| By Daniel Knudtson Thompson (Brezgonne) on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 12:57 pm: Edit |
nifty idea. I think you need to bump up the flush size to 50km though to fit any number of ships inside
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 02:22 pm: Edit |
Sure, the point is that it's a small fraction of the area in a hex and therfore can be easilly avoided.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 04:54 pm: Edit |
Well, just for kicks, I made a possible Tholian X2 CC. It isn't for everybody...that much is certain. Those who like the idea of particle cannons for X2 Tholians would certainly prefer it over those that don't. Much of the design is influenced by what I proposed the Tholians would do during this period; basically, shut down the boarders and be even more reclusive and xenophobic than ever. Looking back at Op Nutcracker (territory overrun, capital devestated) I can easily see them saying "never again" and building a fleet that is going to be extremely effective on the defense...even more so than before.
R7.?? Tholian X2 CC
A few notes: This design is based on my own vision for X2, and uses some of my own stuff...namely
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 07:43 pm: Edit |
Ships stuck in X2 web take one point of damage on their front shield on each impulse the are scheduled to move (rear shield if moving backward). Internal damage cannot be caused this way, just shield damage (ala shield cracker tech).
Units caught in an X2 web may not fire out of the web, except Tholian phasers. Units in an X2 web may not be fired upon except by Tholian phasers. Units in an X2 web may not be hit by seeking weapons until the impulse after the seeking weapon reaches range zero. Units caught in an X2 web may fire weapons at range zero.
| By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 08:21 pm: Edit |
Tos,
If you keep Non-tholian units from being able to fire into or out of a web. You just made the Tholians Invincible.
I suggest you try again.
| By Daniel Knudtson Thompson (Brezgonne) on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 09:40 pm: Edit |
Mike: o.O that ship has less total power than the Tholian X1 CCX.
I'd think the X2 version would at least have as much power than te X1 version.
X1 version has 32 warp, 5 impulse, 6 APR.
Your X2 version has 32 warp, 6 impulse, and 4 APR.
From what I saw of the X2 Ph-5, if I was choosing between te Ph5 and the PhX I would take the Ph5 due to it's improved ability to fire through web. Remember that web subtracts damage from phasers. Not die rolls. So phaser weapons that do more damage are better than ones that get a die roll ship on the same chart.
No increase in power over the X1 version (actually losing some), phasers that are actually less effective behind web than Ph1s at some ranges, no increase in shielding. Overall the ship seems like something of a step backwords to be honest.
I'd think the rest of the ship would at least match the same upgrades as the other X2 ships.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 09:55 pm: Edit |
Quote:You just made the Tholians Invincible.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 10:01 pm: Edit |
The Advanced PC is definately NOT inferior to the Heavy Disruptor.
| By Daniel Knudtson Thompson (Brezgonne) on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 11:34 pm: Edit |
Mike: Re-read your post.
Yay! we agreed on something :D
I think that if you increase the lenght to 6 you need to bump the capiciter up to 7 points as well. Dunno. could be wrong but that seems like the other obvious progression to me.
Could you explain your choices to not follow the same improvement pattern I've seen on other X2 ships (warp, shields, ect)?
| By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 01:48 am: Edit |
In re the web torpedo, I'm not convinced it violates the no-Tholian-SW rule provided it has no web fist-like option (that is, all it can do is create free-standing web, not ever cause damage).
If someone wanted to playtest it, I would suggest starting with the PL-S, using the same arming cycle, and translating warhead strength at range directly to web strength. The web would be just like any other free-standing web...
| By Daniel Knudtson Thompson (Brezgonne) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 02:22 am: Edit |
Than:
Just to make sure I grasp what your proposing....
a seeking energy weapon that follows the web rules for effect, plas-S for strengh.
On impact it's akin to hitting a web of the strengh equal to the rest of the warhead strengh?
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 08:12 am: Edit |
Daniel,
Yeah, I know...it does look a tad low-powered. But, I did all my 2X stuff like that, for several reasons. Let me sum up:
I didn't want more power on my X2 ships, particularly not the early ones (Y205). It is my view (and a few others share it) that X1 ships are purpose-built for combat, and are thus more powerful and more heavily armed than just about anything else you can get. The first "set" of X2 ships are supposed to go back to being more multi-purposed. They are intended to be much more flexible and efficient, rather than more powerful. Thus, they don't have as much power nor as many weapons as the X1 equivelant.
