Archive through October 03, 2004
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 plasma: Archive through October 03, 2004
By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 05:43 pm: Edit

And running at speed-31.

And Dis-Deving.

Themselves or the plasma

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 06:27 pm: Edit

Quote:

Hehe, what about a second wave of Andros from their home galaxy? With a wave a colony ships and newer tech warships to protect them on their journey?



First I figured that the history is pleanty full with the Trade Wars and the Xork Invasion but then I considered this...

If the Andros were expecting to win their war then a coloney group is soon to arive. Perhaps after the recorded history but there should be more Andros comming. (Y250?)

I wonder if perhaps a signal being sent out might be being maintained by the Galactics how set a trap for the Andros as they arive to make sure that no Andros return to tell what happened or that the invasion failed (at least to delay it for a long time).

By Peter David Boddy (Pdboddy) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 06:50 pm: Edit

Xork invasion? Have I missed something in the Capain's Logs then?

As for the Andro's second wave, it would make a cool scenario, the colony ships sending a signal that they are near, and with the few remaining Andro's trying to get there before the Galactic forces do. A huge sector-spanning battle as the *now* desperate Andro's try to retreat to (where?)... maybe a few Andro ships from other sectors arrive in time to save the colony ships.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 06:51 pm: Edit

Peter:

Check the topics here.

There's a Xork topic. :)

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 07:54 pm: Edit

Let me know if you guys convince SVC about improved Historical Andros. Otherwise I ain't gonna worry about them.

The Andro R section says that they continued to arrive but never got past being a major nuisance again. Which implies that 2X will have to play nicely with Andros without the Andros being upgraded.

By Peter David Boddy (Pdboddy) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 07:57 pm: Edit

Ya, I started looking after I posted that. :P

Thanks though.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 09:21 am: Edit

No andro upgrades, but the Xorks will make you wish you were fighting andros.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 09:26 am: Edit

SVC's chumming the waters again:O

Let the feeding frenzy commence.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 10:50 am: Edit

What is this Chumming the waters...is it putting dog food ( CHUM ) in the waters are are you trying to say CHURNING THE WATERS?

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 10:53 am: Edit

MJC. Chum is raw bloody meat/fish. Used to attract sharks:)

So I guess you can figure the rest out of the comments context.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 09:05 pm: Edit

"The Americans and Austrailians are two people who are separated by a common language."

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 09:08 pm: Edit

Chum is also a type of salmon. Another name it is called is dog salmon. They have large teeth after they go through the physiological changes associated with spawning and they are feed to dogs.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 09:08 pm: Edit

I believe the Australians call it "burley".

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 08:15 pm: Edit

Which is better for X2? Bigger plasma or more plasma? I'm inclined to think more smaller plasma is more flexible then fewer larger plasma.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 09:31 pm: Edit

I disagree.

Smaller plasma is always more limited and limiting. In a high-speed duel especially, where smaller plasmas run out of gas sooner.

Gorns and Roms follow the pattern of having primary and secondary torps. The primary torps are the big threats who need the legs to run down a target and can't be reduced too small.

There has to be a lower boundary of torpedo we can't shrink below.

Say we're looking for a way to upgrade the equivalent of an X1 M-torp. We don't want to split it smaller torps below S-torps because if we do, it won't have the chase ability. Tactics will tend to be limited on a ship with, say, all L or G-torps. I even consider the S-torp to be a gray area of usefulness for X2.

Recent events in the FOG4 Play-By-E-mail game make that point very well. Both sides chucked S and R torps at each other and then ran them out and phasersed them down. About 250 points of plasma was launched by both sides together and nobody took more than shield damage.

And this was with standard tech, not X-tech.

There is also a general problem with more, smaller plasmas. Larger torps are more power-efficient. (as anyone whose flown both a novahawk and a regalhawk can tell you). You pay more energy for the honor of having to close closer with the enemy to make them work.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 05:06 am: Edit

Quote:

Which is better for X2? Bigger plasma or more plasma? I'm inclined to think more smaller plasma is more flexible then fewer larger plasma.


Shouldn't the question be bigger plasma or better plasma?


As I see it with a Gorn BCX hurling out 2 M-torps and 2 S-torps with every one of those having 2 PPT and firing off every two turns...I'ld say the plasma chucking gets as busy as an MY drone chucker.

That being said I'ld opt for plasma that does its damage better rather than just bigger.
In a lot of ways that is what we are opting for with other weapons. If a Disruptor has built in UIM & Derfacs and a six impulse double-broadside penalty and a disruptor capasitor; it isn't more damaging but it's quite a bit more deadly.

So too if we can make a plasma hit better or for more effective damage ( perhaps I'm advocating a 1:3 warhead-reduction:Phaser-damage ratio but I'ld like to avoid that ) then the plasma it'self will be more "high tech'" without being a ship smashing monster-weapon.

Likewise lots of plasma Fs or the like, will just yeild more complexity for the plasma chucker and if he's going to do that he might as well go for being a drone chucker and take advantage of all those groovy special warheads.


