Archive through September 01, 2004
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: First Generation X-ships: X1R The X-ship R Module: Archive through September 01, 2004
By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 10:33 pm: Edit

Peter, I would expect 3 point caps and 2 point caps to have the exact same total ship output. The 2 point cap ship would just have 50% more boxes.

Which leads us to this: What is the right amount of total mauler damage?

By Peter David Boddy (Pdboddy) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 10:59 pm: Edit

Therein lies the rub.

It's late right now, else I'd be doing it, but someone should go through and find out what sort of damage the non-x maulers are capable of. Then we'd have to argue about how much better X-maulers are supposed to be, and then we'd have our right amount of damage.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 11:00 pm: Edit

Standard tech war cruisers have 24-28 point maulers.

Standard tech heavy cruisers have 32-34 point maulers.

Other than the Romulans the next closest thing to a heavy weapon is an ESG.

A 100% improvement and assuming max values would be 54 CWX and 66 CAX. Divide by 3 and you get 18 and 22 caps. Max damage would be 108 and 132, which I think is enough. Do we really want an autohit weapon to do more damage then that?

By Peter David Boddy (Pdboddy) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 11:09 pm: Edit

No, that sounds about right to me.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 01:57 am: Edit

Mauler Damage Table
Ship R0-1 R2-5 R6-10
SPF 56 28 14
KRM 68 34 17
FAL 72 36 18
D6M 68 34 17


Basically we could say cruisers have 32 BTTY which in turn would mean 48 total power form the mauler caps which means either 16 mauler cap or 24 depending on how you see things.

I just don't think people will buy seeing a FAX with just 66% as many mauler cap SSD boxes as the FAL once had BTTYs.


Maybe they will!?!...maybe the added flexibility of a few other kinds of SSD boxes will make the mauler more functional.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 03:02 am: Edit

So which thread holds the discussion on X-fighters?

Well whatever, Mike R. has a really good starting line-up on the X-fighter. He calls it YF-122 ATF. I hope he puts up a link for it because it's pretty cool.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 04:30 pm: Edit

Remeber that you can't just replace all the bats with caps or your ship would have no bats. That is not a trade off most Captains would be willing to make.

By Peter David Boddy (Pdboddy) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 05:22 pm: Edit

MJC: Uhm, are two plasma Ms enough functionality for you? The FHFX Mike Raper put up is certainly no slouch, and maulers are good at what they are supposed to do generally.

Quoth MCJ: I just don't think people will buy seeing a FAX with just 66% as many mauler cap SSD boxes as the FAL once had BTTYs.

Er, are you saying people who play this game can't do basic math? :P

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 08:43 pm: Edit

The plasma-Ms are seriously handy ( as are the Plasma-Ls on the FAX. But...you can weasel off a plasma torp but it's very hard to weasel off a mauler beam.
Also you can phaser down a mauler beam...if a Fed CX is centerlining a mauler at range 2, the mauler with say 20 Mauler-Caps will generate 20 points of mauler damage ( hold her phasers to deal with the Drones the CX can launch (actually she'll probably hold the first three bearing X1Ph-1s)) and fired her plasma to be at R1 on the impulse she fires her mauler, then the CX will fire on the plasmas.

4 R2 Ph-1s on each plasma reduces the plasma warheads by 9, so the CX takes 22 points of damage from the Plasma ( with 15 points in the BTTYs and 40 shield boxes the shield will stay up ) and a further blast of 60 points of damage from the mauler...for about 27 internals.
However her own Photons will inflict a massive average of 53.33 points of damage on the FAX plus her four remaining Ph-1s which will in turn inflict about 23 internals.

Sure at R1 the mauler will cruicify the CX but will the CX let it get that far and why didn't the CX turn or HET after firing to take the Plasma-Ls on a different shield!?!


Quote:

Quoth MCJ: I just don't think people will buy seeing a FAX with just 66% as many mauler cap SSD boxes as the FAL once had BTTYs.

Er, are you saying people who play this game can't do basic math?


No I'm saying they think they CAN DO basic Engineering.

