Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board

Archive through April 20, 2004

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 Phasers / Ph-5 and Ph-6: Archive through April 20, 2004

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 05:54 pm: Edit

Loren,

Yup, that's about it!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 06:14 pm: Edit

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.

Sounds very Kzinti.

No PH-6?? Humbug! Ain't dumpin' it, it's too cool. Ya, the Klingons might have comboes of Ph-5 and Ph-1 like the old Ph-1/2 combo but smaller ships could have Ph-5 and Ph-6 analogous to the D5 set up.

Still, I would like to see the Ph-6 have some small edge of the down fired version from the Ph-5.
Hmm, here's a new thought. Under XAegis stand alone Ph-6's can in later aegis steps decide to fire at the same or a different qualifying target.
Ph-6's fired from Ph-5's adhere to basic X1 aegis rules.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 06:22 pm: Edit

I want to see spinal megaphasers, or something like them, on some ships.

"Sir! He's got us centerlined!!!"

"...is your insuranc**BOOM!**"

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 06:27 pm: Edit

I toyed early on with a type of heavy phaser called a phaser-H. It was basically a 120-degree 3/4 power phaser-M that costs two points to fire; one point each over two turns. It was generally considered a bad idea by most everyone, as it made the ships too phaser heavy.

As far as mixing phasers goes, I did mix phaser-1's with Phaser-X's on my Klingons. With the exception of the XC7, the Klingon ships only carried phaser-x's in the boom...the rest were just x-phaser-1's.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 09:07 pm: Edit

Pfht. Phaser-heavy isn't a bad thing As long as the spinal/heavy is exempt from the every-third-hit rule

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 09:20 pm: Edit

Quote:
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.

I say...is anyone surprised.

Look at the X1 Ph-4.

It can fire as a Ph-4, Ph-1, Ph-2 or Ph-3 and rapid pulse as 2 Ph-1 shots, 2 Ph-2 shots or 4 Ph-3 shots ( all covered in XE2.4323 ).

Phaser should remain a DIAL weapon for all races.
In the Y era people could down fire a Ph-2 as a Ph-3.
In the MY era people could down fire a Ph-1 as a Ph-2 or a Ph-3.
In the X1 Era people could down fire an X1 Ph-1 as a Ph-2 or Ph-3 and could rapid pulse as a pair of Ph-3 shots.

Phasers are first and Foremost the swing weapon of SFB AND "DIALABILITY" is an integral part of that.
Taking away any of the dial down capasity of the X2 Phasers is just bad fung-shu.

Or is that funk-shoe!?!

Quote:
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.

I think the Phaser-M as a Kzinti only weapon could be fun ( I wouldn't want to have too many Kzinti only weapons or else the Kzintis would be completely different ).

As to improved Ph-1s. If the playtesting shows that X2 ships can run around with Ph-5 firing for one point of power then the Ph-5 being an improved Ph-1 history will do fine by me, if it needs to soak up 1.5 power then being a watered down version of the Ph-4 will do fine alternately.

Quote:
Still, I would like to see the Ph-6 have some small edge of the down fired version from the Ph-5.
Hmm, here's a new thought. Under XAegis stand alone Ph-6's can in later aegis steps decide to fire at the same or a different qualifying target.
Ph-6's fired from Ph-5's adhere to basic X1 aegis rules.

What exactly is the rule number that the second shot of an X1 rapid pulse must be fire on the same target as the first???
If you mean is only required to fire one of it's rapid Pulsed shots as at an SC5 or smaller target then that might be a good edge.
Personnally I think replacing 1Ph-5 with 2Ph-6 and giving each Ph-6 the ability to rapid pulse 2Ph-3 shots means that the Ph-5 is falling short of the Ph-6 pair in point blank fire power...Even if the Ph-5 could rapid pulse as 3Ph-3 shots it's still not as good as the 4Ph-3 shots you can generate from from a pair of Ph-6s, and that should be the real advantage of having a pair of Ph-6s mounted on your ship; you don't do so well against ships at long range but when a seeking plasma or drone gets caught at R1 of you: BLAMMOH!!!...each race will then need to make it's own mind up about how many Ph-6s they install if at all.