Since X2 ships ( if I'm not the only one thinking along these lines ) will have not very many more internals ( unless one is opperating the ASIF and with all but a few ASIF designs the gain is at most half dozen extra boxes ) over an X2 ship...with 8Ph-5s and 48 warp engine boxes and 2 extra saucer warp boxes and 4 more aft hull and 4 cargo boxes, my XCA design has 14 more internals over a CX ( unless one is running an ASIF ) which is an increase of about 13% whereas an increase of M-torps to R torps is an increase of 25% and only serves to exhaserbate the eggshells with sledgehammer phenominon of the X1 vessels.
Better to have the torps actually hit and hit for high damage than to have them burn out following fast moving cruisers.
That's why I still say, leave torps at X1 levels ( possibly with reduced numbers ) but generate an extra five hexes of max damage and have them run under sabot at speed 48 ( and tweak the plsam R with a tripple enveloping warhead ) and the X2 plasma chuckers will do their already hellish damage and get those suckers to hit and remain competative in a; faster more defensive against seeking weapons, universe.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 09:52 am: Edit

Combined that would be too much. Leaving the plasma at X1 levels but with speed 48 sabots would be sufficient. A speed 40 sabot is a 25% increase in range. A speed 48 sabot is a 50% increase in range. This seems sufficient to me without adding +5 range, 3:1 phaser damage and triple envelopers.

When I say more plasma I’m thinking a cruiser would still have a pair of PL-M but instead of a pair of PL-S as its secondary weapon make it 2-4 PL-L and a pair of PL-D in dual magazine racks. The reason I’m thinking this is an expensive X2 ship is potentially vulnerable to being swarmed by many less expensive ships or attrition units. A 2M2S Gorn X2 cruiser would have significantly more difficulty engaging a Romulan SPEb PFT then a Gorn X2 cruiser with 2M4L2D.

While I’m at it I’d like to propose that in X2 PL-D canisters can be recharged by the ship.

By William Curtis Soder (Ghyuka) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 11:24 am: Edit

I think I'd just shotgun those PL-S torpedos if I'm gonna get swarmed with attrition units. Perhaps each race could take each route. Roms with all big plasma and Gorns with more lighter plasma.

By Charles E. Leiserson, Jr. (Bester) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 07:46 pm: Edit

I'd like to see a completely new plasma chart for X2, with longer range brackets preferable to larger warhead. Have a standard large torp and small torp-- generally two each to a cruiser. Make an extra-large torp for bases, DNs (if X2 DNs are allowed once the Xorks show up), and the occasional single-launcher Romulan cruiser.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 10:11 pm: Edit

I had two plasma rules that enhance plasma. This is a short overview of each.

MIOPIC PLASMA: Basically for one point of power the first five hexes of travel do not count against range. The plasma cannot do damage to targets in this range. Not really an issue though since no one would bother to use it if the target was close enough to matter. Basic ballancer is the power cost and BPV. Ships with this (All X2) will cost more BPV.

PLASMA SHROUD: For two energy points there is a shroud of plasma that absorbs 10 points of phaser energy (add five to warhead strength for this calcualtion). This extra strength does no acual damage to any target but make the plasma much harder to phaser down.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 11:32 pm: Edit

I like the idea of a base heavy plasma. Something with 100 damage and a massive range.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 12:36 am: Edit

100 damage and massive range.

With the sabot as standard, how about this:

Range 0-56-10 11-15 16-20 21-2526-3031-3536-40 41-43 4445
Type O 1001008060504030 20 10 5 1
Type R 505035252010-5-1
Bolt 1-4 1-3 1-2 1-2 1 1 1 1111


Note, with the speed 40 (or 48) sabot, this is still a one-turn plasma run, and would scare an X2 captain the same way an R-torp would scare a YCA captain.

I would expect the arming cost to be something like 2+2+10 since that's the power cost of an enveloping R-torp. (Or, 2+12 if the X1 fast-load becomes the standard fighting style of plasma ships)

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 01:09 am: Edit

I'd rather see a 3+3+8 or 3+3+16 to envelop. Plus cost to sabot.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 02:19 am: Edit

I believe my Type-Z torpedo fits that bill.

It's "only" 80 points, but if more is called for...

Arm: 3-3-8, envelop/shotgun: +8 (produces 6x L-torps), sabot: +6

range1-1011-1516-2021-2526-3031-3536-383940
warhead8060504030201051
Bolt1-41-31-2110000


For rules integrating such a torp with standard plasma rules, check out: Heavy Plasma torpedoes

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 03:55 am: Edit

Quote:

(Or, 2+12 if the X1 fast-load becomes the standard fighting style of plasma ships


Anyone considered that plasma could get a touch up in the arming cycle such that the first & second turns could be combined rather than the second and thrid such that X plasmas don't have the "energy spike" problwem they currently have???


It would be an improvement although I think the energy spike thing as is was donme purposfully although the sabot energy spike combo may be more than the ships ought be put under.

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