Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through January 23, 2005	25		01/23 10:33pm
	Archive through January 26, 2005	25		01/26 11:07pm

"But me no Buts!" (I forget what movie that line was in, though it would seem to apply here.)

The central assumption of the proposal revolves around the ideas established under Stellar Shadows.

If you want a improved phaser for X2, then GO TO X2 to discuss it! Better yet, create a proposal and attempt to convince people as to the need for such a thing.

This thread was expressly intended to discuss a stellar shadows submission for a Ph 2 gatling.

Your attempts to use this idea as a way to get an improved phaser in to the "real history" of SFB is a blatant violation of established policy, and I would (again) (politely) suggest that you make yourself familiar with the posted uses and procedures that pertain to Stellar Shadows.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 09:39 am: Edit

---

Quote:

If it is POSSIBLE to build the O.D. gatling in such a way that it isn't actually that much more of an uberweapon than the Hellbore or PPD and thus could be allowed in the regular game (perhaps under X2 perhaps not) then why not consider the possibility of that weapon rather than going for the super-weapon and keeping it permanently shut out from offical play.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 10:00 pm: Edit

Well now there's my point.

If I invent overloaded phasers that just don't work the way the X1 over loaded phasers work, I can't get anyone to play them and the Steve's won't publish them because X1 style overloaded phasers have given overloaded phasers a bad rep'.

Let's say it goes something like this.
Phaser overloads from warp power directly from the engines to the phaser bypassing the phaser capasitor...this was hinted at in ST:TMP as to why Decker orders a Photon to be fired at the asteroid.
For every full multiple of a point of warp power after the first each phaser shall inflict half the listed damage ( rounded down when dealing with the total effect of each phaser ) on the appropriate phaser chart.
Phaser-1s shall roll against the break down of the ship minus -1 per multiple after the second for each phaser to determine if the weapon's firing mechanism melts under the strain causing the weapon to be counted as destroyed ( and may be repaired under CDR as per normal ). Phaser-1s fired as Phaser-2s need not roll for the burn out of their fire control system.
Phaser-3s use multiples of half a point of power.
No capital phaser may pass more than 5 points of power through itself.
No Point defense Phaser may pass more than 2.5 points of power through it.
The power in the Phaser capasitor is not used when firing this way and stays in the cap, with all of the overloaded phaser fire coming from warp power.


No here's the key.
Such overloaded phasers ( whilst probably breaking the game by changing the flavour dramatically:- who wouldn't dump 20 points of warp power from their Fed CA into overloaded phasers if you got to jump your expected phaser damage at R8 up from 8.66 to 26 or worse your expect R4 damage up from 15.33 all the way up to 46 points of damage...suddenly every ship will use hydran-fusion tactics...except maybe the die-hard speed is life crowd and a divergency in tactics is probably a good thing ); don't suffer from the combination of forces that X1 overloaded phasers suffered from, in fact quite the opposite.
1) Because they don't rely on an all Ph-1 suite the way X1 does the "sameness" of the tactic is reduced.
2) Because the ships don't have the capasitors with which to fire their weapons under overload and indeed must use warp power to fire the overloaded phaser the idea that it is unavoidable that the ship will move in on you and blow you to bits no longer holds water.
3) Because the weapons have no "overloaded range" they can fire their weapons to any point on the map ( barring a huge map ) and thus the critcal WE HAVE REACHED R5; NOW WE MUST FIRE problem is greatly reduced ( it'll still happen with Ph-1 users to some exent).


But if I put forward these idea's as OVERLOADED PHASERS or ADVANCED OVERLOADED PHASERS or NEW OVERLOADED PHASERS, they simply won't be allowed to fly because X1 has already ruined in the minds of the players the idea that any working of overloaded phasers is a bad idea.
The idea will die from the poison in X1 long before anyone realises that it's too similar to paramount stuff to be allowed to fly.


I would hate to see this happen for a Ph-2 chart based gatling phaser and that by going for a full four shot version without even considering a three shot version, it would marginalise a three shot version or indeed any version such that it could never come to an eventuality.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 10:34 am: Edit

Campbell: your overload rule needs to be in a separate topic; it doesn't belong in this one. I'm too sick with flu to go kill all the messages but use proposals to start your own topic and don't continue that here.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 07:42 pm: Edit

Sorry Steve, I wasn't actually making a proposal just making an overveiw that certain proposals have made certain other proposals D.O.A.!

I don't think I would propose those overloaded Phaser rules as the background is obviously ripped off from the comic book, STAR TREK; THE MISSING YEARS and I'ld hate to see both Marvel Comics and Paramount sue ADB.


P.S. If you've never read that particular comic book, I would commend you did as they are a hoot...although STAR TREK; THE EARLY YEARS was better still.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 08:07 pm: Edit

Lets get this discussion back on track.

The proposal is to build a Stellar Shadows "Mad Scientists workshop" phaser gatling around the the phaser 2 weapons table, and the ability to fire 4 shots per 32 impulses of a single turn.(2 points of energy per turn for 4 shots. 1/2 energy point per shot.)

various modifications have been suggested:

1. increase the capaciter size of bpth the phaser g (ph3 gatling) and the O/D type phaser 2 gatling. (MJC)
2. use variable phaser tables to similate progressive failure due to heat build up on the weapons mount. 1 shot normal, each additional shot +1 die roll, and allow a cooling off period.(John Kasper)
3. a 3 shot limit to the number of "shots" the O/D type phaser Gatling could take.(MJC)
4. use the Type O/D Gatling as proposed, but replaces heavy weapons on ship designs(needs more detailed list of restrictions)(Tony Barnes)
5. treat like a heavy weapon, larger energy cost, possible burnout(like UIM)(Steve Cain)

If I missed anyone or an other proposal that should be included, Sorry, not trying to slight anyone.

Any additional comments on the suggestions?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Lets Restate the proposal...(with those added suggestions that I think improve the proposal).

A Stellar Shadows Journal Submission(Mad Scientist Workshop)

A phaser 2 Gatling mount available for the Federation. Energy Cost = 1/2 energy point per shot, 2 energy point capaciter, 4 shots in a turn (or within 32 continous impulses).

The O/D phaser 2 Gatling may only be mounted in place of a ships existing heavy weapon(s).(tony Barnes)

The O/D Phaser 2 Gatling is subject to possible burnout.(Steve Cain)

The O/D Phaser 2 Gatling loses accuracy with repeated firings. Each additional shot taken, if no "cool off" period is allowed, adds +1 to the Die roll.(John Kasper)

To simulate a "prototype" O/D Phaser 2 Gatling that has not been proven effective, the following rules could be added:

1. Each shot taken has the potential to result in a catastrphic failure. for each phaser 2 shot fired, roll 1 die. when the cumulative total exceeds 7(-1 for each 1/4 turn cool off period), the ship received 36 points of damage from an omnidirectional volley.
2. for safety reasons, only 3 shots per turn are allowed.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 09:05 pm: Edit

Jeff, the '7' for failure would seem to be a bit low, considering that the average of two dice is 7...perhaps 9 or 10 should be the failure number...

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 12:18 am: Edit

I'm open to the change... but my thought was to reflect the possibility of a catastrophic failure happening even with the possibility of using the "cooling off" effect of delayed firing opportunities.

The average result of a six sided die roll would be ~3.5...so if 1 shot is taken each quarter turn, the net result after 3 shots would be 10.5 cumulative die rolls...less 1 point for each quarter turn delay after each firing which would be 10.5-3=7.5 by the 3/4 point in the turn (approximately impulse 24 or so depending on when the first shot was fired...)

using average die results can't be exact (given the variation of individual die results) but its as close as we can estimate it as a safe result.

taking a 4th shot in the same turn would (almost certainly) result in a catastrophic result (it is not unitary, but is better than a 50% likelihood of having a bad result occur.

going with a 9 or 10 gives more "leeway" to a successful firing sequence...but moves the possibility of being able to complete 4 shots within 32 impulses safely.

Anyone else have an opinion on what the correct number should be? 7, 9 or 10?

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 07:12 pm: Edit

Hmmm, one thing would be to just state that the weapon can only fire three times per turn or change the -1 for a 9 or 10-impulse delay...

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 11:25 am: Edit

I was thinking that the prototype rule would account for the calamity that happened to the USS Princeton in the Color Commentary in the early part of this thread.

The catastrophic failure of the phaser gatling mount wouldnt happen if used in a regular production warship (to account for the "bugs" being worked out).

Changing the cumulative total for die rolls to 9 or 10 would be a simpler approach, IMO.

By John Pepper (Akula) on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 12:54 am: Edit

I missed this discussion some how, I like this rule as I have been playing with a similar version by Don Miller for some time now. Its a lot of fun and NOTHING is too powerful for stellar shadows if you don't like it don't use it.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 09:00 am: Edit

John, you are welcome to the discussion! (better late than never!)