---

Quote:

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.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 11:07 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

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.

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 12:29 am: Edit

I like the idea of the P-5 losing the rapid-pulse ability. I think that creates an intersting tactical situations.

It also gives a reason to use P-6's, especially on those fleets that decide to limit or retire the P-1.

the Feds might have an all-P5 starship (with additional P-6's for point defense) while the Klinks might mix P-5s and P-1s.

I think P-5 firing cost should be directly tied to the power curve of X2. If it remains at X1 or greater range, I think it might be better to push it to 1.5.

If we take a off-the-cuff jessica Orsini suggestion of going back down to 30-32 warp (with some kind of multiple for movement), I can more easily see 1 point P-5.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 12:48 am: Edit

That's where I'm headed right now anyway. Not just for phaser reason either. The game is predicated on proper power management and I'm working on a power balance for that. Should an XCA be able to fly around at speed 31 arming photons every turn? That will get boring. So I'm thinking about reducing my warp engines to 16 boxes each. We'll see how that goes. It'll go under the "Integrated Proposals" thread when it's ready.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 10:58 am: Edit

Something in the photon thread reminded me.

I base my assumptions on X2 being constrained by the limits of a naval treaty signed after the Andros were defeated. The treaty limits the number of weapons based on the hull type and how many of each hull each race is allowed to field.

It is my opinion then that the designers would build X2 with scads of surplus space similar to (R13.9). Some of this wasted space functions as cargo or NWO or labs, but space can also be wasted around important weapon hard points. Now known weapons take up a known amount of space so there’s not much you can do there. New weapons, such as the P5, can be engineered to be less miniaturized then possible.

Think back to the original oversized phaser-1s the Klingons mounted on the D7Z (CL13:R3.941;pg10&78) when they were just learning how to use the technology. The Phaser-5 should initially be similarly bulky, but this time on purpose. I’m thinking two-space weapon bulky. This gives us expansion room and prevents the Y205 creation of a 12xP5 XCC.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 12:12 pm: Edit

Take a look at my 2/23 12:09PM post in the Intergrated Proposals thread.

We were talking about Leak for P5s and I put in some more comments.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 09:04 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I like the idea of the P-5 losing the rapid-pulse ability. I think that creates an intersting tactical situations.

It also gives a reason to use P-6's, especially on those fleets that decide to limit or retire the P-1.

the Feds might have an all-P5 starship (with additional P-6's for point defense) while the Klinks might mix P-5s and P-1s.

---

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 09:35 pm: Edit

I actually find myself in agreement with MJC. These ships appear to be terribly vulnerable to drones.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 09:48 pm: Edit

They're terribly vulnerable to drones if they mount nothing but phaser-5s. I made the initial suggestion because several posters had expressed reservations about X2 ships mounting nothing but phaser-5s and I saw this as a possible justification for why they might mount a mix of phaser types. If you look at my original post where I proposed phaser-5s with no rapid pulse, you will see that I also proposed that X2 phaser-1s be capable of 3 ph-3 rapid pulse shots per turn (at suitably high power cost). Thus Ph-5s were more powerful but Ph-1s were more flexible and most X2 ships would indeed mount a mixed battery. Now if you want X2 ships to be pure Ph-5, my proposal won't work. Just be aware that several people on this thread don't want to see a pure ph-5 battery.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 11:00 pm: Edit

If the drones are speed 32 I don't see a problem. Remember, these ships have plenty of CO points to buy their 6xTB with.

If the drones are speed 40, well, that increases their BPV rather dramatically too, no?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 11:05 pm: Edit

Ph-3s are pretty lousey at stopping speed 40 drones.

That's one reason why I'ld like to see all Ph-5 boats rapid pulsing Ph-6 shots instead of mixes Ph-5 & Ph-1 boats where the Ph-5 can't rapid pulse and the Ph-1s can only rapid pulse as Ph-3s.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 11:39 pm: Edit

Fortunately, nobody's going to be facing speed-40 drones, so it isn't a problem.

Let's face it: Drones have gotten better over time. Lots better. Increasing their speed over 32 is simply stupid when they are already really good, with plenty of other way of making them better.

Non-starter as far as I'm concerned.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 12:00 am: Edit

Well, I didn't think the Drone Booster Pack was so stupid.

Seriously, I don't like drones moving regularly at above 32 either but given high speeds of late era battles they fall just a bit behind in effectiveness. That's why I introduced the DBP. It gives the drone a jump on an enemy at long range and balances it out with increased vulnerability and limited duration for the high speed.

The proposal is in the old archives in the X2 drones thread, I think.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 12:04 am: Edit

MJC:

Then how about this?

Ph-5: 1 point to fire normally, no rapid pulse.

Ph-1: 1 point to fire as a Ph-1 or rapid pulse as two Ph-3. For 2 points it can rapid pulse as two Ph-6. Rapid Pulse is under X-Aegis restrictions.

This preserves the essential relationship of the Ph-5 as the high power offensive weapon but the Ph-1 as the flexible weapon.

