Archive through March 05, 2005
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
The "X" Files:
OLD X2 FOLDER:
X2 disruptors:
Archive through March 05, 2005
Which weapon? Mike R's or mine? Remember I haven't even defined my boomer. I'm just brainstorming.
M.R.'s.
How is it "giving up" anything? Base damage of 15, same arcs as most heavy weapons. The only restriction would be the need for warp power. But hell, for that kind of damage (30 points on overload!) I think it's a bargain.
Disruptors are finesse weapons not crunch weapons.
Strikes me that "photonizing" the disruptor was what Old X2 tried to do.
And we all know how that turned out...
I completely agree!
That's why the LM Disruptor (smaller but two together are a little better than the STD disruptor) and the AT Disruptor (sacrifices 'to hit' and damage for the ability to choose 1 of three facing shields) have been my suggestions for discussion.
Firing twice per turn is Seltorian and ISC like and 2 turn arming for more damage is too photon like.
So do I. Like I said...I played around with it, and scrapped it. I like the normal disruptor, though for X2 I did bump it to a base damage of six. 'Course, the basic Klingon X2 cruiser only carries four, albeit with very nice arcs and some other bennies and bonies.
Quote:How is it "giving up" anything? Base damage of 15, same arcs as most heavy weapons. The only restriction would be the need for warp power. But hell, for that kind of damage (30 points on overload!) I think it's a bargain.
Okay, I was reading it as an overloaded damage of 15.
Even at 15 Standard base and 30 overloaded base as a two turn weapon it still looses out over two disruptor shots...but then it's debatable if regular disruptor could get both shots at the same range or not.
If it's double space and two turns then you're loosing out again.
As to the "Photonization" of the disruptor.
Yes, it'ld be a good thing to avoid. Particularly as the Photon is already considered the ugly cousin of SFB weapons.
Quote:I like the normal disruptor,
Seriously, six disruptors with built in UIM is a hellweapon ( keeping pace well with four 16 point fastloaded photons, actually breaking even with 15 pointers ).
Just chuck in a 6 impulse double braodside penalty and a disruptor capasitor and you've got a great weapon for X2.
Well I never thought of the "boomer" being a two-turn-arming weapon, but lately I was thinking more along the lines of "gatling" disruptor:
It has no capacitor (only allocated/batteries) and it can only fire during one impulse, but it can fire up to four standard bolts (even overloads) within that impulse. For each bolt fired there's an 8-impulse delay which starts the impulse after firing (so if you fire all four bolts you have to wait 32 impulses before it can fire again).
So theoretically you can fire 8 disruptor bolts in one turn, but the next turn you could only fire 4. That equates to 12 bolts over 2 turns which averages out to 6 bolts per turn. The difference is that during one turn you have an edge in disruptor fire if you need it. Otherwise you can spread your disruptor fire out to 5-6 bolts per turn as needed. (The dirty little secret is that you could fire 16 bolts spread way out over 2 turns, but you'll be crawling along and draining batteries.)
The boomer's tradeoff is that although you can kick the crap out of an enemy that dares get too close to you, the weapon only has 1 SSD box so if it's hit you lose an average 2 bolts per turn until repaired. Note there's no capacitor so you can't go zooming in to blast your enemy if you intend to shoot all 4 bolts plus your standard suite (unless you plan to drain your batteries).
A bonus: even if you've separated the boom, you still have the potential of 4 disruptor bolts available to you (assuming you have enough power available).
The boomer can use DERFACS and UIM. We could limit it to the FA arc but to give it more disruptor flavor I'd widen it to FH. You can fire the boomer at more than one target.
Mike, I'm glad for the clarification of how many you have with the better arcs, it helps understanding how relatively powerful it is.
It is quite powerful. Here's a basic list of abilities for the Klingon X2 disruptor I played with:
- Base damage six, overload 12
- Standard arming cost is 3, overload is 5.
