No 3x P-3 from a P-5.

2x P-6 is it.

You're welcom to propose something else. My answer won't change.

Other people may decide for themselves.

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

I'm there with you John. That issue was worked out loooong ago.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:49 pm: Edit

Say no to P3s. P6s.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 03:33 pm: Edit

Total agreement, here. Just say no.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 08:59 pm: Edit

Agreed No P3s.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 09:43 pm: Edit

If Ph-6 shots cost 0.75 then Ph-3 shots should be allowed to save power.

I for one just don't see the Admiralties going for ships that can't defend themselves against even a DXD's fire, considering how cheap DXDs are compaired to these vessels.


Perhaps the S-Bridge really should have Drone Knock downs ( for non-X2 drones ).

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 09:56 pm: Edit

Point Defense Plasma system

This PDF details the rules for this system. It is part of the Tycosian race project I'm doing, and has been tested quite a bit...it works just fine, but I wonder if it might be usefull for X2, as well. Not sure if it'll ever see the light of day with my stuff, even though Steve is going over the whole project as a possible for the Lost Empires module. Anyway, I thought it might be a neat X2 toy for the Roms, who face off against drone-toting Feds all the time. Ignore any references to Tycosians; I was just to lazy to remove it all and re-write the document that much. You'll get the idea.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 06:02 am: Edit

I wonder if we could devlope a point defense mechanism that would work without having a new kind of SSD box.

How about this.
X2 Pseudo Plasmas are so advance thaty they can be fired in shotgun mode. Furthermore when they reach Gw era drones they have micro transmitted that scramble the drone guidance system and forces the drone to become inert.


In this way the ships has some counter drone capasity, with no new SSD box and it isn't strong enough to fool X drones which would then put X2 drone chuckers at a disadvantage ( such as the Feds and their ability launch 2 type VII drones per turn ).
Perhaps there could be a die roll to see if the drone is knocked down with X drones having a higher rate of survivability.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 08:43 am: Edit

NA

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 01:12 pm: Edit

I figure this is the best thread to post X2 AEGIS stuff so here goes:

I'm thinking of a few new capabilities for X2 AEGIS (which I'm calling "AEGIS II"), including a "cooperative engagement" mode and a specialized AEGIS-guided seeker-defense drone. More on those in a later post.

For Y205 I see AEGIS II having a two-pulse capability (works in well with a double-pulsing P6) against SC5-7 targets. X2 improvement gives you the ability to (technobabble) "use advanced computer simulation" to make better defensive fire. The way it works is you commit to using both pulses and you roll three times instead of two. You pick the two best rolls and use their results (i.e. throw out the worst roll). It won't work with only one pulse, you have to use both pulses. (1) designate which weapons fire in which pulse. (2) make the die rolls and toss out the worst roll. (3) then apply the best roll in the first pulse, followed by the next best roll in the second pulse. All other AEGIS rules apply, including existing X-rules.

For late-X2 AEGIS (or "full" AEGIS II), I can see going to four pulses for designated AEGIS units and you can "simulate" the 3-for-2 in both "sets" of tandem pulses (i.e. 1-2 and 3-4). "Cooperative engagement" basically pools "simulations" for AEGIS II ships within a certain zone. Like I said, more of that stuff later.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 01:53 pm: Edit

Here's another way ot get a similar effect, that requires less dice rolling. For every pair of pulses fired under X2 Aegis, roll a die for the first pulse. After seeing the results of the roll, you may choose to use that die for the second pulse as well, or roll the second pulse seperately.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure this actually saves any time over R. Brodie Nyboer's version, since you have the decision step between the rolls. But you have that decision step whenever you are using Aegis fire control anyway, deciding how many additional pulses to fire.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 05:36 pm: Edit

I think your version is more simple, Alan, but my version incorporates a "random chance" factor by using the die rolls. For gaming purposes I prefer that.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 06:00 pm: Edit

Alans is similar to my track lock proposal. Fire a phaser one impulse and roll the die. After the die is rolled you can elect to call a track lock or not. If you do you may fire one phaser using that die roll +1 and each consecutive impulse after that you can continue but each track lock can only be followed up by a single phaser each consecutive impulse. You can have as many simultanious track locks as you like on different targets.

