Archive through August 17, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
The "X" Files:
OLD X2 FOLDER:
X2 Fusion Beams:
Archive through August 17, 2003
I like the nuke blaster, I truely do... I just think the Gatling Fusion makes more sense as a 'logical evolution'... though I will certainly grant the hydran tendancy to reinvent the wheel every time they turn around!
I'd see the Gatling Fusion as a replacement for fighters more than a replacement for Gatling phasers. If there's no Stinger-X2, these would make a handy replacement, say on some kind of braodside arc like (1/2 RF)+R+(1/2 RR) or the L equivalent.
I'm with Cfant - The X1 fusion is already a great weapon.
Fires every turn, massive close in damage, roughly competitive with disruptors out to 24 hexes, mounted four to a DD. Sweet :-)
Yeah...It's got an output of 2.5 and a throughput of 1.25 in the R3-10 bracket which is better than the 2.4 output and 1.2 throughput of the UIM overloaded Disruptor and it does it to R10, every turn!
Just to put this out here, I'm proposing an X2 replacement to the fusion beam.
Nuclear blaster
The X1 fusion was shown to be a weak weapon once other races built X ships. Research was developed to try to improve the weapon.
With breakthroughs in material science, new composites were available to support (and survive, sort of) an improved tritium-fusion weapon. However, each of the first three hexes cost the weapon roughly 1/3 of its strength.
However, it proved to be impossible to refit previous generations of Hydran ships with the new materials (therefore they suffer the same damage as an Orion would when firing the weapon).
Operates the same as a GW fusion, except the arming cost and damage is changed.
Normal arming cost: 3
If fired from an X2 Hydran ship, there is no damage.
If fired from an Orion option mount, or a lower tech level Hydran, the weapon is destroyed during firing.
| Normal | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4-10 | 11-17 | 18-25 |
| 1 | 21 | 13 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 2 | 19 | 12 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 3 | 17 | 11 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| 4 | 15 | 9 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| 5 | 13 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| 6 | 11 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Overload arming cost: 6
If fired from an X2 Hydran ship, there is no damage to the ship.
If fired from an Orion option mount or previous generation Hydran ship, firing destroys the launcher and scores a volley of 8 internals.
| Overload | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4-8 |
| 1 | 32 | 20 | 12 | 8 | 4 |
| 2 | 29 | 18 | 11 | 7 | 3 |
| 3 | 26 | 16 | 10 | 6 | 3 |
| 4 | 23 | 14 | 9 | 5 | 3 |
| 5 | 20 | 12 | 8 | 5 | 2 |
| 6 | 17 | 10 | 6 | 4 | 2 |
Suicide Overload arming cost: 10
Firing from an X2 Hydran ship destroys the weapon and scores two internals (which cannot be bounced by an ASIF).
Firing from an Orion Option mount or previous generation Hydran ship destroys the weapon and scores a single volley of 16 internals.
Arming and discharging the weapon distroys the weapon and scores 1 (or 5) internals.
| Suicide | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4-8 |
| 1 | 42 | 26 | 16 | 10 | 5 |
| 2 | 38 | 24 | 15 | 9 | 5 |
| 3 | 34 | 21 | 13 | 8 | 4 |
| 4 | 30 | 19 | 12 | 7 | 4 |
| 5 | 26 | 16 | 10 | 6 | 3 |
| 6 | 22 | 14 | 9 | 5 | 3 |
My intention for a X2 Hydran command cruiser's weapons load will be 4 X1 hellbores (2 each FA-L, FA-R), 4 nuclear blasters (2 each LF-L, RF-R), 4 ph-5 (FX), and 2 ph-G2 (ph-6 pulses, 1 LS/RS each)
I still think I prefer a Ph-4Jr as the Hydrans fusion replacement.
The ability of the weapon to withstand the EW effects that Fussions beams so oft sucummed to, that it would be the weapon the Hydrans would be looking at, if they could manage it.
But a ph-4 varient seems so long-range for fusion replacement.
