Archive through January 11, 2005
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 ph-1: Archive through January 11, 2005
By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 02:16 pm: Edit

I'm not going to re-argue the wheel.

I showed the expected phaser damage to power ratio months ago. If you goose the P5 to having only 1 power to firing, then the damage results need to be curtailed.

Otherwise there would never be any reason for arming anything else. IMO the extra damage of the P5 should be a trade-off with the increased power for firing it.

Play balance calls for a number of factors to keep the P5 from being considered broke, even at 1.5 power.

1. How common the P5 is.
2. What kind of arcs can it have. (120 max, 180?)
3. The average result of six firings of the weapon in all range brackets.

I've been the one constantly warning/complaining about power-damage ratios in numerous threads so you know what my opinion is.

Here's my P5 table.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 03:03 pm: Edit

Well, that's only partially the problem. There is one other limiting factor, and that's how many phaser-5's a given ship will carry. Will an XCA seriously expect to win any conflict with only six phasers? Nope. Gotta arm other stuff too. But I agree about arguing the wheel...no point it. It is what it is. A 1.5 point phaser that does only marginally more damage than a P1 is a waste of power.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 03:23 pm: Edit

But the Ph-5 as last agreed on (which, I believe, was the one I tweaked just a little) was one that had a considerable more even and predictable damage curve. The margin of damage per shot isn't as important as it even curve. Indeed, this can save power when trying to put out specific amounts of damage. You can then often fire one less phaser and be sure of what will happen as opposed to firing two to be sure.

I've never had an issue with 1.5 for the Ph-5 and I think that the 50% increase in damage for the Ph-6 requires a higher power cost too (0.75).

And yes, I still want stand alone Ph-6 to get a power break (which is then balanced by BPV). The only arguement I've ever heard against this is keeping track of the energy is more complex...but you still only need a fifth grade education to handle it. So I don't get that arguement.

Frankly, I want X2 to challenge ADVANCED players. I do NOT want to mek it easy for noobees. If you are new to SFB you should NOT be starting with X2. You should go to X2 for a greater challenge once you've played out GW and X1.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 03:37 pm: Edit

I just compaired Ken Jones's Ph-5 chart with the old Ph-5 chart and found that his takes out much of the even curve that is, IMO, the heart of the Phaser-5's advantage. It take drops the bottom end by a point in most cases and sometimes take away a bit from the top (when it doesn't take it from the bottom).

Ken, I'd be inclined to say that you Ph-5 could be charged with one point of power and the left over be balanced with BPV. The reason being is that it is just as iffy as the Ph-1 but produces very marginally more damage. Since you cannot count on it producing a more predictable result then it's better to save the 1/2 point of power for one damage point less.

The heart of the Ph-5 I presented is that you pay the extra 1/2 energy for a more predictable result. This is why you would use the Ph-5 as a Ph-5 instead of saving the enrgy with a Ph-1. That is to get a particular damage amount to a target (say a SS) you would fire on average one less weapon than if you were using Ph-1's.

But if you don't gain this advantage with the Ph-5 because you have to fire that extra Ph-5 to be sure then you gain nothing over the Ph-1. In this case two ph-1's will, on average, do the same job as two Ph-5's.

So, the only reason to fire your Ph-5 (again, IMHO) is if it only costs 1 power point.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 04:26 pm: Edit

I've always assumed the P5 could be downfired as a P1. The P5 does more consistant damage at longer ranges, the P1 is more energy efficient at close range. The P5 in my example being 1.5 to arm.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 04:27 pm: Edit

While I'm on the topic of phasers, I'd like X2 to do away with the requirement to energize the phaser bank at WS0. The phaser banks could be empty, but never need energizing.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 04:30 pm: Edit

I also had a probelm with what I consider excessive phaser cap. I'd like to propose the excessive part (anything above the X1 limits) can only last 5 (3?) turns before discharging and only comes pre-charged at WS3.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 05:28 pm: Edit

The original concept of the P5 was that it was supposed to be a mixed blessing. Being slightly more capable at range than the same amount of P1 in damage to power ratio. But still deleivering more damage per shot than a P1 at that range.

I built my P5 table with that in mind. At close ranges the P1 is more effective damage to power wise. But the P5 is more effective at longer ranges. With the general intention of avoiding the old close and hose tactic. Now theres a valid reason to holdback for awhile. Giving P5 equipped ships a big advantage (my P5) over non P5 ships.

Here's a quick breakdown. with my P5 being 1.5 power.
P1
R0 6.5-1
R1 5.33-1
R5 3.5-1
R8 2.16
R15 1-1

*Note the average damage of the P1 is the same as it's damage to power ratio. My P5 has the damage included after the "," for the avergae damage to each firing. (Not power to damage, just damage.)

My P5
R0 5.22-1, 7.83
R1 4.66-1, 7.00
R5 2.88-1, 4.33
R8 2.22-1, 3.33
R15 1.22-1, 1.83

As you can see at ranges 6 and up the P5 starts showing it's improvement over the P1. The R1 damage for the P5 was carefully designed so that it wouldn't give an assured kill Vs a VII or larger drone. Only a 66% chance that it gets a kill. Against the VIII it only has a 33% chance. The same as a P1 versus the IV.

So give me some credit. I didn't just pluck those numbers out of a hat. I've spent a lot of time building weapon tables over the past year or so, and I've probably spent more time working on the implications of weapon tables than almost anyone besides KenB or the Steves.

Each range bracket has MyP5 bottoming/topping out over a P1. Which was of great importance.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 05:40 pm: Edit

Tos:
1) That was my view too.
2) how about just instant energizing. That is you can load the caps the same time you are energising the phasers. You still can't fire them on the same turn (or how about 1/2 turn).
3) Now that would get complex. You would need a visual chart for that and that would be a pain, IMO.


To recap my old proposal:
The Phaser-5 has a modest damage increase but a much more even damage curve than the Ph-1.
Energy cost of Ph-5 shot = 1.5
Can down fire as one Ph-1 = 1
Can Rapid Pulse as two Ph-6 = .75 each shot.
The capacitor hold twice the energy as the full weapon costs (i.e., 3 points of energy. If repaired as a Ph-1 it would hold 2 points. If repaired down to a Ph-6 it would hold 1 point (but still cost .75 to fire out of a Ph-5 mount)).

Defense Phaser-6: Stand alone version of the Ph-6 cost .5 energy to fire. Capacitor holds one point. These phasers are tied into the ships X-aegis system.

================
Remember, the damage from a Ph-6 is +50% at some ranges and requiring +50% from a system not designed to fire as such should get the power penalty.
But for there to be a reason to have Point Defense phasers the stand alone Ph-6 gets a power break.


My largest proposed X2 ship (XCC) has 10 Ph-5 and two Ph-6. The XCM has 8+2 and the XCL has 6+2. The XDD has 6 Ph-5, IIRC.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Ken wrote:

Quote:

The original concept of the P5 was that it was supposed to be a mixed blessing.



That is the first I've heard of that. I am, like you, one of the founders of the X-Files and I cannot recall the intention of the Ph-5 being a mixed blessing weapon at all.

Originally, it started as a 1/2 Ph-4 (which turned out to be crazy powerful). Then it was a 1/2 Mega Phaser. Everyone agreed that this was better but still too powerful. A few versions were posted and then I posted the version that was accepted by the majority for...up 'till now I think. I took a great deal of time and consideration and over 20 year experience playing SFB and put it into that chart. So, I know what I'm doing too (please note I specifically said "too" so as to acknowledge your experience and effort).

The bottom line is that your chart does infact meet your parameter of "mixed blessing". It does not meet what I recall as the original intent which was to be an improved phaser come from a notable advancement in technology through everything the Alphas had learned in 30 years of warring (which was, at least in my view, the very basis of everything X2).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 07:28 pm: Edit

Quote:

Ken, I'd be inclined to say that you Ph-5 could be charged with one point of power and the left over be balanced with BPV. The reason being is that it is just as iffy as the Ph-1 but produces very marginally more damage. Since you cannot count on it producing a more predictable result then it's better to save the 1/2 point of power for one damage point less.


Also remember that a blast of 6Ph-5s will have a higher degree of spread than 9Ph-1s so the the Ph-5 table will need quite a bit of evenness in the chart to offset what effectively is the reliability of the CX phaser suite.

You can have a weaker Ph-5 if you insist on having all Ph-5 users to be running around with four Ph-5s and six Ph-1s to increase the "reliability" of your fire but quite frankly I wouldn't want to put all races under the requirement to always have Klingon K refit style Phaser suites.


Quote:

I've always assumed the P5 could be downfired as a P1. The P5 does more consistant damage at longer ranges, the P1 is more energy efficient at close range. The P5 in my example being 1.5 to arm.