Quote:
I toyed early on with a type of heavy phaser called a phaser-H. It was basically a 120-degree 3/4 power phaser-M that costs two points to fire; one point each over two turns. It was generally considered a bad idea by most everyone, as it made the ships too phaser heavy.

A Simple little Phaser-M would work okay.

My thinking would be the SSDs would have pairs of Ph-6s linked by being abutted to each other in pairs. So link an SFG they take two points of damage to kill each Ph-M but a hit drops the Ph-M into opperating as a Ph-6.

Thus as a Ph-6 pair the Ph-M can fire as a 2Ph-6 shots or 4 Ph-3 shots or 1 Ph-6 shot and 2 Ph-3 shots.
But using symapthetic occolation the twin phaser streams of the Ph-M can fire as a Ph-1 shot at the cost of a Ph-3 shot from both emmitter or as a Ph-5 shot paying for a Ph-6 shot from each emmitter.

In this way the Ph-M gets the advantages of both the Ph-5 and the Ph-6 pair dynamics of regular ships, but at a somewhat higher BPV than sticking with one or the other.
It'ld be a very Kzinti weapon in that they normally carry a forrest of Phaser-3s and now they will instead have a plantation of Ph-Ms.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 08:13 am: Edit

It occurs to me that with all the talk about this phaser-X that I never posted the rules for it...at least, not seperately. Might as well do that now.

Phaser-X

The 2X phaser is a vastly different weapon than the previous phasers of SFB, so much so that it doesn’t even use a numerical designator like phaser-1 or phaser-2…it’s simply the phaser-x. Previous phaser technology had one primary goal; increase damage output from a given phaser, without altering really how the phaser itself worked. X1 phasers skirted this issue to some degree with the ability to down-fire phaser-1’s as a pair of defensive phaser-3’s, but in general, the X1 phasers weren’t so very different than those that had come before. This changed in Y205 with the first phaser-x.

The phaser x is designed to be used as a multi-purpose, highly flexible weapon system. While its maximum damage output is slightly less than that of the phaser-1, it has other advantages, including the X1 double capacitor. The most significant difference is that the phaser-x is mounted in a phaser array, not in banks. The array is made up of up to four separate phasers, all with the same arc. They can be fired separately, or together, and in a variety of offensive and defensive modes. These are outlined as such:

Offensive: Group fire, single fire.
Defensive: Aegis-controlled single fire, Aegis-controlled rapid pulse (as paired phaser 3’s.)

The phaser-x has other advantages, as well, including a bonus for firing as an array, and penetration of non-X2 shields. It costs one point to fire in any mode save the rapid-pulse mode, which is .5 points for each phaser-3 shot fired.

Offensive group fire: Offensive group fire is defined as firing two or more phasers from a single array in a narrow salvo at one target, without aegis control. These shots are resolved as any normal narrow salvo, with one difference. For every two phasers in an array that fire in this mode, subtract one from the die roll on the too-hit table. Since an array has a maximum of four phasers, this means the best result will be a –2 shift on the roll. This modifier is cumulative with any other die modifiers from other effects, such as EW. While this will not increase the maximum output of the array, it will increase the average damage it does, and it is particularly effective at longer ranges. This bonus is applied to only the phasers in the firing array, and only for one array at a time.

Example: A Federation XCM has four phaser-x’s in it’s FX arc and two phaser-x’s in it’s RA+L arc that are bearing on a Klingon DX. It can fire the four FX phasers as one narrow salvo, with a –2 shift on the roll (-1 per two phasers in one array, 2 pairs in this array = -2). The RA+L phaser-x’s can also bear on the DX, and can fire as a narrow salvo with a –1 shift (-1 per two phasers in the array, 1 pair in this array = -1). The two narrow salvos are rolled separately to determine damage, even though they are considered one salvo for purposes of damage allocation since they were fired simultaneously.

Offensive single fire: This type of fire is resolved just like normal phaser fire. The phasers in the array can fire separately at any target they choose, and are resolved like a normal phaser attack.

Defensive single fire: Against any size class 5 or smaller target, the phaser-x can be fired using X-Aegis control in single shots. These types of shots are generally used against larger targets such as fighters or PF’s, or perhaps large or armored drones.