The proposal I have is in fact EW resistant at longer ranges. As the blaster's strength decreases with range, it becomes harder to tell a good shot from a not-so-good one.
My Hydran XCA is up (thanks Vorlon).
Too strong, not enough?
One improvement is that since the Hydrans were building this new ship from scratch, they weren't limited to St-2 size launch tubes (see CL24 - Hydran fighters). So, I added launch tubes that could launch heavy fighters.
The Blaster is a non-starter weapon, X-Fusions will work just fine as secondary armament. I’m not convinced we should upgrade the PG since that could have a dangerous trickle down effect, but I like the phaser layout. Can’t think of a reason you would need 6 tractors unless you are planning on making this an XSCS when the Xorks show up. Too light on lab for a supposedly general purpose ship, swapping the tractors and the labs would be an easy fix. Its rather light on battery power, even at 4x, but perhaps that is good considering the massive center hull. Seems like a tad too much shielding. Nice design and layout but the tracks seem light. Needs many more deck crews. For the fighters I’d rather see a P2-FX + PG-FA arrangement then 2PG-FA.
Above commentary is in reference to: http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/x2/jefftonglet/Hyd_XCA_v1.GIF
Naa, the X1 Fusion is fine. There is no need to mess with everything, and this is one thing that should be left alone.
In response to Tos' comments about the ship:
The blaster:
I'm not sure why it's a "non-starter".
I wanted something that would be roughly 50% more firepower, for 50% more energy. I never liked the X1 fusions; they simply remove the cool-down turn, but who fires them more than once a battle?
My blaster brings back the cool down restrictions.
X1 had a rapid-fire fusion.
I have a heavy fusion instead.
If you get to range 0 on a turn break, you die.
The ph-G2:
Drones are more dangerous, so I had two choices for ph-G, "more" or "bigger". My X2 design philosophy has always been to keep roughly the same size as a pre GW cruiser, so "bigger" seemed the logical choice.
I suppose I could replace the LS/RS ph-G2 with LS/RH/RS ph-G as an option for "more".
6 tractors:
The ship has 6 fighters, shouldn't it need 6 tractors?
Light on labs:
Needed to make room for the tractors. Or is 3 tractors and 6 labs a more multi-role combination? I don't want to consider Xorks at all for designing this.
Light on batteries:
See the comment about the tractors.
And if you can get through the center hull, you deserve to knock out serious chunks of the ship.
Having three 4X batteries make the ship more vulnerable than four 3X batteries.
I would have put the ASIF on the ship, but I couldn't find room with all the tables on the ship.
Shielding:
My ship has about 2 boxes per shield more than an X1 ship, plus the swing shields. This can be reduced if playtesting needs it.
Tracks seem light:
They are identical to the X1 Dragoon, and a "6" DamCon box away from being identical to the Ranger. More track boxes would imply a bigger ship, and I don't want that.
Deck Crews:
I got lazy. I use the tournament ship as a template, but forgot to change that part.
Fighter phasers:
The St-T from J2, which I'm basing my St-TX on, has a ph-G FX and ph-G RX. Switching this to 2 ph-G FX didn't seem like overkill.
Now if everyone can be convinced that the St-TX is a one-space fighter, that would solve the cramped labs/tractors/APR/Battery issues.... 
I think it might be okay as the out end of the refits ( As the Phaser suite may a little light )but for the start of the X2 period, it way too powerful, even with Feds running around with 24 point Photons.
Four 24 Pointers + 2 X2G-racks doesn't come close to Four HBs Four NBs and 6 ST-Hs!
I'm also not sure if the supply side of things will work...NBs, FBs and HBs all onthe same ship...maybe the fighters should get NBs or maybe the FBs should just all be improved.
The LBX does 183 average damage at range zero including the -1 EW shift at 248 BPV, 290 BPV with fighters.
The ship you designed does an average of 247 facing shield damage with overloads at range zero including the -1 to hit. A 35% increase in damage over the LBX, and that ratio gets worse at all ranges beyond zero.