If the Fed CX can oblique with 9Ph-1s and the Fed XCA can oblique with 6Ph-1s and the XCA has atleast as many X1 BTTYs if not that many X2 BTTYs ( 5 points anyone? ) then the CX firing at range 8 will average 19.5 points of damage from each oblique and could organise 3.33 such oblique attacks whilst the XCA is inflicting 21 points of damage at that same range and can make said same 3.33 volleies. Or 6.5 volleies if the power cost was dropped to 1 or 5.16 volleies if the caps are dropped to two pointer as well as dropping the power cost to 1.

Paying no extra power over the CX ( but taking the risk of loosing a higher percentage of its weapon suite when it takes internals ) and inflicting 1.5 more points of damage ( a 7.7% increase ) seems like it's keeping the Ph-5 and therefore the XCA phaser suite in line with the CX Phaser suite which ( if we're still following the idea of the treaty ) would be quite reasonable...especially since the Ph-5 looses out at closer ranges.


Quote:

While I'm on the topic of phasers, I'd like X2 to do away with the requirement to energize the phaser bank at WS0. The phaser banks could be empty, but never need energizing.


I second the motion.


Quote:

Defense Phaser-6: Stand alone version of the Ph-6 cost .5 energy to fire. Capacitor holds one point. These phasers are tied into the ships X-aegis system.

================
Remember, the damage from a Ph-6 is +50% at some ranges and requiring +50% from a system not designed to fire as such should get the power penalty.
But for there to be a reason to have Point Defense phasers the stand alone Ph-6 gets a power break.


I like the idea that each stand alone Ph-6 can rapid pulse as 2Ph-3 shots meaning two stand alone Ph-6 can rapid pulse four Ph-3 shots which is something the single Ph-5 they are replacing can never do.
I think having that as the advantage of the stand alone Ph-6 is better than having the stand alone Ph-6 cost less than the repid pulsed ( down fired ) Ph-5 shot.


Quote:

That is the first I've heard of that. I am, like you, one of the founders of the X-Files and I cannot recall the intention of the Ph-5 being a mixed blessing weapon at all.


I suspect you'll find that it's like all X2 vessels, all of their systems were mixed blessings.
• An ASIF that generated phantom hull boxes lets your ship handly larger amounts of internal damage but is a mixes blessing because none of the power you put into the ASIF can go into the shields where it could at least have some reduction in the chance of a weapon hit hit whereas the phantom hull boxes just don't do that.
• An S-ridge can let you ID drones at very long ranges as though you had the help of a scout, but with the CX looking ar being able to rapid pulse her 8Ph-5s as 16Ph-6 shots instead of the 12Ph-1s of the CX rapid pulsing 24Ph-3 shots, it became a case of WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING TO KILL US AND CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT.
• The ability to move at speed 32 and HET on impulse #1 was a powerful advantage but the power cost for these stunts was excessive.
• The Photons became able to load 24 point warheads but no more than 8 points of power could be placed in the photon in a turn and if a ship put more than 6 points of such power into the photons then the photon could neither be completed nor held and had to be used that turn.
• The Klingon empire but Disruptors that had their own capasitor and could fire with a double broadside penalty of 6 impulses and had built in UIM and DERFACs but couldn't afford to mount more than four of the things until well into the X2 period. And with the Klingon XCA refitting to have six of them she became a vessel with a bueatiful heavy weapons suits BUT she needed to employ at an increadible rate just to break even with what the Feds were acheiving with theitr heavy weapon suit.

I can see how one would come to the conclusion most every system in X2 was a mixed blessing and there how the Ph-5 was too.

Having playtested L.K.'s Ph-5s ( 12 of `em on an XCA+ against a CX & DDX ) I would have to say that while the Ph-5 is hugely powerful over the Ph-1 it's not so much so as to be a game breaker and so I like the Ph-5 right where it is ( although I am will to alter the R0 & 1 brackets to max out at 12 instead of 10 so as to allow the Ph-6 to max out at 6 instead of 5 (but I think that is a debate for another day ).
Hugely => 50% more damage at 50% more power cost and with either 50% more BPV or 66% as many such weapons seems fairly close to balanced to me.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 07:58 pm: Edit

I feel that X1 went overboard in the phaser department. Adding 50% more phasers plus converting P3 to P1 was tooooo much. X2 should drop the P5 phaser count back to what it was pre-X.

Same number of offensive phasers as GW.
Same offensive phaser output as X1 (less up close, equal mid, more at long range).