IF a Klingon DX can mount 6 Disruptors, the the Klingon XCA MUST be able to mount six disruptors...or at least it must be possible to mount 6 disruptors, if you can aford to.

So too if the FAL had 36 BTTYs and the FAX has just 6 BTTYs and 20 Mauler Caps even with the extra few SSD boxes the push will exist for the FAX to get redesigned to carry a full 6 BTTYs and 30 Mauler Caps at least but since this is an X ship it might even be expected to carry more.


Sure most will say that 20 times 3 is six point of power to fire the mauler but many will still want more.
If you keep the maulers at 66% of what they once were they will still look like they are taking most of the boxes on the ship and players will be less inclines to ask for bigger & better maulers based on the grounds that once apon a time ships that were lmost ALL MAULER were flying around.

By Peter David Boddy (Pdboddy) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 09:04 pm: Edit

Yep, a plasma can be phasered or WW'd. Launch pseudos. Follow them in. If they phaser, bully for you, bolt the plasmas at close range, and maul away. If they WW, fly in, maul, kill WW, tractor, fire real plasmas. Either way, seriously mangled ship results...

As for the hypothetical FAX, 20 caps with x3 caps is plenty. Probably more than plenty.

My point comes down to this: X-tech doesn't necessarily mean every weapon will increase in damage/effectiveness by (insert arbitrary number here)%. Some will be different certainly?

As for the mauler, why go bigger when smaller might be better? A nice DDX mauler variant could still pack a nasty punch, and would be able to survive to maul. Not to mention cheaper as well. If you're going to build X-ships, do you really want to use your X-cruiser builds for maulers? Maybe one or two at most anyways....

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 01:56 am: Edit

Quote:

As for the mauler, why go bigger when smaller might be better? A nice DDX mauler variant could still pack a nasty punch, and would be able to survive to maul. Not to mention cheaper as well. If you're going to build X-ships, do you really want to use your X-cruiser builds for maulers? Maybe one or two at most anyways....


C.M. BURNS BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS LAB...When the H-bomb just isn't enough.


I'm not really sure if people will dig having Destroyer maulers that can maul just as well as cruiser maulers but the cruisers mauler have better functionality.
It kind of leads to it's own statement..."maulers are such crap weapons that by the X1 period the various races arn't willing to put on cruiser hulls any more (or arn't willing to go as far with them as they can if they are mounted on cruiser hulls)."


A Glock 17 is better than an 9 mm UZI because the weapon is smaller and light a 9 mm shot to head will kill someone reguardless of how long the barrel is or how many extra bullets the weapon can fire.
But even without resorting to the full automatic setting of the fire selector switch I'ld rather take the UZI into a gun fight...the longer barrel lets me hit more often at all but very close ranges and the extra 15 bullets lets me fire on much more marginal shots.


So too the full-capped-to-the-teeth X mauler cruiser has a certain role, in that a number of people would rather take IT INTO BATTLE over an above X mauler cruiser that mauler at the same rate as X mauler destroyers.

By Peter David Boddy (Pdboddy) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 06:37 am: Edit

Heh, you could take a Glock 18, have nearly as many bullets in the clip (33!) as the Uzi, and have a better firing mode (3 round bursts will beat full auto anyday done properly), and the Glock will fit easier into your pocket. Gun comparisons won't work for ships in SFB because there are way more variant guns than there are ships in SFB. :P

I don't quite see where you are going with this "functionality" you keep talking about. A mauler ship is supposed to do what? Are you looking for a mauler, or a full cruiser that just happens to have a mauler tacked on?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 06:43 am: Edit

Quote:

or a full cruiser that just happens to have a mauler tacked on?



Bingo.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 10:51 am: Edit

Quote:

I don't quite see where you are going with this "functionality" you keep talking about. A mauler ship is supposed to do what? Are you looking for a mauler, or a full cruiser that just happens to have a mauler tacked on?


Basically have few SDD boxes marked tractor or Transporter or phaser or LAB allows the mauler to opperate in the fleet as a fleet-escort which then means the mauler can be kept for when the time is ripe rather than charging on in because all it has is one humungous uber weapon and killing or dieing on the first attack run.
...thus...increased functionality.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 10:58 am: Edit

...thus...not being a mauler.

Maulers exist for one purpose. Playing escort is not it. They are meant to close against a stationary target and blast the hell out of it with the mauler cannon. Other ships assist in getting the mauler in place. A good mauler doesn't have to have more labs, tractors or transporters. If you want a better mauler, do something to the mauler weapon or power supply, like adding caps instead of batteries as was suggested.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 11:09 am: Edit

From an F&E standpoint (for anyone who might care) there is no reason to build maulers once X-Tech comes along. Every X-ship can use the mauler damage procedure... thus even the Feds and Kzinti can "maul" a base or enemy DN or whatnot.

If your entire fleet is made up of GW maulers... why build 1 or 4 X-maulers?42

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 11:17 am: Edit

Robert Cole;

Yeah, but there are lots of things that happen in SFB that can't really be reflected in F&E. Quick example - F&E doesn't have the photon refits to Tholian ships, because at the F&E scale the difference is meaningless (except for the DP, which should probably be an 11/10 in F&E rather than the straight 10 of the standard D). But at the tactical (SFB) level, there is a substantial difference between a CW and a CWP.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 07:46 pm: Edit

Quote:

Maulers exist for one purpose. Playing escort is not it. They are meant to close against a stationary target and blast the hell out of it with the mauler cannon. Other ships assist in getting the mauler in place. A good mauler doesn't have to have more labs, tractors or transporters. If you want a better mauler, do something to the mauler weapon or power supply, like adding caps instead of batteries as was suggested.


Firstly...how many people fly an SPF in comparison to a FAL?

Secondly...I would disagree about the only function of the mauler being to maul targets. If my D6D loans six ECM to my D6M which itself generates 6 ECM and my D6M leads the fleet.
How many R12 Standard (or Proxy) Photons and Ph-1s, will it take to kill 22 shield boxes, 34 points of impromptu specific shield reinforcement and 34 BTTY boxes, through that +2 shift???
I suspect you'll find the answer to be...enough to make using that D6M to draw fire; a worthwhile activity.


As to a better mauler...the mauler cap idea makes the vessel a worse mauler because it just can't opperate to draw fire the way the vessel once did.


I'm begining to think X three point BTTYs with limited numbers of BTTTY boxes, massive shock penalties and restrictions on the draw rate might be in the best way out of the situation.

By Peter David Boddy (Pdboddy) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 08:34 pm: Edit

The mauler isn't supposed to lead the fleet, do that and the mauler will die. And, how do you suppose the opposing fleet won't have a scout but yours will? And, at what speed are you going, 1!?

The fleet is supposed to get the mauler to the optimum firing position, not the other way around. Using up most of the battery just to get to the target will create a very weak mauler blast.

Whether or not the mauler has batteries or capacitors for the maulers, the mauler is going to be a target. No one wants a potential 100+ points of damage to shoot at anything, not if they can destroy or cripple it before it gets too close to be useful.

I thought the point here was to do something different for maulers, not make them "just like GW maulers, but with more BATTERIES!!".

I reiterate my previous point: The capacitors will make the mauler more flexible by untying the batteries from having to power it.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 09:04 pm: Edit

Quote:

Firstly...how many people fly an SPF in comparison to a FAL?



And what does that have to do with anything? The question is not what mauler ship people play; it's how best to add an X-twist to the mauler for X1R. Capacitors do that. Making the mauler a normal cruiser and a mauler does not. If you want a better mauler, you give it more damage potential. That means more power. But more batteries is a bad option because of the raw increase in reserve power, so special purpose capacitors are a nice fix.

Quote:

Secondly...I would disagree about the only function of the mauler being to maul targets. If my D6D loans six ECM to my D6M which itself generates 6 ECM and my D6M leads the fleet.
How many R12 Standard (or Proxy) Photons and Ph-1s, will it take to kill 22 shield boxes, 34 points of impromptu specific shield reinforcement and 34 BTTY boxes, through that +2 shift???
I suspect you'll find the answer to be...enough to make using that D6M to draw fire; a worthwhile activity.