With fusions the ship would drop to 201 damage, a 10% increase over the LBX.
Including fighters your XCA is a 500 BPV ship.
The short answer regarding the blaster, the PG2 and the P2 is the Hydrans just don’t need to improve their close range damage, it makes for a dull one-tactic game.
Adding more damage to the fusion beam is not the answer. The fusion does massive damage. The Fusion's weakness is its range. Want a 50% improvement in the Fusion? Change the range columns to 0, 1-2, 3-4, 5-15, 16-24, 25-40. Allow overloads to range 10. Same concept as behind the wildly popular P5.
Want to improve the PG? Give it LS/RR, RS/LR arcs.
I forgot to put it on the ship, but the blasters are 3-6-10 power, not the 2-4-7 power of the fusions. With that, the ship is underpowered, since it does not have the power to fire all 4 suicide blasters, 4 OL hellbores, life support, fire control, and shields.
The last thing I want is a significant range improvement to the fusions. We mixed weapons in a campaign once, and "hellbores with disruptors" kept popping up on this one player's ship. I don't want to recreate that with the new fusions. The most I want to push the issue is to change the 3-10 to a 4-10 range bracket.
MJC, comparing the fed's 4 photons vs. the heavy weapons on the Hydran ignores one thing, The feds have 4-6 more ph-5 (depending on the design).
Thanks for the inputs.
I'll make some changes then post a new ship later tonight.
• Swap the 6 tractors and 3 labs for 3 tractors and 6 labs.
• Replace the ph-G2 with normal ph-G LS/RS
• Replace the 4 blasters with 2 blasters and 2 "any" boxes
• Change the Hellbore configuration from a Lord Bishop's to a Lord Marshal's (LF-L / RF-R)
X1 Hydrans are already pretty close to "Hellbores with Disruptors". The X1 fusion improved the most of any weapon - it gets the faster firing of the photon, the greater quantity of the disruptor and works as well as a phaser with a negative shift.
Vorlon, I just sent a new Hydran XCA. Please let me know when you get it. Thanks.
Andrew, That's exactly what I'm trying to avoid.
I removed the fast-firing option that X1 gave the fusions, something which nobody seems to want to do to the Fed.
Does the fighter on this ship fire a normal phaser-3 with its ph-G, or just ph-6s? If so, the SSD needs a ph-3 table on it.
The X1 fusion beam basically turned into disruptor with different range brackets, and slightly better EW resistance.
Jeff, it's up.
http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/x2/jefftonglet/Hyd_XCA_v2.GIF
Re: Massive damage from Hydrans.
That's why I'm staying with my Fusion Gatling. It increases the utility of the fusion, is economical (allowing more power for shields to get in close to use the Fusion Gatling).
For those who don't know or remember what the proposal was:
Basically four fighter type fusion charges are mounted on a rotating rack with two one each side. The rack can be rotated on EA. The fusion charges work the same way they do on fighters. They can fire out to R3 each (two shots) or join together to get R10 or Overloaded to R3 (one shot). Power cost is 2 per charge and there is no hold cost. Can be held for 25 turns.
The rack exposes two charges for firing and two are under and inside the hull. Only those charges that are inside can be reloaded.
There is no provision to exchange charges. i.e. you cannot take charged units from fighters and load them on to the rack. Well, that's not entirely true, you can but it takes hours to unbolt the units and bolt on new ones. This could only be done between scenarios and is out of the scope of SFB (but might be a GPD thing).
Jeff, better. I would have kept the 180 arc HB. What concerns me now is the size of the fighter bay. 12 spaces of fighters would be fully loaded. If this ship had say 4 spaces of fighters what would it do with the 8 boxes you free up? I'm concerned that you could fill the boxes with APR and field a 6 HB or 6 Blaster ship.
Loren's idea reminded me, it would be neat if an X2 ship could pay 1 power for fusions and fire them as standards out to range 3.