This shifts the X2 weapons of choice back to the heavy weapon, where it belongs for racial flavor.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 08:03 pm: Edit

For fun I just reread the first page in this thread. Interesting to see where we have been.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 08:07 pm: Edit

I think part of the going overboard with phasers was also the overloaded Phaser which no longer exist.

As it stands I think we should aim to have an offensive phaser suite that is equal to or slightly better than the X1 Phaser suite but with MY/GW numbers of phasers so as to seem as though there has been a technological improvement but without being streets ahead of the ISC CCX or the Orion CX. I can't see any Admiralty allowing ships to be built that are a step backwards from X1 so aiming at parity ( knowing we're bound to overshoot ) will be a good idea from a beleivability point of veiw.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 08:09 pm: Edit

MyP5 was based around the idea that 2X ships would try to engage 1X or 0X ships at further ranges. (Without being too overpowered in that roll, as many of the earlier proposals were.)

This enables the 2X ship to engage at ranges where the other ships are less likely to be able to punch through the 2X ships defenses and the P5 should be able to hit and hurt the opponent without being able to gut it at range.

My entire design concept for 2X is for 2X ships to be able to fight effectively at slightly longer ranges than the non X ships. (Since most X1 weapons fall inside the 0X brackets.) Without giving the 2X ships the ability to crush with overloads outside of range 8.

Six of my P5's at R8 will do 20pts.(No shift, +1 Shift 26)

You add the improve ECCM shift of +1 along with 2 16Pt Ol Photons that hit at R8 for a totaL of 58 points.

Compared to 2 refitted Fed CA's. Getting only 3 16pt OL hits total after an ECM shift of -1, doing 66 total. The Fed CA that was the target will be hurting. But giving the XCA 50 shield + 15 reinforcement results in 1 internal with no ASIF.

Giving the 2X ship the advantage of having minor internal and a down #1 compared to one Fed CA with a down #1 and roughly 25-28 internal. Both sides are still in the fight. But the damaged 0X CA is going to make it a difficult fight for the 0X palyer. With having to keep together to maintain any kind of comparable firepower.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 09:53 pm: Edit

And by comparison how badly does a CX maul said CA?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 10:08 pm: Edit

Personnally I think all X2 battles will be fought at longer ranges. Specifically R8 for those with a Ph-5 oriented suite and R5 for those with a Ph-1 Oriented suite, which is still longer than X1 ships fight at.
If we go with built in UIM for Disruptors and Restore Photon to two turn arming ( which in turn allows for frontloading to push the effectiveness of the weapon beyound what the R8 Photon's damage to power ratio would normally indicate ) then R8 and R5 become very effective ranges to fight at. And keeping overload restricted to R8 allows the ships to better mesh with GW vessels.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 10:20 pm: Edit

Quote:

MyP5 was based around the idea that 2X ships would try to engage 1X or 0X ships at further ranges.



This was my goal as well but I have difficulty seeing how logically the weapon could be superior to the Ph-1 a long range but equal or inferior (due to power requirements) at closer range.

Unless you are suggesting that the Ph-5 NOT be able to down fire as a Ph-1 then players will save power on the close in approach by firing the better power curve weapon; the phaser-1.

Yes, this will put their damage potential on par, phaser for phaser, with X1 and GW but the X2 ship will have even more reserve power avalable. Maybe this is good since the X2 ship will have less phaser units, but do you want the dynamic where the X1 is actually putting out more damage? (I'd rather it be about equal)

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 10:21 pm: Edit

MJC,

It's pretty much the same total amount of damage. The CX will do 66/82 damage with 2 or 3 16Pt Overloads at R8 with a +1ECCM shift. Doing 31/47 internal. Since the CX points out around 250 thats effectively equal to the XCA using 6 P5 (instaed of all 12 P1).

The mythical XCA (since I was just putting 2 per bank with no 360's involved) so the CX actually generates more total firpower. But the XCA still has the rear phasers to fall back on. If I add in 2 P5 from the rear as a CC then the damage would be 68 damage for the XCA to the hapless CA. Only 2 more points total so the firepower should be sitting right about where it should be.

Since the general consensus seems to be that 1X was built for Firepower. 2X should have other abilities/advantages to give it the advantage. Just not more total damage, which is what many of the proposals are calling for.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 10:30 pm: Edit

All of the above calc's are based on a P5 in place of a P1 in a CC style build.

