Federation Commander

I've always had an issue with the Disruptor as a heavy weapon. Although it has an excellent charge rate and hit probability, it isn't very powerful and degrades rapidly as the range increases. I understand balancing the various heavy weapons, but I can't help but compare it to the phaser 1. A phaser 1 costs half of what a standard disruptor costs (or a quarter of an overload) yet will yield from standard disruptor damage up to almost overload disruptor damage depending on the range. Out to a certain distance, it is going to hit and do damage.

I suppose what I'm wondering is if a Klingon ship, for example, would actually be better off replacing disruptors with phaser 1's. Costs less energy to charge, same charge rate, they can hold energy from turn to turn, don't need extra power to overload yet yield very similar damage at the various ranges.

Not trying to reinvent the SFB wheel, just curious of others observations. Thank you.

That would be an interesting assertion to playtest. Why not try replacing the 4 disr on a typical D7 with Ph1's and run some similar battles to see what happens. I'd like to see your reports.

Well, the disruptor at least has a (mild) advantage against Andromedan PA panels - good news for the Klingon, Lyran, WYN, Auroran and other navies' assets tasked with countering them...

Yes, it is true that phasers are more energy efficient than any other weapon. That has never been argued. However, heavy weapons, including disruptors, have a two significant advantages.

The first is range. Disruptors do a relevant amount of damage out much farther than phasers. The optimal range for this example is range 15. Phasers have a 1-in-6 chance to do 3 points of damage; disruptors have a 4-in-6 chance to do 3 points of damage. It is even better as you go farther out. So, at range, your four disruptors allow you to do relevant damage in a way that phasers would not.

The second is crunch. At range 8, both disruptors and phasers average about 2 points each. It is true that phasers are twice as efficient to get those 2 points of damage, but at this range disruptors have the advantage of being able to overload. While expensive in required energy, those disruptors can increase their average to 4 points of damage, which is something that an equal number of phasers cannot touch.

That is the base story. However, I agree with Mike: why not take your D7 and just replace the disruptors with Ph-1s and see how it turns out? All the theory in the world can't hold the candle to experience. See if the theory matches your experiences.

Let's not forget the DAC too. I've seen phasers go much more quickly than heavy weapons it seems.

It doesn't just seem that phasers go quicker than disruptors on the DAC. They do. Look across all the rows. Even on the weapons targeted row, a phaser takes a hit, then a heavy weapon, then another phaser. Plus occasional phaser hits are scattered on some of the other rows, more so than heavy weapons.

That is something else to consider.

On a somewhat related note, I've experimented using 7 Ph1s on the Orion raider instead of using disruptors or other heavy weapons for the 3 option mounts. While the arcs are great and all 7 can be brought to bear for some really substantial effect, it still seems to lack "the killing blow" needed to really alpha a similar sized cruiser. A good player should be able to bring a different shield to face it on the next turn. Oh well, that's another story, though.

Everyone is making some excellent points and I appreciate the time taken to give me some additional things to think about.

Mjwest,

I'm looking at the SSD of a Klingon ship and I see the point you're making in regards to the 9-15 range (and beyond particularly with UIM and Derfacs). I see where this clearly is the 'breaking point' for the Ph-1.

That is the base story. However, I agree with Mike: why not take your D7 and just replace the disruptors with Ph-1s and see how it turns out? All the theory in the world can't hold the candle to experience. See if the theory matches your experiences.

It would be interesting, but I'm starting to see that tactics would have to be completely different between a phaser armed vs. the regular phaser/disruptor armed ship. The phaser armed ship would have to get in much closer to be able to deliver comparable damage and any energy saved would probably have to then go towards shield reinforcement as the other ship would be delivering more damage due to the close range (really 5 or less).

Nerroth,

I've never gone up against an Andromedan but I understand what your saying in regards to the panels.

Alex,

I'd not even thought of the DAC angle. Thank you for bringing that up.

Mike,

Interesting point on the phaser armed Orion. I've read something similar in regards to the Fed destroyer replacing the photons with phasers. It was able to travel much better, but lacked the solid punch of even the standard photon load.