Power: Stuck with the same engines as the CCX. Most of the other X2 cruisers I have use X1 sized engines, or CF sized ones. The difference is that they do not wear out in the same way those others did, giving the ship a longer life span and less time doing maintenance and such. No real effect on the playing of the game, bit it fits the model of "better without more power". I'm saving the big bad power monster for Y215, where you get XBC's.
Phasers: Yeah, the phaser-X does do less damage, that is true. However, there are some advantages that counter that. For one, firing cost. The phaser-5 was agreed by everyone to have a firing cost of 1.5; the phaser-X costs only 1 point. Further, they have 3 point caps that allow them to fire three times without re-arming. Also, the die shift for group firing will ensure much better average damage, particularly at medium ranges; it really only underperforms at close ranges. Lastly, going with the phaser-X model gets you two more phasers in the forward groups, so even though they do less damage, there are more of them firing at one time. (Most everyone here also agreed that if using the phaser-5, it should be mounted in less numbers than the phaser-1; so, a Fed XCA might have only 6 phasers in the saucer, and a pair of 360 phasers in the aft hull. Better, but less, than the CX.)
Shields: Shields did remain the same in total strength. However, the shields are regenerating shields; pay the five points to activate the regenerator, and every turn during the dam con phase each shield will automatically repair five points of damage, up to its normal maximum of 40 points. So while the shields are no bigger, they last a whole lot longer; particularly when you can hide in a web.
Web caster capacitor: Thought about 7 points, but didn't want to improve everything. I would also like to hammer out more details about just what the X2 web caster can do.
Anyway, that's about it. The overall picture is "less power, more and better ways to use it". One of these days I'll have to play around with the Tholian XBC, which ought to be truly scary.
| By Daniel Knudtson Thompson (Brezgonne) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 08:57 am: Edit |
Mike:
Power: Even if you keep the engines, the ship sould have at least had the same amount of power as the CCX. As it is, it's short a point.
Phasers: I don't see how the capiciters, firing cost, or die shift can be worth it if the net result is that the phaser does a worse job behind web that a Ph5. Die roll shifts won't help much of anything if the '1' roll is still to low to get through web since last I knew every die shift never lets you get better than a '1'.
Shields:
I disagree somewhat. Shields are one place Tholians have been strong in and I see no reason they would not improve further on them. I do admit that I don't know what sort of effect the regen function has.
WC: It isn't really improving everything I don't think. Just the two most obvious steps up I would think.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 10:40 am: Edit |
Here are some numbers comparing phaser-x arrays to phaser-5s, assuming as Mike Raper did a 4 to 3 ratio. Remember that every two phasers in the array firing narrow salvo at the same target give a -1 drm.
3 ph-5s at 15 hexes average 8 points of damage.
4 ph-x array firing at 15 hexes average 10.67 points of damage with the -2 drm.
Same range but ECM shift of +2 (so phaser-x array has no net drm). 3 ph-5s - 4 points of damage. 4 ph-x array firing - 7.33 points of damage.
Range-8. 3 ph-5 - 11 points of damage. 4 ph-x array (-2 drm) - 14 points of damage.
Range-8. 3 ph-5 (+2 ECM shift) - 6.5 damage point. 4 ph-x array firing (+2 ECM -2 array = 0 net drm) - 10.67 damage.
Range-5. 3 ph-5 - 14 points of damage. 4 ph-x array firing (-2 drm) - 15.33 points of damage.
Range-5 3 ph-5 (+2 ECM shift) - 9.5 points of damage. 4 ph-x array (0 net shift) - 13.33 points of damage.
Range-3 (Note: This is a very important range for base defense purposes. It occurs when the attackers have assaulted the outer ring in force and driven the defenders back behind the middle ring. The defenders attrit the attacking force for several turns while taking no damage themselves. Note also that there is no damage reduction for firing through web in this case since the Tholians are adjacent to the only web they are firing through and damage reduction for firing through web is based on the number of hexes between the Tholians and the web they are firing through.)
Range-3 3 ph-5 - 16 points of damage. 4 ph-x array firing (-2 drm) 18.67 points of damage.
Range-3 3 ph-5 (+2 ECM shift) - 12.5 points of damage. 4 ph-x array firing (0 net shift) - 16.67 points of damage.
Note that a 4 ph-x array beats 3 ph-5 in all of the above cases.
Now let's move all the way in to Range-0.
3 ph-5s - 26.5 points of damage. 4 ph-x array firing (-2 drm) 25.33 points of damage.
3 ph-5 (+2 ECM shift) - 21 points of damage. 4 ph-x array firing (0 net shift) 22.67 points of damage.
HOORAY! We finally found one that the ph-5 wins! - But just barely, and only in the no-ECM shift case.
The rule for Tholian phasers firing through web is that each phaser loses one point of damage for each hex between the distant-most web and the firing ship. So if the Tholians were firing at range-5 and there was one hex between them and the web, the 3 phaser-5s would do 11 points of damage (6.5 against a +2 ECM shift) while the ph-x array would do 11.33 or 9.33 with ECM canceling array fire modifier. ph-x array still wins.
As the distance between the firing ship and the web increases, the ph-x array is more penalized than the ph-5s. With two intervening hexes between the firing ship and the furthest web, the 3 ph-5 lose 6 points of damage while the array loses 8. 3 intervening hexes would make these numbers 9 versus 12 points of damage lost. On the other hand, as the previously cited damage-at-range numbers make clear, the array is much less susceptible to damage reduction in a heavy ECM environment.
An additonal consideration is the ability to take damage. If an X2 cruiser with 8 ph-5s loses a phaser it has lost 1/8 of its phaser capability. A Tholian X2 cruiser with 12 ph-x (2 4-phaser arrays and 2 2-phaser arrays) has lost 1/12 of its phasers by number but also has lost some drm mod. If the lost phaser is in a 2-phaser array the remaining phaser has no drm adjustment. If the lost phaser reduces a 4-phaser array to 3 phasers, those 3 now narrow salvo with a -1 drm rather than a -2. So the Tholian would actuall have lost a bit more than 1/12 his phaser firepower, but still would have lost a lower percentage than of it than an 8 phaser-5 XCA.
Finally, there's the issue of seeking weapon defense. 8 ph-5s presumably fire as 16 ph-6s for seeking weapon defense while 12 ph-x fire as 24 ph-3s. They would get no drm unless narrow salvoing from phasers in the same array. The advantages here are mixed, but Tholians also have web casters and snares to help against seeking weapons.
All in all, though the advantages vary with circumstances, I think the ph-x as proposed by Mike Raper is better than 8 ph-5s for the Tholians, even taking damage reduction through web into account. Of particular note is the phaser-x array being much less susceptible to ECM in a heavy EW environment.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 11:36 am: Edit |
Though I don't expect to succeed, I'm also going to argue for replacing the four particle cannons on that ship with two "web lances". I'm assuming for these purposes that a web lance functions exactly as a web fist fired from an X1 web caster.
First, for those who think the web lance would be too power hungry, note that two of them will draw 12 points per turn while 4 particle cannons would also draw 12 points per turn, or a maximum of 24 points per turn in overload range. (Note that while the second shot of a turn is cheaper than the first in normal mode, an overloaded particle cannon shot costs 3 points of power for either shot.) Also, charged particle cannons require energy put into the capacitor each turn to maintain the charge. But web casters, once armed, can hold the charge for free for 5 turns. Whatever else may be said against the web lance, it canot be said it would be too power hungry, relative to 4 particle cannon.
But would 2 web lances do enough damage to be effective? That's the key question.
Remember first of all that the Tholian XCA as proposed by Mike Raper gets most of its firepower from phasers. It can afford to do a bit less damage with its heavy weapons, because its phaser firepower would exceed that of other XCAs. So lets look at the actual damage comparison of two lances versus 4 particle cannons.
Range 31-40, the particle cannon clearly wins since the web lance can't range that far at all. But 8 shots from 4 particle cannons only do 2.67 points of damage per turn, for 12 points of power. This is not all that impressive compared to the phaser arrays.
Long range fire is where the negative drm granted by the phaser-x arrays really comes into its own. Mike's XCA has 2 4-phaser arrays that, assuming no ECM shift, will do 3.33 points of damage each at that range. The two 2-phaser arrays only get a -1 array drm so do 1.33 points per array. So 12 points of power put into the phaser arrays would give 9.33 points of damage but put into the particle cannons would only give 2.67 points of power. If there is a +1 ECM shift, the particle cannons fall to 1.33 total while the 4-phaser arrays are 2.67 each and the 2-phaser arrays are 1 each for a total of 7.33 points of damage from the phasers.
The particle cannon's superiority to the web lance at 31-40 isn't really that important since the Tholians would give the phaser arrays priority anyway. The particle cannon adds slightly to this if the Tholian can afford to power both weapon types.
Overall - Minor particle cannon advantage over the web lance at 31-40 hexes.
Range 23-30, the particle cannon is still doing 2.67 points of damage for 12 points of power. 12 points of power into the the web lance gives 5.33 points of damage at this range. Web lance advantage.
Range 21-22, the particle cannon and web lance each do 5.33 points of damage for 12 points of power. Draw.