Loren,

At close range 1X should do slightly better than 2X in straight damage output. 2X ships have other advantages which will help mitigate the sheer firepower of the eggshells with sledgehammers. And since the BPV of a Fed CX is about 250 and a XCA should be around 300 there isn't that big of an advantage for the XCA anyway.

The XCA has a 20% BPV advantage. But if it lets the CX close to point bank without degrading it's firepower then the XCA deserves to have it's saucer blown off.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 10:58 pm: Edit

Ignoring Cruiser to Cruiser comparisons for the moment, in an equal BPV battle the X1 ship will outgun the X2 ship. This is because the X2 ship has less weaponry and more bells and whistles. Bells and whistles cost BPV.

So assuming the current P5 a duel between similar BPV will result in the X1 ship cleaning the X2 ships clock at range 0-5, an even battle 6-8 and an advantage X2 in the 9-15 range bracket.

Don’t show me an X2 Cruiser SSD, show me an X2 ship that is the BPV equivalent of the Fed CX.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 11:07 pm: Edit

For me to trade my 6Ph-5 shots for 6Ph-1 shots plus 3 more points of power in my caps, I'm definately going to need less than ( indeed a lot less than ) 0.5 more points of average damage at the same range than Ph-1s or else I'm not going to down fire.

Sure if I only had 6 points of power in my Caps I'ld fire my 6 bearing Ph-5s as Ph-1 shots rather than four Ph-5 shots but that's not going to happen all that often. My six points of power at R5 will give me either 1 points of damage by downfiring and 20 points of damage by regular firing.

Since Ph-5s tend to average an entire point more damage for the same range as a single Ph-5 we can say that the only time there will be a tactical advantage in down-firing Ph-5s as Ph-1s is those times when you just don't have the power to fire the Ph-5s as Ph-5s (see above). You just can turn 8Ph-5s into 12Ph-1s by majic you can only turn those 8Ph-5s into 8Ph-5s by down firing.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 11:19 pm: Edit

I think the question is would you spend 1/2 power for 1 average damage. The answer if you have ever fired a photon or disruptor is yes.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 11:35 pm: Edit

Quote:

So assuming the current P5 a duel between similar BPV will result in the X1 ship cleaning the X2 ships clock at range 0-5, an even battle 6-8 and an advantage X2 in the 9-15 range bracket.

Don’t show me an X2 Cruiser SSD, show me an X2 ship that is the BPV equivalent of the Fed CX.


I'm not sure you've got a point.


It seems perfectly fine to me that the X2 vessels will win over the equal BPV MY/GW if it can pay to keep the range open ( or more specifically at that range where it's weapons can hurt the enemy but it isn't going to be badly hurt by the enemy ).

Just look at my Fed XFF and the Fed CAR ( 129 BPV ) and see what happens.
The two bearing Ph-5s ( yes they're labbled incorectly as Ph-1s ) and the two 24 point Photons and the ability to capitalise on a negative shift ( like X1 ships ) and the 8 EW ( like X1 ships ) will allow it do fairly good damage, but at point blank range ( Say R3 or closer ) the Fed CAR is really going to be able to hammer that little ship.


That's pretty much what we are looking for.
You win the battle as an X2 ship by keeping the range at the range where you're most effective.
Too great a range and the other guy can just brick his way through your assault for a draw.
Too shot a range the other guy clobbers you.
But to keep the range at that right zone where the X2 ship has both a massive advantage and the raw damage to actually hurt the other guy costs something, specifically power. You have to move at speed to maintain that range. Plus you have to pay for EW to actually be able to capitalise on anything ( a Ph-5 shot through a +2 shift is doing less damage at R15 than a Ph-1 shot through no shift ). Plus you need to actually pay for these new wonder weapons and that takes power. Plus you have new systems like the S-Bridge and the ASIF which cost power to run as well ( if you're going to use them ). Plus there's the huge tempatation that you can spend a little BTTY on Reinforcement which because you can do it a lot could create...well a hell of a hangover.

Once you start paying for everything that you have paid BPV to be able to opperate it starts becoming very dicey as to whether you'll actually be able to maintain the right range braket...and somewhere in there lies a game!!!...a game of challenge and of skill and of planning and of luck!
And I think that's exactly what we're looking for.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 11:40 pm: Edit

Quote:

I think the question is would you spend 1/2 power for 1 average damage. The answer if you have ever fired a photon or disruptor is yes.


[Apply my best Paul Riser voice] See, this is what I'm talking about.

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