there's always a compromise position. I'm not sure what it is yet, but that's what this board is for.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 04:22 pm: Edit |
Alan,
True, but if the number of P5's is limited to start with, phaser differentiation is going to happen regardless because there just won't be enough P5's to go around. And, if restricted to defensive mode only, the rapid pulse P5 isn't going to be that bad, because it can't be used for mizia overruns. I'm flexible, though, and I think your proposal above might be just what we need. I have no objection to making the P5 a stand alone, no defensive fire system.
Brodie, I agree about the phasers being the benchmark, and think the tables definately have to be worked out. Seems that most of us are happy with the current P5/P6 tables. Working out how the P5 can operate defensively, if at all, will depend on drones, though, as they are a major weapon system for at least one race. I like Alans plan, though...it saves alot of hassle.
| By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 04:30 pm: Edit |
That it does.
How about combining the P5 and P1 that Alan posted? You can either fire in P5 mode that turn or you can fire in P1 mode that turn. You declare which mode you fire the first time it fires that turn.
Remember SVC is thinking phaser arrays with wide arcs and to keep BPV down we have to chop down the number of phasers. If we start using three types of phasers we're going to move away from the spirit he's considering. Combining P5 and P1 might alleviate that problem.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 04:53 pm: Edit |
Ooooohhhh...that's actually pretty cool, because it makes the phaser almost like a heavy weapon; you have to decide how to use it when doing EA. Is that too restrictive? Or, is such a restriction a fair price for a phaser with three different firing modes, even if a ship only mounts a few of them?
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 05:34 pm: Edit |
That might work for such an array design but I'm not so sure about the big arc array thing myself. There is major disavantages to that IMO, that wouldn't fly past design review. Especially for some races. ONe never knows however.
Alternatively, what about Allens arming proposal with the single Ph-6 down fire option (this mimics basic Ph-1 with new charts) and a Rapid Pulse Module for late X2 era years. The Ph-5 might have been designed with this in mind but as a cost savings and for simplification of maintenance were left out. With the Admiralty being assured that should the need arise the Phaser-5 can be refitted.
This makes total sense to me.
Only one small irksome thing left in my mind. My version above is more tactically complex and is a bit more interesting to me game wise as it presents you with more tactial options. I would like to preserve the Ph-1 mode off to the side for now.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 06:21 pm: Edit |
Comparing any phaser to the Gatling is a bad way to start. The Gatling is the most unbalanced weapon in the game and not one to be mimicked.
The more I think about it the more I think the P5 should not have a rapid pulse option. It can downfire, but not rapid pulse. The X2 P1 would function exactly as an X1 P1 allowing it to function in an offensive/defensive mode.
Consider the designs I posted. The XFF had one P5 and four P1. The XCC had lots of P5 and few P1. Frigates get defensive weaponry (20%/80%), Cruisers get offensive weaponry (80%/20%). I like the flavor that provides. A lone XCC needs the XFF to help defend it. The XFF needs the big guns of the XCC. Perfect.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 07:32 pm: Edit |
Quote:P5 can downfire as 1 defensive only P6 shot for .5 each, up to a max of three; this would be controlled by X-aegis.
Quote:Which has been my main bone of contention over the P5. At 1 point it would just be to good at what it does. The 1.5 can be supported but not the 1, IMO.
Quote:How about this?
Ph-5 takes one point to fire but has no downfiring or rapid pulse options at all. Technobabble reason: with X2 technology it was possible to dramatically increase the efficiency of phasers but only by designing a pulse generation chamber optimized solely for high-intensity pulses. It cannot be hastily repaired as a weaker phaser. It is what it is.
Quote:This seems to me to provide a rationale for all three types on X2 ships.
Quote:I don't really worry overmuch about the capabilities of a rapid-pulse P5 as a three P6's. Granted, it's a great defense, but there are some considerations.
Quote:Mike Raper’s option #1 would satisfy me except 3 Ph-6 is too much IMO. I would be more willing to accept the rapid pulse as 3x Ph-3. (An upgrade to 3xPh-6 at a much later date would be OK. This would show that X2 still needs a little tweaking. I like the color that adds.) This option would also give greater support for mounting SA Ph-6's.
Quote:It's the rapid pulse capability that I think is really problematical if you want to justify mounting other types of phasers.
Quote:True, but if the number of P5's is limited to start with, phaser differentiation is going to happen regardless because there just won't be enough P5's to go around.
Quote:And, if restricted to defensive mode only, the rapid pulse P5 isn't going to be that bad, because it can't be used for mizia overruns.
Quote:The more I think about it the more I think the P5 should not have a rapid pulse option. It can downfire, but not rapid pulse. The X2 P1 would function exactly as an X1 P1 allowing it to function in an offensive/defensive mode.
Quote:A lone XCC needs the XFF to help defend it. The XFF needs the big guns of the XCC. Perfect
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 07:39 pm: Edit |
Quote:Neither did the STEVES when they made Suppliment 2 and gave every X2 Phaser-1 the ability to fire as a Ph-G.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 08:01 pm: Edit |
Quote:What do you propose for the answer? That is, what defensive option should a P5 have, if any?
| By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 08:18 pm: Edit |
I think the X1 rewrite is a good place to start.
A ph-5 can fire as 1 shot from a ph-5,1,6,2,or 3 with no restriction on range or type of target.
A ph-5 can rapid-fire, but only out to range 15, and only at Aegis-qualified targets.
1 ph-5 = 2 ph-6 in rapid-fire mode.
I would not have a problem with a 1 ph-5 = 3 ph-3 either, since it would be firing at only drones, plasma, and PFs, but we'll have to see what the testing proves.
If the ph-5 has the 2 ph-6 ability, then I don't see a reason to put anything besides ph-5 on a ship. Except for cost/racial flavor, which is the same reason Klingon ships have ph-2s long after the ph-1 was invented.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 08:41 pm: Edit |
Quote:Except for cost/racial flavor, which is the same reason Klingon ships have ph-2s long after the ph-1 was invented.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 09:05 pm: Edit |
"Let the Ph-5 rapid pulse down fire. If we don't we force ourselves into the corner by forcing ourselves to mount a standard Ph-5+Ph-1+Ph-6 suite for ever race."
If I have both the P5 and the P1 on my X2 ship I can't think of any reason I need a P6 except as a damage sponge or racial flavor.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |