---

Quote:

Adding integrated UIM and DERFACS to range 40 disruptors is a huge improvment...it ain't all about raw damage.

---

---

Quote:

Shock is not a Good Thing. Ships that tear themselves apart are a Bad Thing, and accepting designs that do that under wartime conditions is not the same as accepting ships that do that when the primary mission of said vessel is not to 'kill the other guy'.

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 08:51 pm: Edit

The answer historically was: "We don't build ships that incur shock on a regular basis."

Specialty ships like maulers, the SPJ and the BCJ were the exception to the rule.

next question.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 09:22 pm: Edit

The Next question would be...look at those ships and see what you're looking at.

Two are effectively command cruisers and the rest are "shock vessels".

So basically the Admiralty could easily build two 6 heavy Disruptor with shock cruisers per squadron.

Of 3 XCAs in a squadron, having one without the "refit" to have the 5th and 6th Disruptors would see quite reasonable even in total war.


Considering that the My era Fed DD can hurl around four 16 point Photons on one impulse and the DX can fire 6 O/L Disruptors without any shock, I would say that IF six heavy Disruptors did encour shock, it would be so mild as to be not worth the effort to record.
Moreover the technological improvement of X2 over X1 are likely to to invole allowing a ship to handle shock better and as such the slight increase in shock would be mitigated by those improvements and the the ship is not very likely to suffer shock.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 09:46 pm: Edit

Another question to ask, would be...why move from X1 tech ( with respect to the Disruptors ) if you get less out of the situation.

Sure X1 doesn't have built in UIM, but with no burn penalty beyound loosing the UIM module that doesn't really matter all that much.

Sure you'll have to pay for overloads though they were standards if you don't have a disruptor cap.

Sure, you'll do base 5 damage instead of base 6.

But if you've only got four of the things ( except where limited by treaty...in which case the day the treaty ends you'ld refit your heavy weapon suit back to X1 technology ) then you're ot doing the same or better damage.

One of the fundimentals that has come out of the X2 Photon thread is that if it doesn't do as well as X1 tech then it won't be implimented.

Four Heavy Disruptor might be hitting 5/6 x 8 x 4 (26.66 damage)at range 8 & 12 x 6/6 x 4 (48 Damage) at range 0 but since the old X1 Disruptor suite was inflicting 30 and 60 respectively, the Klingon Admiralty would be nuts to introduce the new weapon system as the WAR standard...they'ld refit all the ships they could back to the old X1 tech...and they'ld plan to do it as soon as war breaks out if they had a treaty restricting numbers).

If the Klingon XCA isn't ( in its fully refitted state) doing 60 damage at R0 and 30 at R8 or better then it just won't get built...not with that disruptor suite.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 09:51 pm: Edit

No shock on general-use ships.

End of story.

Individual exceptions may be made, but will not be the rule.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 10:47 pm: Edit

Agreed!

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 11:17 pm: Edit

I appear to be in the vast minority, but I don't care if X1 trumps X2 in terms of number/capability of guns. I would rather see fewer guns, but better guns.

I rather liked the inital Ph-V suggestions that were designed to be effective to range 10 instead of range 8, for example. This isn't a game breaker if the X2 ships are not light battleships.

X1 ships are wartime cruisers, and could not be effectively mass produced for various reasons (crew, cost, whatever). This is one explanation of why they were not the only ships built from Y181-Y205. X2 does not need to represent an ever-widening technological gap, and it does not need to implement ships with the effective armament of BB's.

What it needs to do is implement new, balanced (and hopefully interesting) ways for us to blow each other to sub-atomic particles.

IMO

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 01:03 am: Edit

Look I'm not for X2 ship being able to trump X1 ships on a purely firepower based analysis but I think they should at least ( with the exception of a small minority ) be built with superiority and/or parity to the X1 ships.

8Ph-5s is about as good as 12Ph-1s.
12Ph-1s is better at closer ranges ( R4 or less ) whilst 8Ph-5s are better at longer ranges ( R6 to 15 ).
Most people think that, that's a good move...parity in firepower but a new flavour of fighting at longer ranges with fewer weapons.

Four 24 Pointers every other turn isn't that much more powerful than 12 pointers every turn.

Six Disruptors with built in UIM/Defracs, Disruptor Caps and a six impulse double broadside penalty isn't much better than the DX Disruptor suite in damage output even though it's quite a bit "better".


Don't get me wrong, I'm not for overgunned battlewaggons with steroid induced warp engines...I just think that these ships need to be the equal of or slightly better than; X1 ships not slightly weaker than and definately not a lot weaker than.

These ship are to replace ( to some extent ) mainline warships and therefore need ( within limits of ecconomy and treaty ) to be the equals of their predecessors...minimum.

Sending ultra fast warships with no real firepower doesn't do much good if your ultra fast warship just caught an X1 Orion with no treaty restriction so they have a real ability to fight you and no way to out run you so they have a real need to fight you as well.


Cheaper more effective more balanced ships without a need for an uber-crew is what X1R will have a lot of room for.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 02:09 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for overgunned battlewaggons with steroid induced warp engines...I just think that these ships need to be the equal of or slightly better than; X1 ships not slightly weaker than and definately not a lot weaker than.

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 12:23 pm: Edit

Mike, a bargain-basement CX is 250 these days.

+25 means 275-300.

I'm with you in the sense of XCAs being a step back to fewer, more effective weapons, but if the result is only +25 BPV, I'll be really surprised.

You have to expect at least +50, which puts the baseline BPV at 300 and goes up from there.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 07:04 pm: Edit

I should say equal to or slightly better as a starting point.


Once you pay for being a frontline warship equal to and slightly better than CXs and give it some GSV ability, ESCORT ability, LONG VOYAGE and HIGHER STRATEGIC SPEED as the functionality increase of these ship you have to put on a few BPV.
240-315 BPV plus a bit really does give you 300-330 BPV as a starting point and that then probably refits to 410 BPV.

So those that don't want a refit are looking at 300-360 BPV price tags.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 07:19 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I'm with you in the sense of XCAs being a step back to fewer, more effective weapons, but if the result is only +25 BPV, I'll be really surprised.

You have to expect at least +50, which puts the baseline BPV at 300 and goes up from there.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 07:22 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for overgunned battlewaggons with steroid induced warp engines...I just think that these ships need to be the equal of or slightly better than; X1 ships not slightly weaker than and definately not a lot weaker than.

---

---

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 10:10 pm: Edit

Mike Raper posted a really good X2-photon proposal earlier in "X2 BPV."

What sort of X2-disruptor (and variants) would serve to balance it?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 08:45 pm: Edit

Mike posted a mildly improved disrputor as well.

Effectively it's a +1 to most damage brackets out to about 22 for no additional power cost.

The one issue I don't think it wuld be big enough to drop the XD7 to 4 Disrs from 6.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 07:57 am: Edit

I thought about that long and hard; truly I did. I had several reasons for sticking with four.

1. Many people complain that the D5 is unbalanced, at least for its BPV, because of the firing arcs of the disruptors. With those same arcs on this ship, it has a much better chance of bringing all of its disruptors to bear than the DX did. Coupled with the improved damage and firing chart, you should be able to hit more often and from different directions, allowing the Klingon player to use every shield except #4 for protection while still being able to fire at least a pair of disruptors at the enemy.
2. The XDD I made for the Klingons has 2, just as the F5X did (basically, it's very similar, but I called it a destroyer because it's a bit bigger and just doesn't look like a frigate anymore). So, FF or DD keeps 2, and BC/CA keeps 4.
3. I wanted room to have refits later down the road, without actually changing the weapon itself. This is supposed to be the penultimate development of the disruptor, with the intent that there will never be one better (I think SVC has made it plain that there will be no X3). So, the only route open to me was to leave room for more later.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 09:45 pm: Edit

I've said that the X2 Disruptor Cap should be made from pairs of left over X1 Phaser caps down at the wearhouse during the initial period.
As X2 Phaser production becomes more widespread the 3 point caps become availible to be used for Disruptors as well as so at the time the ships are brought in to refit their BTTYs with 4 ( or 5 ) point BTTYs the Disruptor Caps are upgraded to 3 Points caps each cap, which is a 6 point Disruptor Cap.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 05:13 pm: Edit

And what about other options? AT (Arced-Trajectory) disruptors "the ones that can shift to a different adjacent shield at a slight cost to damage and accuracy" is another 'flavorful' disruptor that fits Klingon combat character.

I would like to encourage other 'flavors' for the other races.

C'mon.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 11:06 pm: Edit

I just don't like the SPLASH DAMAGE Klingon.

The D7H already exists.
The ISC already exist.

In a lot of ways Klingons don't needa flexi shield hit weapons because Disruptor Arcs and turn mode already give them a really good ability to hit what shield they please.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 08:20 pm: Edit

2X Disruptor Proposals

Okay, a few basics first. The consensus seems to be building that X2 should have more racial flavor, and that that flavor should depend quite a lot on the heavy weapons, not the phasers, that a ship or race will use. If X1 was the generation of the phaser-heavy ship (and it was, IMO…you only have to look at them to see it) then X2 would be the generation of new and better heavy weapons. That’s the way I see it, anyway…your mileage may vary. But, given that, I think X2 is as good a time as any to start seeing some branching out of heavy weapons a bit more, particularly disruptors. So, here’s what I’ve been toying with. Opinions are welcome.

Klingon Disruptors. The Klingons are the disruptor race. Others use them, but the Klingons just seem to do it with more style and flair. The created the UIM; they created the DERFACS module. They also enjoy and depend more on maneuver than many other races, so a disruptor that helps with that would be attractive. So, the Klingon disruptor gets the following:

• Integrated UIM and DERFACS, for one table that uses the best option for each range. These systems cannot be destroyed by H&R, because they are now part of the entire disruptor system.
• Improved firing arcs. Just like the D5 and other late war ships, the Klingons strive for really good firing arcs for their X2 disruptors.
• Capacitors. Each disruptor has a 4 point capacitor. This allows the Klingon to make high speed battle passes without using his batteries, at least for a short while. These capacitors work just like phaser capacitors do, but are not tied to the phaser capacitors in any way.

• They cannot use the Tholian disruptor and fire through webs.
• They cannot mount different types of disruptor on the same hull; an XCR might have four option mounts, and could not mount two DC’s and two Klingon type disruptors…they will not work together.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 08:45 pm: Edit

Kzintis: This is basically range unlimited OL disruptors. (twice the damage for twice the energy.) This is OK since it is a two turn arming and fast loading takes a chunk but fast loading IS just like R15 disruptor OL's. This is very powerful so some tweeking is needed here.

Suggestions (use any, none or all):

Reduce range further to 12. This is still an advantage over even the plasma glory zone.

Fast Loads = No hold.

DERFACS = Late era upgrade.

Limit consecutive turns with a sort of Shock. Make three consecutive turns safe. One turn rest at any point resets. Fourth consecutive turn destroys the DC. (Does not count towards crew casualties; the system burns out.)

Klingons: I so like the Klingons having the Heavy Disruptor with integrated UIM/DERFACS. I think the Lyrans should use the Klink version you post above (regular Disruptor with UIM/DERFACS and mount six). Just my personal opinion though. I think the Lyrans would be so focused on their ESG that they buy the Disruptor tech. from the Klingons. The Klingons donot sell the "Heavy" part of the tech.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 09:05 pm: Edit

Thought about the range thing, and felt it was okay. The Kzinti BC I worked up has only four DC's, and with no fire control toys like the UIM or DERFACS, they only hit on a 1-3 at range 15, for a max of 4 points. So, the Kzinti could expect to do 8 points at that range, with a max of 16. The Klingons, using what I posted above, could expect to do 12 points on the average, and 18 at most at that range with their standard disruptors. Besides; the DC really is just an overloaded disruptor that will fire to range 40, but takes two turns to arm. Most folks seem to be very leery of having the ability to overload the things, so fastloading was a good option. Might go with a late era DERFACS, if playtesting warrants it.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 09:40 pm: Edit

Mike, 6 disruptors and BPV 332? You don't think that might be broke to begin with when compared to FED XCA which is working out from 250-300?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 02:30 am: Edit

Mike Raper:

I don't have any objections to your Klingon, Kzinti, or Lyran suggestions. But I don't like the idea of Tholian disruptors firing through web. Somehow it just "feels wrong" to me. Phasers have always been the precision weapon in SFB. Look at the inherent penalties that heavy weapons are assessed when firing at drones or mines. It seems to me that the ability to penetrate web should require the ability to control some parameters of the weapon very precisely and this is only possible with phasers.

What I personnally would like to see would be for the Tholians to discard both disruptors and photon torpedos at the X2 level and become the phaserboat/webcaster/webfist race. The frigate would be an updated version of the Patrol Corvette, dedicated to base defense/fighting behind webs. It would have massive (relative to its size) phaser firepower and X2 snares, but no heavy weapons.

The cruiser would have X2 webcasters and phasers.

But unlimited webcaster production could pose balance problems so I hypothesized that although the Tholians could still not build webcasters in quantity, they were able to build a webfist-only version which could not create cast web and was purely a direct fire weapon. This would be the heavy weapon for the destroyer.

Unfortunately, I did some playing around with this concept and it still has balance problems that I haven't figured out how to solve yet. I must confess your version would probably be easier to balance, but I still don't like it much. But it may be that my idea of making the Tholians a phaserboat/webcaster race will never balance properly and they will have to retain disruptors (and possibly photon torpedos).

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 08:00 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Mike, 6 disruptors and BPV 332? You don't think that might be broke to begin with when compared to FED XCA which is working out from 250-300?

---