I'm not opposed to the idea of a cartridge operated fusion concept, as long as it fires no more than once per turn:
1 charge = standard R=3
2 charges = standard R=10
4 charges = overload R=8? 10?
Charges would be replaced like drones. Spent cartridges would be placed directly in the recharger as part of the same action.
I might also be willing to see the FG powered directly in EA/Bats so you can choose to use the cartridge system or not based on your available power and cartridge loading status.
I don’t see any reason to make these cartridges any different from what the fighters carry, for logistical reasons. I would make the FG have separate cartridge storage (I’m thinking 8 per, 4 in the gun, 4 in the recharger) and make it take some time to transfer between the weapon and the fighter bay.
At what weapon status would these be charged and loaded? WS3 = loaded and charged. WS2 = loaded and uncharged. WS1 = unloaded and uncharged. WS0 = unloaded and uncharged. Surprised = uncharged and in storage, must be physically moved to the weapon before charging.
My proposal had it so that you could spend the two charges to either negate the R3 limit (to R10) or OL a single beam. That would mean the OL option would have a R3 limit. THe thing about this is that the desicision as to firing mode is made at the time of firing so it's flexable (and dangerous).
I'm working out a damage idea that I'm not sure will work (too complicated?). The thought I had was that what ever charges were on top were the ones damaged when a hit is taken and that, after damage, the rack could be rotated once more but you can't rotate it again or reload again (as to reload that portion must be inside the hull) until the damaged portion of the rack is repaired. So, I figure that keeping track is a mater of marking off the box with a single slash and a second slash ifthe second portion is damaged. There could be, off to the side of the ship SSD, a box for marking the position of the Gat.Fusion.
Now, as to firing twice in a turn, that was a big part of the idea but there is a cost. Range limitation is one. To fire it OL'ed you must spend both charges so you can only get one shot (which mean the OL shot would be rare in that you would only fire it OL'ed when you need all the damage in one impulse as you gain only 50% more damage and no increase in range. It's better to fire one per impulse.) The system is taken from the fighter which has four charges. It can fire these charges one at a time (four shots) or increase the range of two shots. On a ship with a better targeting system and a more stable platform some benefit was gained out of the system, namely that both charges could fire sepately in one turn. Hence the name.
I should point out that I see this as an auxillary weapon and that ships would mount no more than two.
Changing charges like drones: I thought about that and went the other direction but it's still a possability. I kind of like it.
Tos, as to WS: Yes, that along the lines that I was thinking, too. Also, yes these are physically the same charges as used on fighters. Only the rotating rack system and charging system are new technology.
Quote:MJC, comparing the fed's 4 photons vs. the heavy weapons on the Hydran ignores one thing, The feds have 4-6 more ph-5 (depending on the design).
So one would think at first.
The Fusion beam on overload at R8 is doing ( with a 0 shift ) 3.66 points of damage making a Fusion beam the equal of the Ph-5 every second turn or half a Ph-5 every turn for 4 power instead of 1.5 from the ship's power instead of the caps.
6 Fussion beams is only disimilar too 6Ph-5s based on the battle speed.
Furthermore the Hyudran has Ph-G2 Which are probably the equal of Ph-5s at primary fire ranges.
Finally, which Feds are you talking about, the refitted Fed with 3 LS/RS, 4 FH & two 360° or the unrefitted Fed with 2LS/RS, 2 FH & two 360°?
Indent In an oblique with the un refitted fed the 4 FA/FH,FX ( or whichever you selected ) Ph-5s and the RS/R+RR Ph-G2 is going to be about and effective firepower of 5Ph-5s against 6Ph-5s, that's not really much to be throwing on Fussion beams as a counter.
Four hellbored and Four fussion beams might match the 1 extra Ph-5 to bear, 4 photons and 2 G-racks but I think the G-racks are still a little weak in that situation...and I haven't yet cited the X2-stingers as being in effect heavy weapons.
Indeed four Hellbores and 4 Stinger-X2s will make be the equal of four photons an extra bearing Ph-5 and 2 Gracks IMO.