What if we build in a decreasing efficenecy table into the mauler system.

Say use 3 point X BTTYs but have the mauler damage calculate by fire finding the number of BTTYs with upto 1 point in them and then the number with upto 2 points and then the ones with upto three points and multiplying the number of BTTYs with each level of power by the damage product in the table and then sum the results of all the damage outcomes of the all the BTTYs that were fired.

This is much easier when all BTTY are considered their own array but all the power in that BTTY must be fired through the mauler or none.

Blue is BTTYs with 1 point, Green is BTTYs with 2 points and red is BTTYs with 3 points.

Damage Multipliers at range	Upto 1	Upto 2	Upto 3
R0-1	x 2	x 1.5	x 1.25
R2-5	x 1	x 0.75	x 0.5
R6-10	x 0.5	0.25	0.25

E.g. I have an X mauler with 4 three BTTYs with 3 points of power and another one with 2.5, five BTTYs with 2 points in them each and one BTTY with 1 point in it and I fire them all at R1.

My calculation would be, ( 4 x 3 + 2.5 ) x 1.25 + (5 x 2) x 1.5 + blue{ (1 x 1) x 2 for a total of 35.125 which like all maulers would then round down to 35 points of damage.}
From 25.5 points of power, 35 points of damage ain't ship killing anymore.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 10:43 am: Edit

A Sparrowhawk M is hardly a "partial" mauler. I has nearly the same battery capacity as the Falcon, and a better overall weapons suite.

You need to clarify your position. You're all over the place with this discussion, and now we're not even sure what it is you want, or why.

By Peter David Boddy (Pdboddy) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 03:38 pm: Edit

Heh, I'm half tempted to just say, "@#$% it!" and ignore his postings. :P

But seriously, it sounds like he wants maulers to be all things to everyone. And the fact is, they can't, or else they would be the only ship built.

By John Erwin Hacker (Godzillaking) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 05:15 pm: Edit

To Everyone:
I DO HOPE AND PRAY THAT THE STEVES NEVER EVER ALLOW X-MAULER TECHNOLOGY INTO THE GAME. TALK ABOUT A NIGHTMARE TO DEAL WITH. THIS GORN PLAYER WILL GO TO THE FEDERATION AND HIDE (GIGGLE-GIGGLE), IF THAT EVER HAPPENED.
UNTIL NEXT TIME AMERICA,JOHN.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 05:37 pm: Edit

No need to shout.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 07:24 pm: Edit

@#$% it...???

Is that anything like: Functional Uber Cyber Killers of I.T.?

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 07:34 pm: Edit

I'm with the Hacker

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 07:44 pm: Edit

Hum, I was anti X1 mauler before. But If CFant is against it I may have to give it some more thought

By Peter David Boddy (Pdboddy) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 08:05 pm: Edit

Kludge, you here to chum the waters again? :P

Hehe, better that we hash it out about the x-maulers than leave things unsaid.

Maulers are useful enough for X-tech to be applied to them, but maybe instead of that, the mauler caps could be an XP upgrade, instead of an all out change to X-tech? What do folks say to that? And maybe someone should start a thread in the XP stuff?

Oh, and Loren? You're bang on the money with your Functional Uber Cyber Killers I. T. ;)

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 08:30 pm: Edit

No I haven't been real active here lately. But if you look back in the early archives you will find I was fairly active on 2X. I got a whole batch of Roms and a few others on Vorlons X pages.

As to chumming the waters. I finished this morning building the SG map. I have the hex layout etc. BUT I haven't gotten around to placing the counters on it. BATS Planets ETC.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 09:10 pm: Edit

So if we did have some kind of decreasing output system for X-BTTYs firing through maulers...would that actually work?

We could find ways of watering down the complexity...like requiring all fired shots to be the same energy level but I think it isn't too complex as is.


And I don't want maulers to be all things to all people ( you want a real world ship that can do a good job of every thing and you get a ship that can do everything but doesn't do a good job at anything ) but rather I want maulers to be everything they could have been under GW technologies and more.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 07:56 am: Edit

The point is to not load the ship down with a dozen or more x-batteries. This isn't because of the mauler, it's because having a ship with that kind of reserve power is inherently bad. It doesn't matter what kind of rules you make for limiting mauler fire, because all that power will still be there for other uses, which is what the problem is.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 09:34 am: Edit

Okay what about some design rules that limit X BTTYs?


XH.___1A Because X-BTTYs were inherently expsensive items the "bean-counters" with each mauler using admiralty felt that loosing massive number of X-batteries with explosion of the ships was ecconomically un tenable.

OR

XH.___1B Because X-BTTYs use a polar storage system, the X-batteries impose massive impedance on the generation of warp feilds and as such ships were limited to a handful on each vessel.


XH.___2 Thus the following limits were put on the number of BTTYs on each mauler, which whilst far fewer than the dirt-cheap/low-impact GW BTTYs still provided a signnificant ( 33% increase ) improvement over the GW mauler performance. Thus the table below limits the number of X-BTTYs that can be placed on a vessel.

MC	X BTTYs
0.5 down	8
0.66	12
0.75	14
1	16

With Super uber totally devloted to the mauler, mauler X cruisers like the FAL-X being a wopping 20 X-BTTYs.


In this way a D6M-X moves from 35 BTTYs in total to 16 but with the ability to hold 48 which is an increase over the 34 it can pump through the mauler of 41% ( which isn't much better than the increase that most X ships got in their shields ).


Note I think either of the above restriction is so restrictive that if it were at all possible ALL BTTYs on a vessel would be linked to the mauler. (BTTYs on the boom being the possible exception).


I wonder how maulers stack up with their ratio of Engine boxes to BTTYs, we might find some enlightenment there?

By Peter David Boddy (Pdboddy) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 10:04 am: Edit

Quoting Mike Raper: The point is to not load the ship down with a dozen or more x-batteries. This isn't because of the mauler, it's because having a ship with that kind of reserve power is inherently bad. It doesn't matter what kind of rules you make for limiting mauler fire, because all that power will still be there for other uses, which is what the problem is.

MCJ: Did you not read what Mike wrote? What you've written above doesn't address the massive reserve power the mauler ship would have. Unless, and it's difficult to read this into it, you're saying that all the batteries would be attached to the mauler and that the batteries could only be used for mauling. Elaborate a bit more...

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 10:08 am: Edit

Quite simply a 280 X2 BPV ships just shouldn't opperate by 125 BPV GW ship rules...to some extent.

By Peter David Boddy (Pdboddy) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 10:16 am: Edit

No one has stated that at all. But X2 has to follow along similar lines as X1 and the GW ships before them, or else X2 will break the game.

I agree with Mike, too much reserve power capability is bad.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 10:24 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Quite simply a 280 X2 BPV ships just shouldn't opperate by 125 BPV GW ship rules...to some extent.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 10:47 am: Edit

Okay...I meant X1 vessel.

But what I'm saying is this.


On an MY Fed CA, four points of power is a lot of power mostly because its more than the Klingon D7 has...but also because you can block H&R with one points of G.S.Reo twice.

On an X1 Fed CX 15 points of power is a lot of power...or so you would think.
With Fastloads the Photons at R5 are generating 24 points of damage ( total ) per turn coupled with phasers of ( obliquing 9Ph-1s ) 31.5 points of damage for a total of 55.5 points of damage per turn of which 15 points of BTTY is just 27%
The CA firing alternate Photons at R5 is looking at generating 14 points of Phaser damage and 16 points of photon damage for a total of 30 of which 4 would be 13%.

Basically therefore as a percentage of the damage the ships can generate the increase in reserve power has about doubled ( from 13% to 27% ).


I'm recommending that the D6M-X and the KRM-X go to having 16 X1 BTTYs which in turn would be 48 points of reserve power.
Forty eight points of reserve power with respect to the 35 points the reserve power the D6M already has is not about double..it's quite a bit less.


Sure, jumping up with damages of the D6M from 68 points of mauler damage at R1 to 96 seems like a huge jump but it's actually quite small compaired to the jump from 30 to 55.5 of the CA and CX.
And that's the thing about huge amounts of reserve power...they arn't as much of a problem as huge amounts of generated power:- After the enemy has used all his reserve-power what does he do!?!...generated power just keeps on going.
The object of the mauler's opponent is to keep alive for long enough to see the Mauler park and recharge and then kill it whilst its trying to recharge...and with the ability to generate 55 points of damage at R5 every turn it won't be too long before the mauler's 48 points of reserve power is exhausted.


I really do think that people have missed this...the damage that X ships an generate ( even to other X ships ) is seriously increased over the ships we normally think of measuring ships against and that creates problems of perceptions.
The enemy generating 96 points of damage isn't exceptional damage in the X1 period ( 9Ph-1s and 4 overloaded Photons is more than enough ) so sqweezing 96 points ( using all 16 X1 BTTYs @ R1 )of damage out of the mauler at R1 seems like a lot but is actually quite typical of the vessels it is competing against.


As to tractor auctions, I'ld rather 15 points of reserve and 40 warp engine boxes to contend with 48 points of reserve and 40 warp engine boxes than 4 BTTYs and 30 Warp Vs 35 BTTY & 30 Warp.

As to other stupid reserve tricks, the D6M can already tractor three drones at R3 and ADD them to death.

I really just don't see how shifting a GW vessel's 35 points of reserve to 48 points in an X enviroment is really going to be a game breaker.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 11:03 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I'm recommending that the D6M-X and the KRM-X go to having 16 X1 BTTYs which in turn would be 48 points of reserve power.

---

---

Quote:

I really do think that people have missed this...the damage that X ships an generate ( even to other X ships ) is seriously increased over the ships we normally think of measuring ships against and that creates problems of perceptions.

---

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 11:09 am: Edit

Wouldn't there need to be a D6X before a D6MX?

More importantly, why do people want an X-Mauler?

Who uses maulers in SFB now? I would bet less than 10% of players.

Look at it this way... If I have a choice between an X-cruiser and an X-mauler, I want the cruiser (it is more versatile). I don't care if I'm attacking a base or a planet or a shuttle, the cruiser is going to be better able to "take on" anything that comes at it.

Besides... if an X-mauler is so powerful that it is preferable to the "Cruiser God" than is an X-cruiser - then the mauler is too powerful.⁴²

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 12:05 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Sigh. As usual, it's everyone else that missed the point. Gosh, how could we be so narrow minded as to think 48 points of battery reserve power is bad? What were we thinking?

---

---

Quote:

I don't care if I'm attacking a base or a planet or a shuttle, the cruiser is going to be better able to "take on" anything that comes at it.

---

By John Erwin Hacker (Godzillaking) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 03:47 pm: Edit

To Everyone:
Sorry about cyber-shouting in my post above, I think I just got out of control with it. On to the matter at hand. If there was to be X-Maulers allowed on Romulan, (or for that matter, any other races ships), then I think it would only be fair and right to allow ALL OTHER RACES that border the race that has X-Maulers to get something fancy to equal out the technology race. On the other hand allowing the Romulans to have this technology would turn the eastern part of the Alpha Quadrant into a crazy arms race to see who could outdo the other. These are just my own personal thoughts on the matter.
Thank you very much for reading, John "GODZILLAKING".

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 04:20 pm: Edit

Not all proposals are that out of whack, John.

Nobody except maybe MJC are arguing for a straight-up X-battery repelacement becaus e we all agree that's insane.

We're looking for something that preserves the system and keeps it in line.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 05:23 pm: Edit

The original mauler weapon was so big it required its own ship, the Falcon. We could build something similar with X-maulers; the weapon has to be 3x the size to handle the 3x Bats. No more Flame-hawk. You want an X-Mauler? Go convert a Falcon.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 05:29 pm: Edit

Working on that, actually...a kind of suped-up Falcon. No battery mauler, though. Going with the capacitor system instead. The key, here, is to preserve the flavor of the mauler as a somewhat one dimensional ship that can clean your clock with one huge shot if it gets in position. I think what I have so far is a good start. I'll post it later, when it's done.