Thanks guys, this has given me a bit more respect for the disruptor.

On the SFB DAC, the key numbers are 3, 4, 10, 11. On a 3, a drone is hit. On an 11, a torpedo (disruptor) is hit. On a 4 and 10, a phaser is hit. However, both the 3 and 11 rows follow the drone and torpedo up with a phaser. So, in the beginning parts of taking damage, a single volley can only take out a single torpedo, but can take out four phasers. (Once you get farther into the ship and wipe out the "fluff", you can lose a second torpedo on a 5.)

BTW, on a phaser boat, instead of just using the excess power for shield reinforcement, don't forget the utility of EW and EM. You can really get control over the shifts that way and avoid the brunt of your opponent's hammer. (Unless, of course, he just rolls a bunch of 1s.)

You're talking about the D7Z Phaser Battlecruiser. All phased-armed D7: BPV 121 with phaser-1s in place of the disruptors with the same FA arcs. Eligible for the "B", "K", and "Y175" refits at 6, 3, and 4 BPV respectively. My Master Ship chart shows it appeared in Captain's Log 13, and has a YIS date of Y141.

John Schneder II wrote:You're talking about the D7Z Phaser Battlecruiser. All phased-armed D7: BPV 121 with phaser-1s in place of the disruptors with the same FA arcs. Eligible for the "B", "K", and "Y175" refits at 6, 3, and 4 BPV respectively. My Master Ship chart shows it appeared in Captain's Log 13, and has a YIS date of Y141.

As soon as I read this I went and looked to see if it was one of the CL's that I'd purchased, and it was. I saw the SSD you're referencing. Anyone every try it?

On a side note, a bunch of races use the disruptor as their heavy weapon. Anyone ever try something different as a heavy weapon? I've never played with any race beyond the Federation sector i.e. from Hydrans over to the ISC and everything in between except Andromedans. But I've noticed all types of new races beyond those boundries that have some interesting heavy weapons. Anyone ever mix and match just to see how it plays?

I taught a new person to play SFB last week and had a great time. Using the info I gain here on the disruptor, I chose the Klingon F5. My opponent choose the Federation frigate. For a one-on-one small ship battle it was fun! It went on for 8 turns. I took some internals of course, but managed to stay out of OL photon range while I hammered several shields with long range disruptor fire. He caught on to the game very quickly and was an excellent opponent, nearly catching me in a bad spot a couple of times. In the end I edged him out.

He wants to go head-to-head again, this time with the Fed CA vs. the Klingon D7. Looking forward to this match up. I made him copies of each so that he can study both prior to the game.

Hi David,

I used the D7Z; it works really well, maintaining a high battle speed with plenty of punch from the phaser battery. Slight disadvantage is that it needs to get up close and personal to be really effective, and like most Klingon ships it can't take as much of a pounding on the way in. It's good in Fed Cdr too.

The real test would be to take the D7Z up against a regular D7, one on one, as a solo-played scenario.

Having played the Tournament D7 many times now (and won with it on occasion) I can say that I now have an appreciation for the disruptor. Particularly the Derfacs and UIM assisted disruptor. It has an excellent 'to hit' percentage and has a fairly high 'intimidation' value to it. And the fact that is usable every turn is a definite plus.

I think a D7Z vs. a regular D7 would really have its hands full now that I've gained more experience with the disruptor. The D7Z would need to be within R5 to have effect whereas the D7 can hit hard out to R8 with OL and out to R15 with a fairly hard punch to weaken shields. The D7 could simply saber-dance at R15 to soften up the shields and then close to R8 or less to finish off the D7Z. The D7Z simply can't put much out there at R15.

To edify, the D7Z must close to range 5 to get the damage results similar to a D7 at range 8.

The D7Z is excellent on the Kzinti and Tholian (aka Romulan) border.

The D7Z is a good 'heavy' police ship or a D7F prior to D7F production.

The D7Z frees up at least 4 points of energy that can be used in reinforcement or other activities.

Bottom line, I like having at least one in every fleet.