- Range same as X1
- UIM and DERFACS built in; no UIM burnout and no H&R raids possible.
- Firing arcs on XD7 are 180: FAR, FAL
- Capacitors included; each will hold up to six points of power per disruptor on the ship.
- Disruptors can be held; 1 point for standard, 2 for overload.
That's it. Been tested a number of times, and works well. Very, very good knife fighting weapon, very accurate and lends itself to fast battle passes, particularly when drawing from the capacitors.
Pardon my unwillingness to sift through archives, Mike:
4 or 6 of these puppies on a cruiser?
Four.
cool. I'm sold.
I'm not.
I see a huge push ( X2R???) for six dusruptor vessels and disruptors with touched up damage would then kill other races with the move to six heavy disruptors.
Quote:I'm not.
Shocker there. Looking for "true" disruptrs for X2, are we?
I notice you missed the salient point in your vitriol.
And I notice that as usual, you don't like something that's reasonable and balanced. Again, it isn't a surprise. You say you "see a huge push" for six disruptors, but don't give any explanation why at all. The only reason that X1 saw six disruptors on a ship was to increase their firepower. With a better disruptor, you don't need six. Just like with a better phaser, you don't need as many to have an effective phaser suite. But feel free to argue all you want; we're used to it. Doubtless you'll soon post long and detailed - yet in the end meaningless - charts showing facts and figures to support whatever your "point" is this time.
I thought mine was reasonable and balanced . . .
I'm sure it is. There are lots of ways to go about it that would work; certainly there isn't just one right answer. But you have to look at the ship as a whole. To simply say "this won't work because there aren't enough" isn't constructive and carries no meaning...not surprising given the source.
M.R.:
Give it a rest. Just because I say something does not mean it isn't based in game lore.
All:
1) The Klingon DX mounted 6 Disruptors.
2) The game follows basic and fundimental engineering philosophies.
3) One basic engineering principle ( because it is a key concept in science:- repeatable experiments ) is that if you've done it once, then you can do it again.
From a Psuedo-engineering point of veiw, you should be able to mount 6 of these slightly greater damage disruptors on an XCA, and it's too expensive or it wasn't needed just won't cut the mustard. Perhaps "they produce too much heat for the nacelles to effectively disipate the heat production of more than two per nacelle" might hold it back, but I'ld rather see six of `em and not have the same psuedo-engineering/political pressure being put on ADB.
On overkill with six base 6 disruptors.
If generating 8 damage at R8, with built in UIM then the six of `em will generate on average (with a +0 shift ) 40 points of damage every turn.
The overkilling four 24 point photons every other turn would generate under the same conditions, some 48 points of damage.
72 damage every turn from the disruptors beats four photon's 96 every other turn, both at R0.
A treaty might work to limit phasers but you can't limit Disruptors and then let the Feds have unlimited advances and numbers of Photons, the Klingons just won't sign the treaty. With Romulan plasma advances and Fed photon advances and Kzinti drone advances why would the Klingons allow their hands and only their hands to be tied by a disruptor treaty.
Quote:Give it a rest. Just because I say something does not mean it isn't based in game lore.
LOL, you're kidding right? Based in game lore? So, because the DX mounts six disruptors, anything after that must mount six as well, is that right? Wanna show me just where that rule is written? I reiterate. The DX mounted six disruptors because it was a war-time production ship built for only one purpose. Further, the old disruptor still only did a base of five. There is no game based or logic based reason to support your assertion that they wouldn't use lesser numbers of a better (much better) disruptor. None at all. In fact, it's just plain silly. We've already all agreed that X2 ships would mount lesser numbers of phaser-5's because they're better weapons. And yet for some bizarre reason only known to you, this same principal just cannot work with disruptors.
And where, where did you get the notion that this is forcing some limitation on disruptors? You said "you can't limit disruptors and then let the Feds have unlimited advances and numbers of photons". What the hell is that about? Would you please show me anyone that advocates such a thing? Anyone at all? I haven't seen one post, one SSD, or one proposal allowing the Feds to have "unlimited" anything. In fact, most of the photon proposals out there are pretty mild, modestly increasing damage output, or perhaps adding a third turn of arming for super-overloads. This is hardly "unlimited".
This is just more of the same from you; pointless attempts at arguing for no constructive purpose. If you prefer a 2X Klingon to have six disruptors, that's fine and dandy. Just say so. Everyone has their flavor preferences. Mine is much more mild than most; yours is not. But stop trying to rationalize your views as "game lore based", 'cause it isn't happening and certainly isn't true.
The point of the base six disruptor was to reduce the weapons suite back to four units. Game wise it was different which is nice.
I would add that the Heavy Disruptor would be more that just base six. On the XCA it should have the D5 arcs and the built in DERFACS. I had suggested that each unit carries it's own "no burn-out" UIM. Take all of this and put four on an XCA and you have one heck of a weapons suite.
At some future point, when the fate of the galaxy is at stake, I can see some upgrade to six HD's for a XBCH design. But that would be Y215+, IMO. But Y205 to ~Y210 is what is important now. The first X2 designs need to be stable and fit their own era first.
MJC: The Klinons would be interested in a four weapons suite over six because they are finacially tapped out. IF four will do the job for now then that will have to be good enough. Their production of the new disruptor will be limited at least at first. It is better to spread these weapons over as many ships as is reasonable. Putting six on one hull is putting all the eggs in one basket.
This is not to say that the designers of the XCA would not have designed the ship to possibly accomodate a fifth and sixth disruptor in the future. It's not like the Klingons are expecting piece to last TOO long. 
Funny that you mention that. That's pretty much how I have it done for now; the XD7 has four, the XC7 - for after Y215 and the Xork invasion - has six, plus a few more goodies. That and the Fed XBC are supposed to be truly bad-ass, and may not even be necessary. I'm assuming the Xorks are going to be too tough for the basic X2 models I've played with, so those are there "just in case".
These are the SSD's for both.
Klingon XD7
Klingon XC7
Let's all take a breather here.
MJC, you put yourself into the position of assuming that 6-disruptors MUST be the way to go for X2. It never had to be the case. Mike R. argues correctly (I think) that the DX's 6-disruptor suite was because the ship was a "war X-cruiser." It's entirely possible that the Klingons would "go back to basics" in X2 in order to save money, especially if they are coming up with new weapons and systems and ships. I think you'll see there's a sizeable number of us who like the notion of "going back to basics" while at the same time going forward with technology. I suspect the rationale is common in that it helps balance X2 BPV against its predecessors (plus I like the classics), in other words SVC's "play nice" mandate.
Mike R. has been arguing for over a month now that one should argue for one's specific proposal within the paradigm one's general paradigm. His "everyone has their flavor preferences" and "if you prefer X . . . just say so" comments are indicative of that and it make sense. In other words, you can't argue that someone else's specific proposal doesn't work within your general proposal if the two general proposals are not similar. In the end you end up arguing general proposals without revealing them and the specific proposal gets lost in the smoke and flames.
Let me take this moment to promote the "Integrated Proposals" and "Integrated Proposals Discussion" threads. The "IP" thread lets you post the "complete" proposal (or as near complete as you are), including your rationale for the general proposal and the way specific proposals fit into your general proposal. The "IPD" thread lets everyone praise its holy virtues or condemn it to eternal hellfire (hopefully in a rational and cogent manner). So far only a few people (Mike R. being one) has taken advantage of those threads.
Mike R., thanks for re-posting your SSDs. I forgot that you gave your disruptors a little boost there in damage. My "boomer" proposal sticks with the original disruptor damage levels. In the end I guess that would compliment the notion that the Klingons might stick with the Ph-1 vice upgrading to the Ph-5 anytime soon. It's obvious that I need to get off my butt and make more SSDs to help illustrate the concept.