Of course there are only some many that would be practical. Note also that fire is spead out over many impulses so you have to keep them in arc.

Speaking of which, only phasers that can fire in the same arc as the originating phaser can participate and the target must remain with in reach of both phasers (the originator and the currently firing one). Follow up phasers need not have the same coverage and another follow up phaser.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 06:06 pm: Edit

Radiocyborg:

I think either version would work as a method of making Aegis fire more effective without simply using a better phaser table. It doesn't make any difference to me which version is implemented.

I do have a little heartburn about the phrase "cooperative engagement" for something like this, however. Are you implying you can only get this Aegis improvement if the ship is part of a fleet battle? There might be some improvements where that would be justified, but I don't think this is one of them. You said you had some other ideas that you would post later. I think you should reserve "cooperative engagement" as a term only for advantages that require multiple ships coordinating. If the upgrade is something that a ship patroling alone could still use, I think you should find a different term. This is a nitpick, of course.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 10:32 pm: Edit

We're on the same page, Alan. "Cooperative engagement" is a mode that is used by multiple ships. A single ship wouldn't have to use it.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 12:49 am: Edit

My Feelings on the Ph-6 are mostly being driven by two drone defense ideas and if they are covered then I will be okay with using Rapid pulsed pairs of Ph-6s without also trios of Ph-3s.

These two odeas are the type X drone ( 24/8/40 ) and the type VIIB ( 18/3/40 ) both of which need to be shot down ( on occassion ) at R2.
That being the case the 50% more Ph-3 version of the Ph-6 and Ph-3 shots both fail to make the grade.

For this reason I would look to Ph-2 as the basis for the Ph-6 and then water down the effects.
If no Ph-2 result more han four may be considered to be any more than 4 ( with the possible exception of the top corner ), the R3 range is made particularly weak ( by inserting the Ph-3's R2 results in the Ph-6's R3 collum ) and compresing the longer range effects of the Ph-2 and causeing R0 result 6 to inflict only 3 points of damage we might actually get a weapon that can both stop drones at longer ranges and not overkill PFs the instand Ph-2 effective range is reached.

Thus:-

Ph-6

Die	Range
Roll	0	1	2	3	4-8	9-12	13-15	16-20	21-25
1	5	5	4	4	3	3	2	1	1
2	5	4	4	4	3	2	1	1	0
3	4	4	4	4	3	1	1	0	0
4	4	4	4	3	2	1	0	0	0
5	4	4	3	2	1	0	0	0	0
6	3	3	3	1	0	0	0	0	0

I also think the above Ph-6 table ought to be the basis of the X2Ph-G or Ph-Q ( Quick phaser ) as that would give certain vessels like th Hydran Hunter and Stinger-F ( or more accurately the X2 versions of them ) a little more bight at R25 and thus will to some extent render the Ph-G obsolete as the Ph-5 does the Ph-1.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 03:36 am: Edit

Nothing is ever 100% right.

Ph-6

Die	Range
Roll	0	1	2	3	4-8	9-15	16-20	21-25
1	5	5	4	4	3	2	1	1
2	5	4	4	4	2	1	1	0
3	4	4	4	4	1	1	0	0
4	4	4	4	3	1	0	0	0
5	4	4	3	2	0	0	0	0
6	3	3	3	1	0	0	0	0

I think the Ph-Q should be able to fire four of the above shots or rapid pulse for 6Ph-3 shots.
If that sounds excessive all I can say is, well it is X2.


For those that are interested her is the relative average damage of 2Ph-6 shots using the above table and 3Ph-3 shots.

Weapon	0	1	2	3	4-8	9-15	16-20	21-25
Ph-6	4.16	4	3.66	3	1.16	0.66	0.33	0.16
2Ph-6	8.33	8	7.33	6	2.33	1.33	0.66	0.33
3Ph-3	11.5	11	9	3	1	0.5	0	0
4Ph-6	16.66	16	14.66	12	4.66	2.66	1.33	0.66
6Ph-3	23	22	18	6	2	1	0	0

Hence at R2 the rapid pulse of 2Ph-6 shots will stop a type X drone quite often and thus is okay, without causing the pressure of the Ph-5 to be able to fire four Ph-3 shots like Ph-G, which is too much like suppliment 2.

