Commander's X2 had 5-pt batteries.

I belive SVC is on record saying no ship in SFB besides the Andros will have 5-point batts.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 06:10 pm: Edit

He did mention he doesn't know what the out come of that specific problem will be. He did say that but later said something non-commital. However, I personally like to stick with the first arguement. Leave 5 point batts for Andros only.

I think three point batts will work so long as the average design has at least one more than their X1 counter part. X2 should have a bit more reserve. It's a marked improvement that seems a natural expectation of X2.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 06:45 pm: Edit

I don't see any reason to up X2 batteries.

I'm not against it, just not for it.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 08:54 pm: Edit

Well I'm not gonna argue about it. But I really don't think a 1pt P5 will be acceptable.

SVC basically shot down my assumption under that wording. But I still disbelieve that anything but a 1.5pt P5 will be shot down.

I'd build a table of what I'd like to see for it. But I simply have to many irons in the fire to do so. I got 5 submission quality SSDs, 4 Rules, 2 Backgrounds and 2 weapon tables to build by Friday. Plus I have to get some more work done on the SFBOL User ref. Guide update. As well as 2 WL games. So theres simply no time to do it. In a couple of weeks if I remember I'll revise my old SSDs to handle the new P5 table I envision.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 10:06 pm: Edit

Kenneth: You've had a good look at the current table?

If you have any questions I would be happy to explain why I did some of the things I did.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 10:59 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

The point being, 8 P5’s is not the equal of 12 P1’s, and therefore basing the need of a 1.5 power cost on that assumption is faulty

---

---

Quote:

I think it makes for a better long-term approach to this problem, and gives the X2 ship a truly more advanced feel. Anyway, that’s what I think…not saying anyone else is definitely wrong, only that no arguments I’ve heard yet for a 1.5 cost are particularly convincing.

---

---

Quote:

If only one thing get used from all this I would hope a prey and LOBBY BIG TIME for it to be the Ph-5.

---

---

Quote:

I do have some issue with triple caps as well. If the Ph-5 is 1 point to power then I think the capacitor should be two each. I have always wanted to stick with double caps.

That was part of the beauty of the 1.5 power cost. It double cap had three points and you could down fire it as a Ph-1 for a power savings.

X1 only gets two turns of free fire from their cap. Three turns from the X2 would be a definate advantage that could only go to raise the BPV of X2.

---

---

Quote:

Let me make one thing clear. I like the P5 table as is. I think it works just fine. What I don't like is the notion of "downfiring" the P5 as a P1. As I have shown, the P1 isn't that much worse than a P5. Allowing three shots out of it instead of two for the P5 will just encourage people to constantly downfire. Make it so the P5 cannot downfire as a P1 (exception: hasty repairs) and I can live with it.

---

---

Quote:

A P5 should only be able to fire aas a P5 or 2xP6s..


Mixing and matching does not appeall to me at all.

---

---

Quote:

Nothing is going to exceed the P1 in general effectiveness. While I can't point to a specific post, I really doubt that I'm wrong. The photon and Disr are the benchmark HWs after all. Plus the fact that SPP hasn't bounced any of my material yet being built around the listed benchmarks.

Anything that exceeds the P1 has enough tactical drawbacks that they are limted to specific roles.

PG is point blank and never realy useful except on def. or in over runs.

---

---

Quote:

I would be opposed to downfiring as a P-2 period. That's part of what we have P-6's for.

---

---

Quote:

That's the thing. I'm opposed to the P-6. The P-2 table limited to range 15 is fine. In the end it doesn't matter as they are nearly equivilent. Note I'm not saying they are using a P2 anymore then the Andros do, just a weapon with similar capabilities and a power cost of 0.75.

---

---

Quote:

I propose a new rule for X2: No ship (except a mauler) may use more than 15 points of reserve power for shield reinforcement on any specific shield.

---

---

Quote:

I don't think increased battery capacity is a smart idea. I really think that X-ships have too much reserve power to begin with and that X2-ships should in no way increase the amount of power stored in batteries. My reasoning is that if you feel that need to create additional rules restricting the amount of reserve power to SSReo would be a prime indicator that there is a problem.

---

---

Quote:

Well, I say a restriction is a mistake too. If four point batts are to much reserve then stay with three.

---

---

Quote:

I don't see any reason to extend X2's combat endurance over X1.

It's good enough as it is.

2x Caps, 3x batts sound fine to me.

---

---

Quote:

I think three point batts will work so long as the average design has at least one more than their X1 counter part. X2 should have a bit more reserve. It's a marked improvement that seems a natural expectation of X2.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 05:27 am: Edit

On the Subject of a roll of 1 being a perfect hit.

