I don't want to start a round and round thing but I just want to lay this out.

Fire Power vs Fire Power of the XCC vs CX.

Yes, total damage output would be about the same but the XCC will have less weapons. It Bells and Whistles do cost BPV but those B&Ws start on a ship with less numbers of weapons. Yet the ship will have a higher BPV.

How is this going to balance if the Ph-5 and the Ph-1 are on par?

Well, some want lower BPVs. I would think Kens Ph-5 would lower the BPV of the ship unless there is a heck of a lot of B&W's.

Also, I'd like to point out that ONLY 20% is misleading. It is far more accurate to show the advantage of 300 BPV over 250 BPV as 50 BPV.

This is because the advantage of 20% when comairing say a Frigate and a Destroyer isn't all that much (although you wouldn't expect the DD to lose as in any balanced battle a 20% advantage is a solid game winner). But the difference of 50 BPV is huge. Yet it is proposed that the damage outputs of these two vessles are to be on par.

OK, but if the XCC is going to have less weapons mounts, and this is most peoples desire IIRC, then how can the Ph-5 be a mixed blessing weapon.

It doesn't add up to me.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 02:04 am: Edit

It can be.

Take a my Fed XCA with her 8Ph-5s and the 12Ph-1s of the CX and fight as some hellish range for the XCA ( Say R0 ).

Sure with routine R12 Passes with Proxies the XCA will generate four 6 point proxies and a 2 in 3 chance of hitting plus 6 capital phaser hits for ( 16+12 ) a total of 28 points of damage per turn whilst the poor old CX is only dishing up ( 10.66+9 ) 19 putting the XCA at a big advantage but both vessels can if they so choose put up 15 point of specific shield reinforcement thanks to BTTYs so neither ship is going to win quickly fighting this way.

But at the aformentioned R0, the Phaser suite of the CX is generating 72 points of damage alone whilst the XCA is only generating 60.
Net result the Ph-5 is a mixed blessing because it just can stand the heat of close range combat and therefore MUST stay out of the kitchen.


On top of this.
If both vessels take 18 points of internal damage, the XCA looses one sixth ( on average ) of it's phaser suite whilst the XCA looses a full quarter ( on average ).

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 06:53 am: Edit

Lets remember that the first batch of 2X won't be fully optimised for combat. And that future upgrades will increase the firepower of the ships.

The XCA has to ekploit it's advantages. The X1 XCC has the sheer firepower advantage at close range. But it should IMO since it's optimized for combat.

I'll discuss Lorens BPV concerns in the BPV thread.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 07:36 am: Edit

I'll build an SSD sometime today and post it for everyone to see, so we have something concrete to work around.

I may or may not use a P6 as secondary weapons. I might go with P1's in the clean up roll of the P3.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 08:42 am: Edit

I've always preferred a mix of P5 and P1. Go for it Ken.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 09:24 am: Edit

I posted it in the 2X SSD thread. We can debate my P5 in here.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 09:32 am: Edit

Tos made a comment that 3x Phaser capacitors may not be needed. I can easily go along with only 2x capacitors of 1X.

Maybe 3x could be done for the Xork's.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 09:37 am: Edit

Good point on the Xorks.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 10:50 am: Edit

For a two point phaser capacitor to my Fed2XCC that amounts to 31 power. And 60 if 3X is adopted along with the additional P5's in the refit. 40 if we stay with only 2x capacitor.

The 2XCC only has 18 reserve power from 6 batts.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 12:27 pm: Edit

I'd like to point out that I have never proposed 3x caps. I don't like that either. 2x is fine.

That said, 2 x 1.5 is 3 points which is NOT 3x caps. This means that any Ph-1's on board would have 2 points per phaser in the cap and 1 point for each Ph-3/6.

For now we are an 3 point batteries and maybe no improvement to those.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 08:35 pm: Edit

I actually like the idea that the X2Ph-1 is different from the X1Ph-1 by exactly the fact that it has a 3 point Cap ( just like the Ph-5 ).
It gives the Klingons and other Ph-1 users in the X2 period a little edge in longjeverty.

But if the Ph-5 went down to 1 point then I'ld be willing to say the X2Ph-1 was in fact and an X1Ph-1.
It also gives them the look of having had a technical advancement.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 09:25 pm: Edit

The edge for Klingons I was thinking of would be to allow Klingon Ph-1's to fire using XAegis as Ph-1's. (they can also still use Rapid Pulse).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 11:14 pm: Edit

Guru L.K.:

That's a huge edge, even C-rack firing rate for disruptors is considered over the top.

I'ld say running around with 12Ph-1s on your Klingon XCA would be very...Klingon.
Get to R3 or closer and those 8Ph-5 XCAs will start dieing horroribly because there Ph-5 suite just can keep pace with your massive output.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 11:23 pm: Edit

No no. The Klingon XCC has Ph-5 but has four Ph-1 on the waist.

Those Ph-1's would naturally fall under X-Aegis restrictions. Your analysis is off. X-Aegis cannot fire at ships.

