If you looking for a purely 50% "better" weapon then the way to go is the six shot ubergatling.

Four shots for a Ph-2 table at R3 is inflicting 14 points of damage whilst four shots from a Ph-G is inflicting 12 damage at range 2.
Not only does the uberphaser have a 50% increase in range but a 16% increase in damage as well. Note the Ph-G at R3 is only generating 4 points of damage which is a lot less than 14.

Range 8 for the uberphaser is frightening.
4.66 points of damage ( better than double the out put of a Ph-1 (or for that matter 33% better than the Phaser-5) and double the output of a Ph-G.

Dropping this uberphaser down to 3Ph-2 shots might be a good idea.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 06:38 pm: Edit

Why?

The proposal was to simply upgrade the phaser 3 gatling to use phaser 2 charts.

If you want to propose a "uberphaser", then go ahead...

but this proposal was (to put it simply) to swap the phaser 3 weapons charts for the phaser 2 ones.

simple and easy.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 09:50 pm: Edit

...and way too powerful.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 10:29 pm: Edit

...which was why it was proposed as a Stellar Shadows Journal.

And why it proved to be impossible to build in the "real history" of SFB.

By Steve Cain (Stevecain) on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 12:49 am: Edit

Jeff-
my last post...
Take each of those individually; not corporately.
I see exactly what you are developing and why you didn't like the Ph-1g extreem punch. Those were just options for anyone who wanted to look at how a Ph-1 gat. might be a little less of a god weapon.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 05:05 am: Edit

I jst think raising the R3 damage of the Ph-G from 4 points of damage to 14 points of damage is a 250% increase and streets ahead of the proposed 50% increase.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 08:21 am: Edit

Steve, fair enough! and I thank you for your comments.

MJC:

The phaser 2 is intended to be a combination of offensive and defensive combat power.

your criticism seems to be with the damage ability as related on the weapons charts.

as such, I direct you to address your concerns to SVC. IMO this is not the place to discuss the difference between phaser 3 damage at ranges to the phaser 2 damage at ranges.

considering how many years the two phaser types have been in the game, any suggestion that there is a problem with the differences between the types is not only tardy, but pointless.

Given that the proposal is Stellar Shadows, and as such an option only for use in nonhistorical settings... the issue would have no impact in any other context. (by that I mean in historical scenarios, not available in pick up battles unless approved in advance by all players or in tournament play.

By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 10:56 am: Edit

Jeff,
Even for Stellar Shadows - this is awfully powerful.

Also, MJC isn't suggesting that the ph-2 by itself is incorrect, only that your combined 4xPh-2 gat is off-base (I believe - MJC, forgive me if I mis-spoke your opinion).

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 11:22 am: Edit

Hehehehe..

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 04:26 pm: Edit

Tony, thank you.

I appreciate your insights to what MJC intended to say in his posts.

Curious that you could communicate in one sentence, what MJC couldn't do in half a dozen
(or more) posts.

That said, I do indeed understand that a phaser 2 gatling is very powerful.

If introduced to "real SFB history" the phaser 2 gatling would pose a balance problem... But I suspect that Stellar Shadows could probably handle it...shoot, the BHAG was far more powerful... and Stellar Shadows dealt with it just fine.

At the most, it would require some restrictions, but nothing like what MJC was suggesting.

I could see limits to how many could be mounted on a single hull(one on a size class 4, 2 max on any size class 3 or cruiser type size 2 units...no more than 3 (or 4?) (none with overlapping fields of fire) on size class 2 hulls of CVA or SCS designs.

and no more than 12 O/D type Gatlings in use at any time in the fleet.

Unlimited deployment would not be acceptable.

By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 12:08 am: Edit

The power of this weapon falls into the heavy weapon range, and it should be treated as such (IMHO)

By Steve Cain (Stevecain) on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 01:07 am: Edit

One shot would be to use the depoloyment limit of Megaphasers (Ph-M) from Mod P.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 06:56 am: Edit

T.B.:

That was mostly my aim.


J.W.:


What I'm trying to say is that the Ph-2 table not only grants longer reach which in turn aids relative damage by generating more weapon hits on the other guy before he gets into effective range (assuming the guy is a Ph-G user) but also has more damage out-right (Ph-3s just can't generate 5 or 6 points of damage from a hit )...and that it is the product of these two effects that make the O/D Gatling such a monsterous weapon.


Again I commend tinkering with the concept of 3Ph-2 shots from this weapon.
In that way generating 10.5 damage at R3 with the O/D Gatling gives a slight but exploitable edge to the Ph-G which assuming it survives to get to R2 would generate 12 points of damage.
Still a monster weapon but it doesn't sweep all before it.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 10:00 am: Edit

T.B. - If the deployment of the phaser 2 Gatling were dependent on the size class of the hull (as suggested in my post of 1/25/2005 4:26 PM) there would be fewer of them than the number of heavy weapons normally available to those ship types.

For example a Size Class 3 Fed NCL would have 4 photons. the max number of Type O/D phaser 2 Gatlings you could mount would be 2 or half as many heavy weapons the ship starts with. At range 0 2 phaser 2 Gatlings could inflict (assuming all hit for max damage) of 48 points of damage. 4 o/l Photons would do 64 points of damage.

I would like to point out that such a restriction is actually greater than that imposed on the number heavy weapons a ship may have.

MJC: I submit that your analysis is starting from a false premise.

The Phaser 2 Gatling is not a new weapon installed on a ship, it would be replacing an existing weapon type, the phaser 3 gatling.

Your numbers, using the raw numbers of the type 2 phaser gatling, is ignoring the original damage potential of the phaser 3 gatling being replaced.

So, (for example), where you refer to 24 points of damage at range zero, we should, (IMO) be discussing the net incremental increase in damage inflicted over the original phaser 3 Gatlings.

the O/D type 2 phaser gatling causes 8 points more damage at range zero than the ph 3 gatlings would in the same situation.

reduced to the simplest case of a single gatling, the proposal is to increase maximum damage potential at range zero by 8 points, by 4 points at range 1 or 2 or 3 hexes. average damage would be a different calculation.

As far as your recommendation to reduce the phaser 2 gatling to a 3 shot maximum.... sorry I dont buy into your theory.

3 phaser 2 shots cost 1.5 energy points compared to 1 energy point cost of the phaser 3 gatling.

the tactical value of having one additional shot (the 4th) available for drone or fighter defense (the ability to engage more targets) is of greater value than the increase in energy cost warrants.

in terms of absolute damage, the 3 shot phaser 2 gatling able to inflict 18 points of damage at range zero at the cost of 1.5 energy points is not (in and of itself) justification for making the change to the larger phaser type.

the net increase would represent just 2 additional points of damage inflicted for a net increase in .5 energy points... it would be among the worst possible uses of .5 energy points available in the game, in terms of cost benefit comparison.

You are trying to judge the O/D phaser 2 gatling in isolation... not an appropriatte choice, IMO, as it is an improvement to the existing phaser 3 gatling.

2/3rds of any damage analysis should reflect what the previous standard was, and since that standard was a phaser 3 gatling (already one of the premier weapons systems in SFB) your example is off point.

Which takes me back to a previous point.

your issue is with the differences of the two phaser types in terms of potential damage.

Phaser 2's work the way they work, and complaining that they are too powerful compared to the damage generated by phaser 3's does not address the proposal, which was, I say again, to substitute the weapons charts.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 10:06 am: Edit

If Jeff were any more intentionally obtuse it would almost hurt.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 10:27 am: Edit

But he's proposing this as a Stellar Shadows weapon, not as something that ever actually existed in the "real" SFU. I don't know that this is any more over-the-top than some of the other Stellar Shadows things that have been published. Remember the Andromedan Emulator weapon? (Not the correct name, I'm pretty sure. But I don't have my books handy.)

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 10:58 am: Edit

Alan, forgive Cfant.

His first response is sarcasm followed by personal attacks and name calling.

Also note, that I am not the only one that Cfant regularly abuses.

May I suggest that we continue to follow Jessica Orsini's advice, and leave chris to wallow in his pool of iniquity?

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 11:13 am: Edit

If no one has looked at CL#28, the Orion DAT is still more powerful than this weapons.

So no one needs to worry about the P-2 Gat being overpowered compared to that.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 11:35 am: Edit

I don't worry about it all, since it's a Stellar Shadows submission. Anyone looked at the Gorn uber-torpedo in the last edition? You know, the one that does 200 points or whatever? This is way tame by comparison.

By John Kasper (Jvontr) on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 12:56 pm: Edit

How about variable damage by shot? Assume the thing is heating up and therefore losing focus.

First shot, normal PH-2 (or maybe first 2 shots). Second shot, PH-2 but add 1 to the die roll. Next shot, another plus 1. Maybe this doesn't apply if you allow a 4 impulse cool down between shots.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 01:54 pm: Edit

John Kasper:

That might be a viable alternative...

shot #1 phaser 2 table.
shot #2 phaser 2 table(+1 to die roll).
shot #3 phaser 2 table(+2 to die roll).
shot #4 phaser 2 table(+3 to die roll).
if shots occur within 8 impulses (1/4 turn) or no 4 impulse "cool down" period.

I'll have to get my phaser 2 charts out and calculate expected damages at various ranges to see what effect that would have...

my "gut" feeling is that such a procedure will reduce the gloomy results reported by MJC.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 08:49 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

So, (for example), where you refer to 24 points of damage at range zero, we should, (IMO) be discussing the net incremental increase in damage inflicted over the original phaser 3 Gatlings.

---

---

Quote:

in terms of absolute damage, the 3 shot phaser 2 gatling able to inflict 18 points of damage at range zero at the cost of 1.5 energy points is not (in and of itself) justification for making the change to the larger phaser type.

the net increase would represent just 2 additional points of damage inflicted for a net increase in .5 energy points... it would be among the worst possible uses of .5 energy points available in the game, in terms of cost benefit comparison.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 09:10 pm: Edit

The trouble with giving a weapon both extra range and extra damage is that people forget about the effects of the extra reach.


Say we let the Klingons have Disruptors that can fire in an overloaded manner just one extra range bracket...it wouldn't be too much of an improvement.

Sure but being able to narrow volley 24 points of damage straight at the other guy 66% of the time, every single turn will mean that by the time your Fed opponant raches R8 he's lost a few teeth.


Alternately giving Photons the to-hit values of Disruptors would be massive...who wants to get to R8 and have an 83% chance of getting hit up for 64 points of damage!?!...(that's an average of 53.3)...who doesn't want to be the guy dealing out that out???


These arn't changes to the damage ( in the strickest possible sense), just increases in reach.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 10:18 pm: Edit

MJC:

Go back and look at the rules and conditions that Stellar Shadows exist under.

your statement, "Okay...if you want to build an obsolute killer weapon that can only be put in a stellar shadows game of extreme fantasy then go ahead."

Indicates that you fail to understand the underlying premise of the Stellar Shadows products.

Then (if you have the honesty to face the fact that you were commenting on a proposal that you do not understand), go back to the first post in this thread and read the first line of the proposal:

Most people understand that when a proposal boldly states that it is intended for Stellar Shadows only, that it means what it says.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 11:07 pm: Edit

But still.

Having two Gatling Ph-2 systems will mean that the fist to come about will likely be the only one to come about, especially if it gets a reputation as being an uber-weapon.

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.