I don't think so...I think 9 points of damage from a Phaser-1 on a roll of 1 at range 0 is just the average damage of the top 16.66% of attacks and that a perfect hit may well inflict 10 or 12 or even 15 points of damage but since you need to represent it on 1D6, the 0.01% chance of inflicting 15 points of damage is counter balanced by the 1.66% of inflicting 8.5-8.6 damage or the 5% chance of inflicting 8.7-8.9 points of damage so it all averages out to a die roll of 1 yeilding 9 points of damage.


Therefore the idea that a better targeting computer could allow a Phaser-1/2 generator to do damage as a Ph-5 doesn't actually bother me.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 07:54 am: Edit

---

Quote:

No.
But do they have parity???


I would also like to say that I've said this before.
Output is 90% of the balancing act.
Damage to power ratio is only 10%.

---

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 11:31 am: Edit

I was just thinking, we need to make sure there is a Klingon 'D' varient from X2 so that MJC will have a ship he can use to post tactics requests.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 06:08 pm: Edit

Like I said.

If the Ph-5 maxes out at 12 at R0 and that pushes up a few numbers on the top of the chart; up, for a few hexes, then I don't mind, it'll create a push for Ph-6s with max damage of 6 which will allow Ph-6s to inflict 4 on a roll of 6 at range 1.

We need play testing to see if the Ph-5 needs anymore tweaking...in veiw, so long as the 12Ph-1s out performs 8Ph-5 at the closer ranges, then we have a racial flavour and that is good.
If the current OUT PERFORMS is TOO great then I'm willing to put the Ph-5 up a bit at closer ranges.

Personnally I like to think there's more than one reason why the X2 ships don't get too close to X1 enemy vessels.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 06:22 pm: Edit

Urg...I don't know, MJC. I can see the logic, but 12 points is mighty high for a phaser, even an X2 one. But, draw up a chart, and post it with averages so we can see it. That's a start, anyway.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 06:50 pm: Edit

Well a 12 on a roll of 1 will get split 6 ways for a increase in the overall average of just 0.33 point of damage...

...8 times over at R0

Try...

Range	0	1	2	3	4	5	6-8	9-15	16-25	26-50	51-75
1	12	11	10	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1
2	11	10	8	7	6	5	5	3	2	1	1
3	10	8	7	6	5	5	4	2	1	1	0
4	8	7	6	5	5	4	3	2	1	0	0
5	7	6	5	4	4	4	2	1	0	0	0
6	6	5	4	4	3	3	2	0	0	0	0

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 07:08 pm: Edit

MJC, like the photon torpedo, the phaser is a core weapon for the game. I can see going the Ph-5 route with just a minor improvement in yield, but going to 12/11pts in the "hot corner?" I don't know that seems awfully unbalancing to me.

Granted people expect an improvement in the phaser for X2, but we all know that we don't want to go the "close-and-hose" phaser overload route. You seem to be giving us an overload phaser without the overload power requirement.

The 10pt hot corner Ph-5 we're all looking at now is a minor improvement that can hardly be called an overload.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 07:15 pm: Edit

Range	0	1	2	3	4	5	6-8	9-15	16-25	26-50	51-75
1	12	11	10	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1
2	11	10	8	7	6	5	5	3	2	1	1
3	10	8	7	6	5	5	4	2	1	1	0
4	8	7	6	5	5	4	3	2	1	0	0
5	7	6	5	4	4	4	2	1	0	0	0
6	6	5	4	4	3	3	2	0	0	0	0
Average	9	7.83	6.66	6	5	4.5	3.5	2	1.16	0.66	0.33
Range	0	1	2	3	4	5	6-8	9-15	16-25	26-50	51-75
8 new Ph-5s	72	62.6	53.3	48	40	36	28	16	13.3	5.3	2.6
12 Ph-1s	78	64	58	52	46	42	26	12	6	4	2
New Raw Differance	6	1.3	4.6	4	6	6	-2	-4	-7.3	-1.3	-0.6
Old Raw Differance	11	4	6	7	6	6	-1	-4	-3	-1	-1

Oddly enough R3+ should have identical raw differences so one of us must have made mistakes but I don't know which.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 07:20 pm: Edit

The big quesion about the RAW difference if the VISIT FREQUENCY...If R6-15 is visited often and say R3 is visited seldom then the fact that sets of Ph-1s are streets ahead of Ph-5s won't make much of an indent on play.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 08:10 pm: Edit

Can we get visitation rights?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 11:17 am: Edit

You can't build a weapon based of perceived style of play. NO one plays the same. Visit frequency is something you observe in a particulat opponants style not for the masses.