And since when is the C-Rack over the top? And how do C-Racks relate to disruptors?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 12:07 am: Edit

There was some talk of a double shot disruptor that fires 12 impulse apart but most people agree that that is just too powerful, that is what I was meaning.


As for Aegis...surely Ph-5 can rapid pulse too.
If the Ph-5 can't rapid pulse off Ph-6 shots ( at least ) then the whole idea of an all Ph-5 suite ship is thoroughly rooted before we get off the ground.
Where is the racial flavour if everyone from the Klingons to the Gorns has forward facing Ph-5s and rear facing Ph-1s!?!
X2 vessels already have enough trouble dealing with GW era drone chucking, they don't need a "No Rapid Pulsing for the Ph-5" restriction as well.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 01:08 am: Edit

Actually, I kind of like the idea of a Ph-5 that costs one point to arm but can't rapid pulse. And no, you wouldn't have any all Ph-5 ships except maybe for the Tholians (X2 webcasters and snares), but is this a problem necessarily?

Suppose that a Ph-5, a Ph-1, and a pair of Ph-6s all take up the same space and cost the same to arm. The Ph-5 is the most effective offensively, but the worst option for defending against enemy seeking weapons. The Ph-1 is the most flexible since it can be used at range but can also rapid pulse against seeking weapons. The Ph-6 pair gives the best seeking weapon defense and is very powerful against enemy ships at close range. But it is ineffective at long range. There could still be plenty of racial flavor as different races decided on different phaser mixes, depending on their perceived needs. One race might employ primarily Ph-5s, with a few Ph-6 pairs. Another might have fewer Ph-5s and lots of Ph-1s. A third might have large numbers of Ph-6 pairs with few long range phasers precisely because that race has put more emphasis on drones/torpedos for long range combat and sees phasers as more of a defensive/close combat weapon.

And, at least in my opinion, the inability of a Ph-5 to rapid pulse provides the best answer for why X2 ships would use Ph-1s at all. A "treaty" or some similar reason just doesn't cut it. The Ph-1 is only going to be used on X2 ships if it offers some technical advantage.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 01:58 am: Edit

---

Quote:

And, at least in my opinion, the inability of a Ph-5 to rapid pulse provides the best answer for why X2 ships would use Ph-1s at all. A "treaty" or some similar reason just doesn't cut it. The Ph-1 is only going to be used on X2 ships if it offers some technical advantage.

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 11:47 am: Edit

MJC;

I'm afraid we'll have to disagree again. We both think unique racial flavor is a good thing. But I don't think your suggestion preserves it as far as phasers are concerned.

You suggest that maybe Ph-5s take up 50% more space than Ph-1s because they require a different and larger coolant system, so you can get 3 Ph-1s for 2 Ph-5s. But then you suggest that improved coolant allows you to eventually refit the Ph-1s to Ph-5s on a 1-1 basis by reducing the size of the Ph-5. But that same improvement would also allow the Ph-5 races to increase their Ph-5 batteries by 50%. So - prior to refit - one race has 8 Ph-5s, another has 12 Ph-1s. Aha! "Unique racial flavor." But after your suggested improved coolant becomes available, with the consequent reduction in volume required for a Ph-5, both races would just have 12 Ph-5s.

But if Ph-5s cannot rapid pulse, period, there will always be a reason why different races will choose different phaser suites. Rememeber that my suggestion was that the Ph-1, Ph-5, and pair of Ph-6s would all take up the same amount of space, as well as using the same amount of power. So if a given ship has 8 "spaces" for phasers, possible arrangements might include:

1. 6 Ph-5 and 4 Ph-6
2. 4 Ph-5 and 4 Ph-1
3. 8 Ph-1

Every one of these options is viable and they all have strengths and weaknesses. Option 1, for example, is the best for medium/long range direct fire combat, but the worst for seeking weapon defense. And none of these options, by the way, require "spare parts for 3 different kinds of Phasers".

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about in the paragraph where you mention "an AxCVL with a bunch of HAAS". I would not, in fact, suddenly wish I were on a CX. Not only do I believe I could defeat that force with either a CX or an XCA (n.b. - I play on floating maps), I believe I can beat it with some non-X (and not even a BCH) cruisers. The HAAS was obsolescent as soon as the TAAS appeared. By Y205, any surviving HAAS have probably been relegated to guard duty on some backwater colony. Front line squadrons would long since have gone over to the TADSC. This example is just weird.

You ask in the same paragraph, what happens if a bunch of plasma gets thrown at me and my Ph-5s can only fire as Ph-5s? Well, first of all, phasers aren't my primary defense against plasma. Speed is. I try to phaser the plasma only after I have reduced its warhead by running it out. Sometimes that's not possible. But for the most part I don't want to depend on phasers to stop plasma because it's usually not effective.

I think we have a couple of "bottom line" differences that will make it difficult to agree on some of these points.

1. We apparently use very different tactics in our play. (By the way, do you usually play floating map or fixed? As previously stated, I much prefer a floating map but know plenty of others dislike floating map as much as I dislike fixed map. This is a fundamental difference that has a major impact on certain tactics.)

2. You at least give the impression of wanting ships that can do everything and don't have to make tough choices. I'm not saying you really believe that. But it is how you come across in your writing. For example, you wrote:

"Basically if you have a non rapid pulsing Ph-5, you're forcing an additional penalty onto play which will require much more difficult ajustment based on certain assumption about battles" - I agree. But you seem to think that is a bad thing and I think it is a good thing.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 12:04 pm: Edit

One addendum to the above - I don't think it would be terrible if X2 did go all Ph-5, rapid pulse as Ph-6. But I would prefer, personally, more differentiation regarding phaser suites of different races than we see in X1. And the only way I see this as making any sense is if the Ph-1 has some permanent (not fixable by a refit) advantage over the phaser-5, and vice versa. That advantage doesn't necessarily have to be in rapid pulse. It might be in size/power requirements. If you can fit more phaser-1s on a ship, such that the phaser-5 ships have superior long range firepower but the ph-1 ships have superior short range firepower, different races could plausibly come to different decisions as to optimal phaser loadout, based on their other systems and weapons. But the advantage has to be permanent if you want to preserve racial flavor in the phaser suites. Otherwise, all races would converge towards a common loadout as the refits become available.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 01:38 pm: Edit

An alternative to the pulse ability. A P5 (1.5powe) could fire as a stanadrd P1 and fire in another (or same) impulse as a P3 at X Aegis eligible targets.

I don't fully see a need for the P6. But thats because I have some grave concerns about how much we can up armor drones and keep them at the scale GW ships can realistically deal with. But thats a discssion for the drone thread.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 01:55 pm: Edit

I'd go with the P1 being permanent. Maybe with the coming of the Xorks they would be upgraded. But that would depend on what each race envisions a P1 as in the (my version) long range P5 era.

Is a P1 in the role of a P2 as being an acceptable second choice for that race? That could eventually be upgunned somewhat in the face of dire need.

Or is the P1 playing the roll of cheap and effective short range fire power? Like the P2 was. (IE it would be designed in for the close rnage punch that comes rarely.)

Or is the P1 considered more to be a defensive phaser like the Kzini's forest of P3's.

On a case by case basis I could see all three. We would just have to be careful to keep to much design sloshing from race to race. But a Kzinti Fleet in 2X will still operate differently than even a Klingon fleet. (Even with similar weapon suites.)

Due to the emphasis placed on different design criteria. Klingon tend to have more a DF concentration, and drones are only an extra. Kzinti on the other hand will have more of a drone orientation and will deploy phasers differently than a Klink would.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 02:33 pm: Edit

The Ph-6 was designed to deal with X1 drones. With the general reduction on number of phaser units on a ship the Ph-6 was needed IMO. The Ph-5, being a larger weapons would fire as two Ph-6's.

The Ph-6, in my proposal, stemed from two advances in technology. One was a more powerful beam (and this is primarilly what the Ph-6 from a Ph-5 mount uses) and the other is a more advanced pulse mode targeting system (which is primarilly what the stand alone Ph-6 uses and why it can fire on just 1/2 point while the Ph-5 mounted Ph-6 shot uses .75.)

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 03:45 pm: Edit

For some reason all X1 ships went all P1 (excluding gats). I can't see X2 ships having a lot of P3. I can see them having P1.

The XP1 is the ultimate offensive/defensive phaser in the X-era. The X2 ship doesn't want to get closer then the 5-8 range bracket where the P1 is rather effective and for defense you can rapid pulse.

I'm not making a formal proposal but I would find:
P5@1.5 that downfires as one P1@1.0
P1@1.0 that rapid pulses at X-Aegis targets as 2xP3
to be an acceptable proposal.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 03:49 pm: Edit

Its clear that a drone heavy GW fleet will make life difficult for X2. We can throw rapid pulse at the problem or we can try some other options. What other ways could an X2 ship better deal with drones?

I'm thinking scout channel options, special lab functions, X-Aegis, hex-sized tractor beams, beaming TB through shields and such.

A cool X2 function would be to allow it to raise a shield a single impulse after dropping it.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 04:14 pm: Edit

Tos;

I don't think beaming a T-bomb through shields is likely to be acceptable to the Steves. It's too Andromedanish. But being able to raise the shield one impulse after dropping it might be a good approach to investigate.

I've also been pondering whether some new types of T-bombs at X2 might be worth considering. Ther are already drones (Type-IV) and plasma torpedos (Type-K) that have different damage levels against small targets (drones and shuttles) than against large ones. And an ADD can hurt drones and shuttles but has no effect at all on ships. Suppose at X2 a new type of T-bomb were developed that (insert technobabble rationale here) was effective against unshielded objects (drones or shuttles) but ineffective, or only marginally effective, against shielded ones. But suppose these bombs could, unlike T-bombs, be stockpiled in large numbers and several could be transported in one transporter action. This might form the basis for X2 drone defense, though care would have to be taken not to make them too strong.