Defensive rapid pulse fire: Similar to the X1 down-firing of a P1 as a pair of P3’s, the phaser-x can fire two X-Aegis controlled shots as phaser-3’s against any size class 5 or smaller target. This makes for a very handy point defense mode.

Two Firing Stages Like Hellbores, the phaser-x has two firing stages. Any phaser-x with power available (either from EA, reserve power or capacitors) can fire during either of these two stages. Either of the two stages can be fired in any mode the player chooses, though any damage scored against a single target is considered one salvo for damage allocation purposes. This allows a tremendous amount of flexibility in the phaser-x equipped ship; some phasers can be used in one stage to defend against seeking weapons, while others are used to attack a target of opportunity (such as a downed shield) during the second stage, after other direct weapons fire. So, while the phaser-x doesn’t do as much damage individually as a phaser-1 (particularly at close ranges), if used correctly it can do significant damage and give the owning player more choices about how best to use his phaser suite.

Integrated Example: :A Federation XCM, with one FX array of four phaser-x’s, and two separate arrays with two phaser-x’s each covering the RA+R and RA+L arcs is fighting against a Klingon DXD. At a range of 10, the DX is closing and has six type X drones on the board. The XCM has full capacitors and the DXD is within the arcs of his forward array, and his left side array. The Federation player declares fire, and in his first stage phaser-x fire period fires his four FX phasers at the DX as one group. He rolls his narrow salvo, and gets a result of “4”. He then subtracts 2 from this roll, ending up with a final result of 2 for that salvo. The damage total is 12. This damage will be allocated in the damage allocation step. Other direct fire weapons are resolved, with the Federation player firing his four photons and striking the DXD for a further 60 points, dropping its shield and doing internal damage. The Federation player now fires his second stage phaser-x options. He can fire his RA+L phaser-x array at the DXD to exploit the damage done by the photons, or he can engage the drones closing in on his ship. He chooses to fire in single fire defense mode, against the two incoming drones. He scores 4 points of damage on each, and then chooses to wait an impulse before engaging with his ADD’s from his G2X rack. The XCM has used 6 points of phaser capacitor energy this impulse, leaving him 10 points available in his capacitors for future use.

The phaser-x is very much at the heart of the stuff I've worked on, and is that "new weapon" that SVC mentions everyone getting for X2. Some use it more than others, just as some used the phaser-1 more than others. But it's definately the kind of direction I wanted to take my stuff. I know not everyone will want too, and that's fine...it's why we have multiple submissions going.

The original draft had rules for the phaser-X to penetrate non-X2 shields; 1 point for every 10 against X1 shields, and 1 point for every 5 against non-X. Didn't work out that well. It wasn't horrible, but we felt it would have driven up the BPV too high.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 09:45 am: Edit

Ya know, with a -2 from phasers, a -1 from a legendary gunner, a -1 from "Winning the EW game"

You have a net -4 to the die roll......and a -3 most of the time.....

That is just too much. All of these weapons have nifty ool gadgets that will shred anything they fight. It is getting very Supplement #2 in here.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 10:03 am: Edit

Chris,

Respectfully, I have to say you're jumping to a lot of conclusions about something you haven't played yet. Do you know how many of these are carried on any given ship, or what that ships BPV is? Probably not, because most haven't been posted yet. A Klingon XBC has only four of these phasers; hit one, and that -2 ability is gone. And even with it, the very, very most they can do is 28 points. Period. Four phaser 1's at the same range can easily equal that, and even outperform it. A Fed XCM is roughly equal in BPV to a Klingon DX with legendary gunner. It has only eight phasers; one bank of four covering the FX arc, and two 2-bank sets covernk RA+L and RA+R. It has less power, but more to do with it. Try playing that out before saying it's too much. I believe you'll find it isn't as big a cake walk as you think. Sure, these ship have some neato toys...but they're expensive toys, but you can't power an ASIF, sheild regenerators, S-bridges and weapons all at once...not if you want to move at a decent speed. It's as much about power management as ever.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 10:15 am: Edit

Mike, you are assuming that the SSDs you folks have come up with are the ones to be taken, which is probably trus in a few cases but not so in others.