I current Ph-5 is fine. It is tactically beeter one for one against the Ph-1 but under performs when 8:12. BUT, outper forms at 8:12 at long range! This is just right. It creates a dynamic where X1 can have something to capitalize on. This equals more fun to play.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 03:14 pm: Edit

new tactics = new fun

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 11:51 pm: Edit

I do fear that doing a point more or so at R8 and 10 or 11 less at R0 might be too big of a disinstentive to move to Ph-5s...but I also still think the big insentive to move to 8Ph-5s is to be able to refit to 12Ph-8s as soons as the treaty breaks down.

But really I think it'll take a lot of playtesting before it becomes "certainly clear".

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 12:33 pm: Edit

Toying with an idea, and I need some input. I started thinking about the whole phaser "array" thing that SVC mentions in P6, and wondering if that could be made into something different than just boxes of phasers that happen to sit together on the SSD. In other words, could there be a way to make it more beneficial to fire several phasers from an array at one target, rather than firing them seperately.

Say you have an array of four phasers. What could be done that would encourage players to fire them all together that isn't already covered by narrow salvos? A die modifier for each phaser in the array fired simultaneously at one target? Bonus damage? Greater shield penetration (assuming X2 phasers might leak through non-X shields)? How can this be done in such a way as to be balanced, in terms of BPV, offensive and defensive capabilities, and fun? I had an idea about making the P5 something like a longer ranged P6, with less maximum damage (particularly up close) than the P1, but with some way to get better damage when fired as an array.

Any thoughts?

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 01:07 pm: Edit

Hmm. Hadn't considered that.

The only thing that comes to mind for me would be to treat them like a narrow salvo with a positive shift on the die roll for each extra phaser fired, and allow shifting to a better range category like negative shifts do.

This would have the effect of offsetting ECM as well as range penalties. Then, you wouldn't need a heavier phaser, per-se, because a pair or triplicate of lighter phasers would be as or more effective.

Neat idea. Especially if it is generally based off of a shorter-ranged phaser, like the ph-6.

On the other hand, hasn't Vorlon already come up with a phaster matrix for his Kzinti?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 01:38 pm: Edit

Yeah, it's a similar concept. I thought along the same lines, specifically that for each 2 phasers in one array fired at the same target as a narrow salvo, you could get a -1 die shift. And with an array having no more than 4 phasers each, that's only a -2 shift...not bad, especially with a phaser that has an absolute maximum damage of around 6 or 7. Still working on the chart.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 07:27 pm: Edit

I'm not for forcing people to use the leaky shield rules but how about this idea.


Groups of Phasers can be fired together through a whole in the shield if focused together by the attack.

Roll the entire attack as a narrow salvo against the shield threshold listed below. If the "first" Phaser fired in the group inflicts more damage than the threshold then the shield is damaged by an amount from the total damage inflict equal to the threashold and then like a spear fish drone the remaining damage from the entire attack is inflicted internally.
..... If the "first" phaser failed to beat the threshold then the shield takes all of the damage as a regular attack.

The thresholds are listed below and based on movement cost. If a ship falls on a boundary then use the higher threshold value.

From	to	threshold
0	0.33	1
0.33	0.5	2
0.5	0.75	3
0.75	1.25	4
1.25	2	5
2	and up	6

X1 ships gain +1 to their threshold.
X2 ships gain +2 to their threshold.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 08:41 pm: Edit

Mike: I had earlier proposed exactly the thing you are now. Fire a apir and the second gains a die roll modifier. THe first is sort of finding the target.

It was shot down...with good bullets.

A while ago I was looking at your SSD and thinking about the racks of big arc Ph-5's. It occured to me that one way would be to have a new chart that sacrafices some damage for accuracy. If you narrow salvo two phasers and hit you get twice the damage. But if the roll score no damage the you get none. The array chart might give you only 150% damage per pair but a particular range bracket might have no zeros and have a very even damage curve.

Say a bracket is:

Single	Array Phasers
Ph-5	2xPh-5
5	8
4	6
3	5
2	4
1	2
0	2

And so one becoming more efficient the more phasers you use in the group. The draw back might be a complex table.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 10:24 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "Output is 90% of the issue, damage to power ratio is 10%", but if you're saying what I think you're saying, I have to disagree. I think damage-to-power is at least as important, and often more important, than raw damage output. This is heavily situation dependent, of course, but it also depends on tactics. From some of your term paper posts I suspect I prefer to "fight faster" than you do and there are situations in which you arm all your weapons but I would leave some unarmed in order to move at high speed. A weapon with a superior damage-to-power ratio allows me to generate good, even if not maximum, firepower while still having adequate power for other things.

---