The core question is whether X2 ships should have pure Ph-5 armament or whether they should have mixed phaser armament. Unfortunately, there's no consensus on that issue. (Personally, I could live with either option.) But if it is ultimately decided that mixed phaser armament makes for a more interesting game, there needs to be some "in game" technobabble rationale for why X2 ships have a mixed armament. Preventing Ph-5s from using rapid pulse provides one such rationale.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 12:50 am: Edit

Actually boosted drones are still pretty bad but much closer to being workable.

If you roll all 6s at R2 with Rapid Pulsed Ph-3s, you'll need 4Ph-3 shots to kill a Type VIIIB drone.
That's like a 24/12/32 drone in regular terms.

3Ph-3 shots to kill a Type VIIB which is the equivalent of an 18/9/32 drone.


AT:

I don't like seeing the swing weapon of the game being developed as either a weapon that must mount Ph-1s to back it up or a weapon that much mount Ph-6s to back it up.


If we really like the Ph-5 then perhaps one should recommend the Ph-5 be mounted on an X1 ship during the X1R period and play with that a lot.
A Fed DDX with her Photons replaced with Ph-5s even with 2 point Caps and no rapid pulse would be seriously cool. It'ld be so light on energy consumption that they'ld probably refit the AWRs back to labs.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 01:38 pm: Edit

My latest take on X2 phasers:

Ph-5: 1pt to fire as Ph-5, can down-fire as Ph-1 for 3/4pt; can pulse twice as Ph-3 for 1/4pt per pulse, or pulse twice as Ph-6 for 1/2pt per pulse; open to arguments for/against pulse as Ph-1 for 3/4pt and Ph-3 for 1/4pt

Ph-6: 1/2pt to fire as Ph-6, can down-fire as Ph-3 for 1/4 pt; can pulse twice as Ph-3 for 1/4pt per pulse

More later.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 01:47 pm: Edit

I do not want to see P5/6 being able to downfire as P1//2/3.

If it is such wonderful new tech, it is new tech, not advances on old tech like X1 was. P5 can downfire as P6s but nothing else.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 02:03 pm: Edit

Actually, I've become partial to Mike Raper's idea for a phaser-x that fires in arrays and gets a negative drm as a result. Not that the phaser-5 is bad by any means. But its relationship to the phaser-1 is essentially the same as the relationship of the ph-1 to the ph-2. It's an improved phaser but one that works by the same rules. The array-fired phaser-x actually works by different rules.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 02:06 pm: Edit

I too do not want to see "dial a phaser" happen for the general use by all races weapon. Perhaps this is OK for a single race but not for the PH-5, IMO.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 02:13 pm: Edit

Nothing wrong with the P5, and I hope somebody submits it. I just wanted to take a different approach and really give the 2X phaser a unique feel. Individually, it isn't much more powerful than a P2, at least not until you get past range 8, where it starts to even up a bit. The defense mode is just the old x-aegis rapid-pulse P3. So, it's easy accounting and requires only two charts. The real differences and unique characteristics of it are the array bonus and the 2 stage firing option. That in particular is damned usefull in certain situations. But the P5 and P6 are a really nice group effort, and may be more comfortable for some. I think working different submissions using both types is a good idea, and presents a number of options to the Steves.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 02:23 pm: Edit

We could also have racial differentiation, with some races going the phaser-5 route and others going the phaser-x array route. Nobody (except maybe the Orions - and I'm not convinced about them) would have both ph-5s and ph-x arrays. There might even be a third option, though I wouldn't go the Omega Sector route where just about every race has their own unique phaser.

There's already been a lot of discussion about racial differentiation of disruptors. I don't see any compelling reason why we couldn't do something similar for phasers. As long as every race has a viable phaser upgrade, they don't necessarily all have to have the same kind of upgrade.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 03:53 pm: Edit

The phaser array thing just sings of Next Gen though. Really want to go there?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 04:05 pm: Edit

Nah, it's allright. I was careful not to make it look or act like the collimator thingy on next gen. It's still your normal phaser "bumps", but they are able to fire together and get better results than a normal narrow salvo. It shouldn't be a problem.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 05:43 pm: Edit

Sort of like this?? Zeros = phaser ports. The beams sort of join like a Death Star weapon?
.
.
0
.\
. \
.. \
0--#::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::*
.. /
. /
./
0
.
.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 05:44 pm: Edit

Well, Cfant, first off there is no Ph-2 in my proposal. Also if we dump the Ph-1 mode for the Ph-5 I won't lose sleep. I do like the 1/4pt Ph-3 shots though and I think they should stay. Note that this gives us the potential for a wartime (e.g. Xork invasion) Ph-G type application for Ph-5.

I also like Mike's Ph-X. To be honest I never thought of it as the TNG collimator thing. An option to consider is keeping a "main bank" of Ph-5 and adding "defensive banks" of Ph-X.

Where does this leave the Ph-6? Well I don't know. Either we keep it in small numbers or we dump it. Maybe the Ph-6 could become the phaser for SC5-7 units. Imagine a battery of 12 Ph-6 coming at you at speed 32.