These weapons are TOO powerful. I have played a heck of a lot of SFB over the years and this stuff is ubership beyond any of my wildest dreams. Sure, the BPVs will max out, so if you are playing a pickup dual or whatnot then it will be kinda ok, but anywhere else and it is whacked.

I have done plenty of testing of X2 types of ships and weapons and built a whole fleet of them. And they were less powerful than a bunch of the things you guys are coming up with, and they still trashed X ships and GW ships, and that is even after upping the BPV to rediculous numbers.

It is back to the change everything about every single aspect of the game we can, and then lets cram it all into a ship that only cost 300 BPV? No way.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 10:31 am: Edit

Well, I for one don't want to change every aspect of the game, so we agree there. For example, I have done no x-transporters, x-tractor beams, x-attrition units, x-boarding parties, x-"super move" capabilities, or x-batteries (beyond x1 batts). I did give x2 ships three more probes each, better lab capabilities, the new shuttles from J2, and the stuff above. So far the X2 ships I have made and played are smaller than X1, and have less but better weapons. They also all have less power and are more "GP" designs. I played Feds with 24 point photons, and didn't like 'em. Played Klingons with six uber disruptors, and didn't like that, either. Tried playing the "big" X2 ship, with 42 or more warp and BB like shields...didn't like it. Here is an example of a Fed XDD, which I have played several times and found to be quite fun:

Fed XDD

Not that bad, IMO. Less power than a DDX, a bit better protected, and more flexible. You can arm it with four photons, but even arming four standards is a serious strain. I found it a good ship to play around with. the option mounts are restricted to either GX racks, photons, or Plasma-F's.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 11:14 am: Edit

I will agree that many proposals would be too powerful combined with other proposals but they should be judged to be that way, IMO. First look at them as not in addition to any other proposal because nothing is established until SVC says it is. Get the proposal functioning right and fine where it will and won't work with other ideas.

Adding a Leg. Gunner is always a big deal and on an X2 ship it's going to cost a rediculous amount so it's not really to good for the game. The weapon should be analized before considering such things as Legendary Officers or optional rules.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 02:16 pm: Edit

Loren, I totaly disagree.

When considering a rule, you have to look at it from scratch, and then all the other things that could go with it.

A -4 to any die roll is just silly. And that could very well happen.

And yes, some X2 BPVs I have seen are indeed rediculouls. Especially the Huge XCC that some (but not all thankfully) prefer. If you load up a ship that big with even 3 or 4 of the toys that have beenm suggested here it will cost more than the B-11...but folks still call it a crusier. That is an example of rediculous.

As for the various proposals here, I like several of Mike R's, but that's it. His are cool, but not way out there, with the exception (in my opinion of course) of the X2 phaser's -1/2 ability.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 03:17 pm: Edit

How about using the phaser-x -1/-2 drm, cumulative with other negative drm except that total bonus can never be better than -2? Two ph-x array-firing with a Legendary Weapons Officer gives a -2 bonus. Four array-firing + LWO still gives only -2, but other LWO advantages (change in effective range, for example) could still be used.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 03:40 pm: Edit

It does. I may not have been clear about this. The effects of the system are cumulative with other modifiers, but you can still only get a -2. How it accumulates is dependent on the targets modifiers. For example, If I am firing a four-phaser array at a target, and I have a legendary gunner, my total applicable bonus is -3. Only 2 count toward the roll. If the other guy had won the ECM game, and had put a +1 shift on me, I'd still get a -2. But, if I had no legendary gunner, and he had me at a +1 EW shift, I'd get a -1. So, it is cumulative in a way, but no result can be better than a -2 on any roll. Does that make sense at all? Sorry about the confusion. It's also noteworthy that the only way to get the -2 bonus is with a four-phaser array...loose even one, and you're back to a -1 at best. Only the largest X2 ship has a four phaser array. The Klingon XD7 has one in the boom, and the Fed XCM has one in the saucer. All frigates, destroyers and the like have only two-phaser arrays. The bonus for one array isn't cumulative with another.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 03:49 pm: Edit

Mike:

The Tholian XPC you posted in a diferent thread had a four-phaser array in the bow, and it is small even by frigate standards. The Tholians are something of a special case in this regard, however. And like the earlier versions, the XPC had no non-phaser weaponry.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 03:51 pm: Edit

That's true...forgot about that. But, it is a special case, and has no other weapons. This assumes, too, that that's how a Tholian X2 PC would look...something people more familiar with Tholians than I am would have to judge.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 03:52 pm: Edit

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 03:53 pm: Edit

Ok, so this thing will effect EW shifts in a big way...instead of powering ECCM, you just fire straight through your opponents +2 EW shift for no penalty?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 04:04 pm: Edit

Yup. Again, though, it's pretty rare, and it isn't hard for X1 ships to win the EW game with X2. Consider the DD above, with 25 regenerative power, against the DDX, with 32. Try to power your SIF and do other stuff, and you really don't have any power to play EW games. I've seen it more than once when playing. Truly, these weapons aren't that bad. I went against almost every "big" improvement in weapons because I hated the idea of the all-crushing uber-ship, but I haven't found these to be that bad.

Once, I played a Fed XCM against a CX with an EW shift of -1 in one of our early games. In an oblique pass at range 3, I threw out 24 points of phaser damage using six phasers; one array of 2, and one array of 4. In return, said CX fired back with 37 points of phaser damage...ouch. Down went my shield, and his was still up. We exchanged photons later, and trashed each other pretty badly. See, the problem was that even though I had the -2 phaser bonus, I didn't have any EW bonus for my photons. So, I only hit with two of them...he hit with three of his. I technically won, because he blew up, but I was in sad, sad shape by the end.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 04:14 pm: Edit

See, I still don't think that X2 ships should be the better warships, that's what X1 (only 20 years old and all) is for.

That XCM should never have lost to the CX, ever.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 04:26 pm: Edit

My understanding was that in the early X2 years, X2 ships are roughly comparable to their X1 counterparts as combat vessels, despite their superior technology, because the X1 ships were optimized as warships while the X2s were more "Jack-of-all-trades" vessels that devoted a much lower percentage of their hull volume to power and weapon systems in order to leave more room for other functions.

In the later X2 years, the Xorks show up, and the only way the Alpha Sector races can survive is to combine X2 tech with combat-optimized designs. This is where the real combat monsters appear.

Is this basically correct?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 04:39 pm: Edit

I see it mostly that way but the new X2 designs have to be capable of keeping the peace. They should present a sort of developement wall as well. To not make a design that is highly combat capable is to invite a potential enemy to out do you and war starts again.

That is the entire point of my big XCC design. It is the Flag ship that shows all the other races what they will face if they start up hostilities again. Sure there are very few but that doesn't have to stay that way. Look at this ship. You cannot afford to out do this and you cannot afford to face it either in war.

Each race builds one class of very high end design and then implements the technology mostly on smaller hulls.

Some seem to think that I advocate uber fleets. Quite the opposite is true. X2 ships, for the most part, would return to similar box counts of pre-GW and mid-GW designs. Except for the prime example (XCC), which would be something that out classes every thing that has come before(at the cruiser level of things).

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 04:44 pm: Edit

ANd your XCC is the thing I dislike most about the entire project. Loren, I know you work very hard on your stuff, But I sincerely hope that when SVC gets around to designing XS that he does not use anything like your XCC. It is NOT a cruiser. Its a DN on steroids.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 04:57 pm: Edit

Loren:

I'm not sure that that is the best solution though. Another possibility for the "deterrence ship" - if you will - would be a Dreadnought fully converted (not an XP ship) to X1 tech. Such a ship would be the most powerful ship any race would possess at this time, except for a Klingon XP conversion of the B-10.

So races might build X1 tech Dreadnoughts (in very small numbers) and use all of their X2 resources for Jack-of-all-trades purposes, until the Xorks of course.

I'm not saying my suggestion is necessarily better or worse than yours, only that it is another way to achieve the results you specify. (Part of this relies on the assumption that by the early X2 years, X1 ships are comparatively quick and easy to build but X2 ships, due to the newness of the technology, are still complex and time consuming.)

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