There is still the question of whether 6 bearing Ph-5s can generate enough type IF and IVF drone kills ( 12Ph-6 shots ) to deal with the XCA's BPV in drone chuckers, although I would say the S-Bridge ought be able to knock down drones like a special sensor does for precicely that reason...for those that don't follow I'm for S-Bridge knock downs but with rolling 4 or less for GW drones, 2 or less for X1 drones ( including type VIIB and type VIIIB ) and 1 or less for the true X2 drones ( type X, XI & XII )...I'm also for the S-Bridge being able to attract seekers as it won't help much in a duel or 500 BPV pick up match but in a full fleet battle the ability of your XCC command ship to sheild the carrier escorts from that deathrider flying towards it will be very handy.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 11:41 am: Edit

This is one aspect that we will all have to take a much closer look at.

The balance between phasers and drones is one of the trickiest things to get right, and can make or break the whole X2 module.

But, do we want to make it identical to GW, just with bigger numbers?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 01:41 pm: Edit

There's only so far we can stray and play nice with standard tech.

That one stricture dampens the changes we can moke more than anything else.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 11:27 pm: Edit

I'm not talking about changes that won't make it play nice with standard tech.

What I'm saying is that right now, within the GW tech, there's a very specific way in which phasers are balanced vs. drones.
If we make X2-phasers balance against X2-drones in exactly the same way, have we really added anything to the game?

For example: with GW tech, at range 1, a big phaser is an autokill against a small drone, while a small phaser will kill it 2/3 of the time.
Do we want the ph-6 to have the same performance against an X2-drone that a ph-3 has against a Type-1?

Another key point: When dealing with phasers vs. drones, average damage is meaningless. Either you autokill it, you can't kill it, or there's a probability of killing it.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 11:49 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

What I'm saying is that right now, within the GW tech, there's a very specific way in which phasers are balanced vs. drones.
If we make X2-phasers balance against X2-drones in exactly the same way, have we really added anything to the game?

---

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 08:24 pm: Edit

Well what if we "spread the load" on drone defenses? My proposal uses Phaser-6 that can pulse twice under AEGIS and is supplemented by (in essence) integrated advanced anti-drones.

This presents a sort of layered defense in that your own drones can engage the incoming drone(s) at long ranges, then photons (if you're a Fed) using proxes, then your Phaser-5 can engage, then inside your AEGIS close-defense umbrella you can engage with anti-drones and Ph-6. Then there's also EW. My proposal also lets the Ph-5 pulse twice as a Ph-6 under AEGIS.

Thus the two-pulse Ph-6 really isn't a problem because it's one weapon in a suite of drone defenses. By providing layered drone defenses I think you have more room to play with creating new drones as well.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 10:04 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Well what if we "spread the load" on drone defenses? My proposal uses Phaser-6 that can pulse twice under AEGIS and is supplemented by (in essence) integrated advanced anti-drones.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 07:55 am: Edit

Why? ADD's are cheap when compared to firing X type IX drones. They also work better in a purely anti-drone environment.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 09:58 am: Edit

Yes and no.

There is a chance that ADDs will not hit the target...if only firing ADDs at R2&3 there is a one in six chance of a drone slipping past and if firing at R1,2&3 a one in nine chance of the drone slipping past.
This just doesn't happen with type IX drones, type IXs also have a massive range being not restricted by the 12 hex limit of the type VIF.

12 ADDs from the G-rack fired as 2 thirds at R3 and one third at R2 will get ( 8 x 0.66 + 4 x 0.5 ) 7.33 drone kills and consume the entrie rack.
A GX-rack firing as an E rack will score 4 hits in a turn and consume just 2 space of drones. If that GXX-racik could fire at six impulses apart that killing would jump to 5 ( and sometimes 6 ) drones per turn per rack for 2.5 to 3 space of drones per turn.

The ADD is a bit better but very wasteful on ammo and not entirely dependable.