Range 16-20, the particle cannon still does 5.33 points of damage for 12 power while the lance does 10 points for 12. Clear lance superiority.
Range 11-15, the particle cannon is 12 damage for 12 power versus 10 for 12 for the lance. Particle cannon advantage.
Range 9-10, the web lance jumps up to 16 points expected damage for 12 power. Web lance advantage.
In summary, outside of overload range, the particle cannon is superior 31-40 and 11-15, a total 15 hexes within the range. The web lance wins at 23-30, 16-20, and 9-10, a total of 15 hexes also. The weapons are even at 21-22 hexes. Given that the margin of superiority for the web lance is much greater in the range bands where it is superior, while the particle cannon is only slightly superior in the range bands where it has the advantage, I submit that the web lance is clearly superior overall, outside of overload range
The situation changes within overload range and there four cannons are clearly superior to 2 lances. Later today, I will post why I think that isn't as important as it may at first appear. I don't have time to do so now, but it concerns what I think the Tholian tactics should be given their historical position, and the fact that during the X2 era, they will still have older but very effective close combat ships like the CPX with 4 X-photons.
| By Daniel Knudtson Thompson (Brezgonne) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 11:58 am: Edit |
Alan: Narrow Salvo???
Err.... no thank you. I'd really rather not put all my damage into one die roll.
3 Ph5 FA+R
3 Ph5 FA+L
1 Ph5 RS
1 Ph5 LS
4 Ph1 RX (Maybe 2...I made it 4 due to the mass numbers of weapons I've seen on the other ships)
Web Lances: The lances suffer from a number of drawbacks I can see.
1) They are very easy to mizia off since there are only 2 of them.
2) They are just flat out inaccurate. While the PCs share this inaccuracy, they are much less all or nothing weapons. The web lances put all the damage into two die rolls.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 12:59 pm: Edit |
You'd be crazy not to. This isn't like a normal weapon; firing in groups (narrow salvos) virtually guarentees more damage. Consider firing a group of four. Instead of an average die roll of 3, your average die roll will be 1. You will almost always do more damage when firing them in that way. It isn't a gamble, such as with disruptors or photons...it's a guarantee of more damage. It is the major advantage of using the phaser-X.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 01:13 pm: Edit |
Daniel;
Those were the rules as proposed by Mike Raper. And before you get too paranoid about narrow salvos, note that with the phaser-x flat damage curve and the array negative drm modifier, it is impossible for a 4-phaser array to miss at 8 hexes shooting against a +2 ECM shift. Even on a roll of 6 they would do 4 points of damage and on a roll of 5 or better, they would do a minimum of 8 points of damage.
By comparison, a phaser-5 shooting at 8 hexes against a +2 modifer averages 2.17 points of damage so 3 of them only average 6.5 points. 3 phaser-5s shooting against +2 ECM shift max out at 12 points of damage while a 4-phaser array with the +2 shift cancelled by the array fire bonus average 10.67 points.
With no ECM shift the array bonus gives the 4-phaser array a minimum damage of 8 points and a roll of 5 or better would score at least 12 points. The 3 ph-5s with no ECM shift only average 11.
I think you're worrying too much about that narrow salvo thing.
Regarding your objections to the web lance, yes they die quicker than the particle cannons. But web casters are hit on "drone" hits while I believe (will need to check my rules to be sure) that particle cannons are hit on "torp". If the lance is hit on a "drone" (like the caster), it would provide padding for the web caster, something no non-tournament Tholian ship has currently. (Both generators and snares on non-tournament ships are hit on "flag bridge".)
With fewer shots but a much bigger punch, the web lances will completely whiff more often than the particle cannons, but they are also statistically more likely to do enough damage in one volley to penetrate the enemy's shields from outside overload range, particularly if the caster doesn't need to create web that turn and volleys with them as a fist.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 04:04 pm: Edit |
The Narrow Salvo is how you break the skin to begin the process of wearing them down (for all weapons).
A distance average hits aren't good enough. They can be just as ineffective as missing entirely because of the level of recovery (or reinforcement).
Keep narrow salvoing until you hit the jack pot then you can move in to begin the wearing down process with avarage rolls.
| By Daniel Knudtson Thompson (Brezgonne) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 04:10 pm: Edit |
Alan: I don't think so really....I'm not trying to be diffcult. I just don't see what is supposed to be so special about the Ph-X compared to the Ph5.
I understand the numbers your putting up but I keep looking at the two and asking myself which would be better and I keep coming up with the Ph5.