There is just soooooooo much wrong with that I barely know where to start. But if you really want to use your 125 point D6M as a big bulls eye, you're certainly going about it the right way. Good waste of BPV, but hey...if you want to get it killed, by all means, send it out front. One really does have to ask; have you ever played this game with a mauler? Sure doesn't look like it, when you toss out scenarios like that.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 10:05 pm: Edit

Quote:

I reiterate my previous point: The capacitors will make the mauler more flexible by untying the batteries from having to power it.


No it'll make it less flexible because once the power goes into the mauler it gets used for mauling or it stays...the BTTYs can do a great many things.


Quote:

No one wants a potential 100+ points of damage to shoot at anything, not if they can destroy or cripple it before it gets too close to be useful.


You are centrlined at R1 by a Fed CX...welcome to 120+ points of damage!
The all evveloping 2 plasma-S plus 2 plasma-M, Gorn cruisers is a collosal 280 points of damage from plasma alone!

One of the things we forget is that X ships are not like GW vessels.


Quote:

And what does that have to do with anything?


A lot if players opt for partial maulers more than they do for FULL MAULERS then maybe that says something about how X-maulers oppperate.
The maulers with the extra flexibility must be doing something right or else players would go for the ships with the bigger KAH-BOOM.


Quote:

There is just soooooooo much wrong with that I barely know where to start. But if you really want to use your 125 point D6M as a big bulls eye, you're certainly going about it the right way.


Read MAULER AS TARGET by Jonathan Clemens in CL11.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 10:32 pm: Edit

Quote:

A lot if players opt for partial maulers more than they do for FULL MAULERS then maybe that says something about how X-maulers oppperate.



Actually, I think it says more about how much BPV they have to spend...but I digress. What, in your estimation, is a "partial mauler"? A Falcon? D6M? Sparrowhawk-M? What?

By Peter David Boddy (Pdboddy) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 10:40 pm: Edit

Quoting MCJ: No it'll make it less flexible because once the power goes into the mauler it gets used for mauling or it stays...the BTTYs can do a great many things.

Yes, and the batteries can do much more when they don't have to power the mauler! That's the point of the capacitors, that's why they were suggested. You make it sound like it is power wasted for some reason.

Your point here doesn't quite fly. Is the Fed CA cruiser less flexible because once the power is in the photons, it's either used for firing or it's not? That's the kind of sense your speaking here. Is the Klingon DX less flexible for the same reasons, once the power is in the disruptors, it can only be used for disrupting?

The point you try to make could be said for every ship and weapon in the game. So should we just add a pile of batteries to every ship because "BTTYs can do a great many things."?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 11:13 pm: Edit

The point isn't that capacitors are better then batteries, it’s that batteries are too good because they CAN be used for other purposes. X-Maulers isn’t about making them more powerful then GW-Maulers, it’s about keeping them from becoming monsters. It's not better if it's not balanced.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 04:13 am: Edit

Quote:

Your point here doesn't quite fly. Is the Fed CA cruiser less flexible because once the power is in the photons, it's either used for firing or it's not?


Well actually yes...what is a the Klingon sabre dance if not a chance to do shield damage to the Fed whilst the Fed hold overloads ( even if only 9 pointers and holding cost power for no direct additional damage which is wasted power ) but is also under the threat that if it dischages ( wasted power ) then it could be over run.


Quote:

What, in your estimation, is a "partial mauler"? A Falcon? D6M? Sparrowhawk-M? What?


Anything but the Falcon...but everything has it's own degree of partialness but the SPF is a very partial mauler.


Quote:

The point isn't that capacitors are better then batteries, it’s that batteries are too good because they CAN be used for other purposes. X-Maulers isn’t about making them more powerful then GW-Maulers, it’s about keeping them from becoming monsters. It's not better if it's not balanced.


I agree 100% but by the same token having CAPs takes away flexibility for the mauler which forces the mauler to opperate wholly and solely around the charge in and blast tactical doctrine which isn't everything the mauler is built for and giving a very two dimensional vessel even fewer dimensions is going to be "unfun".

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