Disruptors thought Web: I could live with that IF the modifier that reduces damage were a modifier for 'to hit'.

Where phaser damage would be reduced by one point the disruptor would get a +1 to hit, etc. THis would vastly shorten the range a disruptor would be useful and in a lot of cases would put the Tholian ship in a place where it is possible to get at. Bases would have little chance to hitting targets through a wedding cake. Units firing through their cast web would have to do so from pretty close range if they hope to hit. THe enemy can just turn and enter the web and Alpha the Tholian at close range. (knowing the Tholian shot his wad already.) It wont always be a good thing to do. The circomstances for firing disruptors through web will not be as often as it might seem.

And photons still would be able to get through. This is good since some the limiting factors inherrant with the disruptor would be the same. Photons through web would be mightly dangerous.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 03:42 pm: Edit

Michael, it's not really 'splash damage' Klingons, it's more like 'SLASH Damage' Only one shield is hit. It's forces the target to think more about shield reinforcement and tactics.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 08:40 pm: Edit

Fantastic Arcs, great Turn modes ( large quantitites of direct power to support it ).

It's got the critical factor that splash damage has; the ability to inflict damage through a downed non-facing shield.

It might be slash-damage but the Klingons should still be hard work to gain victory.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 06:56 pm: Edit

X2 LM Disruptor

Background: The Kozenko Design Bureau, along with the Klingon High Command faced an impasse with the past developments of the disruptor bolt. Toward the end of the General War, attempts were made to increase its effectiveness. All attempts failed to increase its damage output and rate of fire. Moreover, the UIM and DERFACS modules were already examples of technology that pushed its basic accuracy to the limit. For the first generation X Ships (X1) the solution was to increase the amount of disruptors by 50%, and add redundancy to existing technology, i.e. UIM and DERFACS and have holding capability (disruptor caps).

It was at this time that the KDB went in the opposite direction by developing a 'leaner and meaner' disruptor. One that required only half the energy needed (1 point) to fire. Moreover, these disruptors did not suffer from the 'small target' penalty that the larger more venerable disruptor did. So, because of its small size, more could be mounted in the weapon spaces vacated by the older disruptors.


Type I
R 0 1 2 3-8 9-15 16-22 23-30
H 5 5 4 4 4 3 2
D 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
OD 8 6 6 4 - - -


Benefits: More durability because more in number. Better drone and fighter defense. If there are 2 LM Disruptors for every Std Disruptor, the damage does increase slightly. Range does improve as well.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 06:58 pm: Edit

Where did the range improve? The X1 "standard" disruptor has a range of 40.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 08:51 pm: Edit

I'ld rather not see 12 ( or even 8 refitted to 12 ) of these things mounted on a Klingon XCA.

12 by 2 points of power is 24 power, the same power being used by the DX for Disruptors but at R8 you are generating 12 x 4 x 4/6 which is 32 damage ( better than the old UIM OVERLOADED 6 DISRUPTOR CX at that range ) and closer range brackets get better.

Also I'm unclear as to whether UIM is allowed for the weapon.

Also could I commend the \table {.,.,.} command as it'll help make the chart easier to read.


I'ld like to ask you to consider having the weapon as a firing mode of the Disruptor that already exists. Having a slightly more effective shot that can at small targets as a firing mode forthe Disruptor would be handy but giving the Klingons 12 TORP hits whilst everyone is working so hard to keep the Feds at 4 is going to be a huge problem for play.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 10:35 pm: Edit

The fact that these disruptors pack almost the power of standard-tech disruptors at HALF the power is what bothers me.

I think they're too power-efficient.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 11:14 pm: Edit

The UIM loss helps level the playing feild but let's take a look.

Weapon Suite ( overloades when not listed)	R0	R1	R2	R3-4	R5-8	power
6 Disruptors	60	50	40	40	30	24
12 LM Disruptors	80	60	48	48	48	24
12 Standard LM Disruptors	40	30	24	24	24	12

No, the low power cost doesn't bother me, it's the inordinant amount of damage coupled with the increable difficulty of killing `em that bothers me...for now.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 11:23 pm: Edit

By "for now".

Doing six points less damage for 12 points less power at R8; if these weapons were limited with a NO OVERLOAD function they would still be awfully good (making no comment on whether that is enough to be outlawed for X2)...if only because doing near overload damage without committing to the R8 limitation is a handy ability.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 07:56 am: Edit

I think John's point, though, is that you're getting that increased damage for the same power. Firing 12 overloaded LM disruptors costs 24 points but yeilds 80 damage at point blank range. For the same power, six X1 disruptors do 75% of that damage. All that being said, I agree with you both; it's a bit too much. The concept of the "light" disruptor is intriguing enough to warrant playing about with it, but I think this one is a bit much. Nice to see some new ideas tossed out, though. Hasn't been much going on lately in this thread.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 11:36 am: Edit

Ahh yes! Discussion and possible playtest is important.

IF they are too powerful they can be slightly tweaked. I'll put a new table in just a second.

What is more important to me is to also talk about it's "lean and mean" signature. I think it would make Klingon ships more racially different. It is a different take on weapons design.

I'll post a new chart reflecting coments so far, i.e.overloads damage and range.

thanks for the comments so far.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 01:08 pm: Edit

Well, how' bout this. Instead of increasing the number of mounts, perhaps you could make a disruptor that fires for one point but does half the damage, or has a more limited range. Figure a max damage of 3 in normal mode, and 5 in overload. It could be used specifically for smaller (SC4) ships, but mounted in greater numbers. So, an XF5 might have four of these instead of two normal sized disruptors. Same damage output, but it would be much more mizia resistant. Thoughts, Roger?

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 03:28 pm: Edit

Hold on Mike,

Answers to LM Disruptor concerns:
1. overload damage is too high especially at the close ranges
2. 12 torp hits on the DAC is too high

General answer to both 1 and 2:
The LM Disruptor IS the Klingon's X2 Phaser! You can reduce the amounts of LM Disruptors a ship has to offset damage. To answer #2, have LM Disruptors damaged on phaser and torp hits.
Another way to answer #1's overload damage output concern is to change the overload damages-see modified LM Disruptor Chart below:

LM Disruptor (modified)

R	0	1	2	3-8	9-15	16-22	23-35	36-40
H	5	5	4	4	4	3	2	1
D	4	3	3	2	2	1	1	1
OD	6	5	4	3	-	-	-	-

Mike: your comments at the end about the X2F5 are part of what I want I'm tyring to accomplish here.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 06:05 pm: Edit

Getting killed on Phaser and Torp hits would allow one to have 12 LM Disruptors on an XCA although you'ld definately need to have LM Disruptors added to the phaser priority list so that every third Phaser hit would have to go to the LM Disruptor.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 09:51 pm: Edit

Something I was thinking about:

The general idea for X2-DISR is the 6-disruptor suite to give parity to the 12-pt fastload X-photons. Okay it makes sense. But how about instead of just doing 6 disr all the same you do a classic 4-disr suite (on the warp engines, I'm thinking Klingons here) and then in the forward bulb you have a sort of "super" disruptor? The 4 "standard" disruptors would be X1-disruptors (or similar) and the "center" disruptor would be a new X2 disruptor that would count as 2 disruptors (take that to mean what you will).

This new "super disruptor" would be a 2-space weapon even though it would only have one SSD box. You could give it all sorts of arming/firing options, like could shoot twice in 1 turn, or could fire "heavy overloaded," or could fire some kind of seeking bolt, or whatever. Maybe it even has some kind of "phaser-like" setting so you can reduce the number of phasers on the ship. And I'm thinking it could do only one option per turn.

The point is you have 1 "super" weapon for the X2 ships and it's complimented by a "standard" suite of "standard" disruptors. Instead of them ALL being new super-weapons or them ALL being a "boring" bunch of SSD boxes, you have several classic disruptors and one big boomer to scare the crap out of the enemy.

Just brainstorming again. For all I know someone's already proposed this before. Anyway let me know what you guys think.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 12:48 pm: Edit

RBN, ...boom mounted torpedo...I've always liked. I played around with merging the 3 ph-1s and calling it the "heavy disruptor". same functionality with the ph-1 but calling it a disr and having it on the boom at the tip was asethetically satisfiying.

That's what the LM Disruptors are trying to do.

Actually, for the Feds, I have a similar idea.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 12:53 pm: Edit

MJC, that would be fine for damage priority.

Now talk about flavor!

Klingons=LR Disruptors?
Lyrans=Heavy Disruptors?
Kzinti=Disruptor Cannons?

Hey, should we have a 'racial flavor' thread?
This term is thrown around so much I think it needs defining. Or, does it already exist?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 05:18 pm: Edit

I'm not sure if a single uber-disruptor on the bow is such a good idea.

Does it have a damage priority rule?
Does it have a different number of CDR points to repair?

Why can't I mount it on the nose and six on the warp engine nacelles like the DX has?
Why can't I choose to replace the nose mounted uber disruptor with a pair of regular disurptors or replace the naccelle disruptors with uberdisruptors?


Personnally I like the idea of having 4 Disruptors mounted on the earlier designs ( with room to refit to 6 ) and allowing it to be weaker ( and cheaper ) than the Fed XCA in the same vein as the MY D6 being quite a bit less effective than the MY CA.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 05:44 pm: Edit

Roger, yeah I liked the boom-mounted idea too. Adding it to the classic disruptor suite makes for an interesting new ship. You have a disruptor mix.

That's the key there, MJC. You have several choices in employing your disruptors. Note that I haven't actually defined the "super disruptor" (a generic term) but have merely suggested some basic ideas. Use your imagination and answer your damage questions.

As to the mount questions: Mounting 6 on the engines and the boomer-disruptor could be possible if you want to go all munchkin on us but I think there could be some rules put in place to control that sort of nonsense (for example, 8 disruptor spaces in one cruiser ist verboten).

Or, you could replace the boomer with two standard disruptors but that would be boring.

Likewise, you could replace the engine standards with boomers but then you have a grand total of 3 disruptor SSD boxes (what cruiser skipper would want that?).

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 05:54 pm: Edit

I played around with this idea, too...the boom mounted "uber" disruptor that supplements the regular ones to add some punch. Never played it, but it was a neat idea. Basically a sort of heavy disruptor cannon, does 3X damage as a normal disruptor and is a two-space weapon like an SFG. Limited arc (90 degrees at most...probably the mauler arc would be better) and some kind of power limitation (warp only, etc). Two turn arming, too.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 06:32 pm: Edit

I also thought a single plasma-G (or L) would be a nice balance with all the other rapid firing weapons...but the idea of mixing weapons usually skids into the taboo gutter.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 06:44 pm: Edit

Mike, actually I think a wider arc (like FA) wouldn't be a problem.

Roger, I agree the Klingons going plasma would probably be DOA.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 06:45 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Likewise, you could replace the engine standards with boomers but then you have a grand total of 3 disruptor SSD boxes (what cruiser skipper would want that?).

---

---

Quote:

Or, you could replace the boomer with two standard disruptors but that would be boring.

---

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 06:49 pm: Edit

Yes and there's SO many of those cruisers out there. And a plasma torpedo has the same flavor as a disruptor. Come on.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 06:49 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I played around with this idea, too...the boom mounted "uber" disruptor that supplements the regular ones to add some punch. Never played it, but it was a neat idea. Basically a sort of heavy disruptor cannon, does 3X damage as a normal disruptor and is a two-space weapon like an SFG. Limited arc (90 degrees at most...probably the mauler arc would be better) and some kind of power limitation (warp only, etc). Two turn arming, too.

---

---

Quote:

Mike, actually I think a wider arc (like FA) wouldn't be a problem.

---