The differance in damage is very slight at range 8 and is ONLY in the PhXs favor if all the phasers are fired at once.
And at close range the -2 shift just doesn't help overcome the less damage the PhX does compared the Ph5.
Comparing EW shifts doesn't particuarly prove anything since it scales the damage for both weapons about equally.
Looking at the two weapons, and assuming an average roll of two 3's and two 4's for the Ph5s and a average roll of 3 or 4 for the PhX... I come up with 16 for the PhX and 14 for the Ph5.
Yes, in this case the PhX does 2 points more damage. But in order to do it, it has to fire the whole bank where as the Ph5s will do the same damage curve regardless of if you single fire (Mizia) them, shoot at fighters, ect.
If te PhX tries to mizia or fire on multiple targets it's damage drops to around 10 for 4 phasers.
So overall, I just don't see how the PhX would be a better weapon for the phaser heavy Tholians than the Ph5 would be.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 05:20 pm: Edit |
Continuing the discussion of 4 particle cannons versus 2 web lances for the Tholian XCA, this time within overload range.
The particle cannons undoubtedly have an advantage over the web lances in overload range, but I submit that in practical terms the advantage isn't as great as it might appear. This is due the particle cannon's greater susceptibility to ECM in the 5-8 range bracket and the fact that it spreads its damage over 12 impulses minimum.
First the ECM susceptibility - 4 particle cannons will average a total of 24 points of damage per turn for 24 points of power per turn. The two lances will average 16 per turn for 12 power. So the lance-equipped ship will have 12 additional points of power for other purposes, including EW. Alternately, it could use that energy for shield reinforcement, doing 8 points less total damage to the enemy but receiving 12 points less. But aside from that, the lance is affected less by ECM at 5 to 8 hexes. Shooting against a +1 drm, the lances would still average 12 points of damage for 12 points of power, while all 8 shots from the particle cannons would average 16 points for 24 points of power. The cannons are now paying 12 points extra power for 4 points extra damage. Against a +2 drm, either weapon system would only average 8 points of damage per turn.
As the range decreases to 4 hexes or less, the particle canon gets both more powerful and more accurate. The web lance does neither and becomes progressively less well able to cope. But in the 5-8 range block, the lance can certainly compete based on power efficiency and superior accuracy.
The fact that the cannons do their damage over 12 impulses also has implications for the close fight. They have Mizia possibilities, but also a greater risk of spreading the damage over multiple shields and doing fewer internals even though they do more total damage points. And if the Tholians lose a cannon in the initial exchange of fire, it won't get its second shot and the difference in total damage scored is reduced on that account.
I am not arguing here that the 2 web lances would be better than 4 particle cannons in overload range. I would rather have the particle cannons in those specific circumstances. But I think the lances are not hopeless as long as they the Tholians can stay outside of 4 hexes, due to their energy efficiency. And I do think the web lances are superior generally outside of overload range and for reasons having to do with their strategic situation, that's where the Tholians should try to fight anyway.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 05:32 pm: Edit |
Daniel;
First of all, I think you're wrong about ECM scaling the damage equally. If you look closely at the numbers, the ECM shift reduces the ph-5 damage by a larger percentage (often not much larger admittedly) than it reduces the phaser-x damage.
You're correct that firing the phaser-x one at a time to take advantage of Mizia eliminates the edge in total damage. I just put less importance on that then you do, I think. The phaser-x will do more total internals, so can get away with a bit less efficiency in their allocation. And if your opponent has satisfied his turn mode or can safely HET, playing for Mizia may just waste the later-firing phasers on a fresh shield, and not do internals at all.
Both have their advantages, but I personally prefer the big punch of the phaser-x array, in most cases.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 06:59 pm: Edit |
One truly great advantage the PX has is the two-stage firing option. Like the hellbore, it can fire before or after other weapons in an impulse...a potentially huge bonus, if used correctly. In playtesting, it was really quite handy.
| By Daniel Knudtson Thompson (Brezgonne) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 07:36 pm: Edit |
Mike: How? I don't see how thats an advantage at all for a phaser weapon.
It doesn't generate any extra damage and all of the damage from one shield facing is lumped together anyway.
Hellbores it actually does matter since you can hit a shield and then fire the hellbores (or something like that) and hopefully you did enough damage to the facing shield to get the hellbores to strike it.
But for a phaser weapon all you do is fire them in a slightly differnt step and, if you get internals, there is zero differance than if you fired them all together.
How exactly is it a bonus at all?
| By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 07:38 pm: Edit |
Once a shield is down the different volleys make a diff.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |
