Glenn:

I didn't raise any issue with you. Did you mean Mike Raper?

By Alan Bloniarz (Madmax) on Wednesday, May 08, 2002 - 09:13 pm: Edit

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that the photon is perfectly balanced just the way it is and that there is nothing wrong with it.

Now, with that assumption in hand--why can't we still discuss potential enhancements to this perfectly balanced weapon? Are those of you who are against any changes to the photon trying to say that it is impossible to come up with ANY changes to the photon that do not destroy the balance of the game or that enhance the game in some way? If so, I would have to say that such a view is extremely narrow-minded and does not give enough credit to the ingenuity and creativity of the various people assembled here on this board.

Even if we assume that the photon is perfectly balanced from a statistical standpoint I see no reason why we cannot constructively discuss photon enhancements that enrich the tactical diversity of the game. How many times do you have to play with or against the feds before their limited tactical options of overrun or retrograde grow boring?

You said:

[quote]These captains main weakness was there inability to adapt to tactical situations that required maneuver, timing and other concepts.[/quote]

I say you've given the best reason for granting an upgrade to the photon yourself. I say the photon's arming cycle, energy costs, and inaccurracy when combined with the typically sluggish power curve and poor maneuverability of federation ships ultimately leave fed players with only two viable tactics: overrun or retrograde, neither of which presents much in the way of rich opportunity for inspired maneuver or cunning adaptations to the tactical situation at hand. In the end, the federation, which is one of the cornerstone races upon which the game is founded and one of the first races new players are likely to be interested in and exposed to and that should therefore be both exciting and challenging to play, winds up being rather lackluster and boring with its limited bag of tricks.

How many new players come to SFB dying to command a federation constitution class cruiser hoping to outdo the famous exploits of a certain captain of TV fame (who we shall not mention by name) only to quickly grow bored with the federation's "run em over or run away tactics" and quit the game forever before they learn enough about the other races to gain interest in them and discover the vast tactical diversity offered by the complete SFB universe? (I've been playing SFB with the same people for many years now and I STILL can't get them to even look at any races other than fed, klink, and rom. Every time I try I get the same answer "what, and have to learn another VOLUME of rules and weapons--I can't even remember the ones we're using now!")

There is much to be gained and little to be lost by trying to find a way to give the feds some increased tactical flexibility without compromising the game balance. That's all most of us "whiners" are trying to do.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, May 08, 2002 - 09:41 pm: Edit

Alan, well put. Some of us have decided to hang loose and lets the waters calm. But don't worry, we haven't abandened the search. At least I haven't.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Thursday, May 09, 2002 - 01:19 am: Edit

With a balanced weapon though, the designer should put more effort into ensuring that the proposed rule is neither completely unbalancing nor incredibly complex yet so completely restricted as never to be used. It does irritate me slightly when I spend more time testing someone's idea than they spent designing, especially when the alterations are made to a portion of the game system not desperately in need of changing.

Untested concepts for fixing Jindarians: yes.
Untested concepts for tweaking photons: no.

By Alan Bloniarz (Madmax) on Thursday, May 09, 2002 - 09:32 am: Edit

Ok, Richard. That's perfectly reasonable, however, no one forces you to participate in these discussions or playtests.

As I posted in another topic--the feds are balanced as is, however, they are also BORING. That's why they need a photon fix, so that they are FUN as well as FAIR to play.

By Marc Baluda (Discomaster) on Thursday, May 09, 2002 - 12:43 pm: Edit

Alan:

Take a look at the Federation Tactics topic. You will see that the premise on which you entire argument is based is false - the Feds are not a overrun or retrograde race. They are exactly the opposite. They are one of the most defficult and challenging races to play. Think out of that box you describe, and you will find they are quite fun. They are a perfect race to take advantage of drones (much more so than Kzins and Klingons). Don't shy away from the drone armed ships (as many Fed players do). What the proposers seem to be asking for is a way to make the overrun and retrograde game more winnable by changing the rules, instead of changing the principle tactic they are using. The same argument could apply to a game of chess - if your strategy isn't working, do you change the rules?

With regard to participating in your discussions and shutting them down, that's why this topic was created separately from those discussions.

Also, I do very much think that the proposals are a danger to the game. I think they will unbalance play and result in more "fixes" across the board.

In sum, the solution to what you are experiencing is new tactics not new rules.

By Stephen W. Fairfield (Sfairfield) on Thursday, May 09, 2002 - 01:03 pm: Edit

Marc,

Part of the problem is that some of Fed players really dislike drones on Fed ships. I'd gladly trade any drone rack for a more flexible (note, not 'better') photon torpedo.

That being said, I'm relatively content to play pre-Y168 or so ships. And I don't usually try for an overrun unless I'm either a) desperate or b) finishing off a crippled enemy. As for retrograding, I don't even regard that as a valid tactic, since it's effectively a fighting disengament.

By Alan Bloniarz (Madmax) on Thursday, May 09, 2002 - 07:22 pm: Edit

Marc,

In general, the feds use of drone armed ships is limited to fleet engagements where they can field sufficient numbers to be effective, and the photon is great in fleet engagements. That's not where the feds need help. They need some help in duel scenarios. (I don't mean 'help' in the sense of statistical balance--I mean help in the sense that they need a little diversification in their tactical options.)

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, May 09, 2002 - 09:24 pm: Edit

So take a Fed BCG and fight a Klingon C7 in a duel.

Your drones can destroy his drones or could launch on his ship ( watch out for his ADD though ).


Load up with as many type Is as you think you'll need to defend yourself and some Type IVFs in Scatter-packs.

Once he needs to reload, Launch your Type IVs from your racks that you were keeping for just this point in time and and SPs and just see if the ADD can really offset 10 drones, particularly since you've timed your speed to have at worst crushed the ADD with an R8 narrow salvo the impulse that the SP drones arrive at R4.

By Marc Baluda (Discomaster) on Thursday, May 09, 2002 - 09:41 pm: Edit

Alan:

The problem seems to be comparing non-drone armed Fed ships (which are early war ships) with war cruisers. If you compare early Feds and late anybody you will be unsatisfied with Fed performance even if the points match up.

Feds need drones, even if in limited numbers. Plus, you can use scatterpacks.

If you don't like drones, then you don't like Feds (or you like Feds in the early years only).

By Captain Ebersole (George_Ebersole) on Thursday, May 09, 2002 - 11:12 pm: Edit

No.

Not all so-called war, or war-era, or late era Fed ships have drone capability.

The Feds, as you've stated, in terms of their base technology, are a benchmark "race" for the rest of SFB. It is their weapon chart and vessel design upon which all others are supposidly judged. If this is the case, then why, as you've observed, are they so hard to play? By definition they should not, yet they are regardless.

Now why is that? Is it because the game is inherently difficult, or is there something else at work? You might ask yourself why it was that drones were added to certain Fed ships in the first place.

p.s. I fought against Bannon Campbell a month ago assisting Derek Lenzi in the Base Defense scenario. I had drones. I had a WW warmed. I kicked out ATG drones and a suicide shuttle. I had four full overloaded photons hot and ready to go. I had something like 5 points of ECCM up, and closed to range with Bannon. Do you know how many of my photons hit? Take a wild guess. That's right; ZERO. When I fought Bannon in that scenario in Chris's campaign, do you know how many of my photons hit? That's right; ONE. Do you know how many turns that game lasted? That's right; SIXTEEN. And I could go on and on. I think you need to really think about what it is you're trying to convey before you start a topic like this.

See you Saturday.

By Eric Stork (Merchant) on Friday, May 10, 2002 - 11:01 am: Edit

I guess this could just be considered America's freedom of speech at work.

Some want to change the photon one way or another. They are allowed to start topics on this and can discuss them freely. They defended their right to do so and get to present arguements that at some point could result in a change, but who knows.

So why is it there can be no topic to discuss NOT changing the photon? That's just strange. Makes the entire topic of photon changes way too personal. It's like having topics to discuss why we use gas-powered cars and no topic for any type of advanced car using dirrerent fuel like the NYC Think! program. Or having topics that discuss the Israeli-Palestine situation only from one side's perspective (Side Note: you could talk about both here).

If photon changing is a personal issue, then it could in no way be the rules at fault. But if you can have topics for discussing photon changes, why can't there be topics for discussing non-changes? Granted, a certain word in the intial post is in poor taste to some. But everybody does that.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, May 10, 2002 - 12:03 pm: Edit

If hte post had been called "The Photon is fine the way it is Lobby", I don't think anyone would have a personal issue with that. Discussing why the photon should not be changed is a valuable topic.

By Marc Baluda (Discomaster) on Friday, May 10, 2002 - 12:42 pm: Edit

George:

The Feds are easy to learn and play for a beginner, but to beat experienced players with the Fed the learning curve jumps up. It's a non-linear learning curve.

Now, you have horrible luck George (at least from what I've seen). I have no way to address that issue.

By John de Michele (Johnd) on Friday, May 10, 2002 - 04:10 pm: Edit

George:

What range were you at when you fired? I realize there's nothing you could do against rolling a lot of high numbers, but it seems like you're taking one bad strike and saying that is a reason to change how photons work.

John.

By Captain Ebersole (George_Ebersole) on Friday, May 10, 2002 - 06:05 pm: Edit

John; nah, I'm taking a 20+ year streak of bad luck, and characterizing it as a need to fix the photon. I typically don't fire photons (much less overloads) at anything over 8 hexes. In the last game I had with Bannon I was in the 1-4 bracket (whichever range that is).

Task force commander Baluda; I will be employing my latest diabolical weapon next we meet; "The Karma Cannon" . Where it takes the firer's luck, and transfers it to his opponent! Beware!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, May 10, 2002 - 06:43 pm: Edit

George, have you been using the same dice all this time? In a way, I hope so because there might be a real solution that is less esoteric.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, May 10, 2002 - 06:48 pm: Edit

Here is what you can do. Go to a gaming shop and pick up some dice. Test roll them, but just before say "Four overloaded Photons, range eight."

Then roll again saying "Two proximity photons, range 30."

Do this several times. If they roll good, buy them! If not, try again with another set.

Thats how I found my Fed dice. And they're blue and white.

Sort of, kinda like.

By Jeff Williams (Jeff) on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 03:56 am: Edit

There are actually several different TYPES of Federation ships to pick from, depending on the year and BPV.

Pre-War Era: For players who detest drone-armed Feds (although I can't imagine why, but no questioning personal tastes). These ships stack up just fine against their pre-war neighbors. Anyone remember what the rear shields on an unrefitted D7 look like? How about those speed 12 drones? Romulan cruisers with G-torps? Or R-torped cruisers with a top speed of 21? But if you try to take them against wartime-built ships, don't be surprised if it voids the factory warranty.

Mid-war era: Refitted cruisers with AWRs and g-racks, NCLs, and others. Fielded in response to faster drones and new overall faster enemy ships. The Federation now deploys scatter-packs as a matter of combat doctrine, not just tactical surprise. A serious headache for phaser-lite Romulans. And a credible counter to increasing Klingon drone waves. Not to mention it allows Federation ships to deploy ECM drones, bringing them on par with the Klingons. (Don't forget to allocate 6 ECCM for your attack run and KILL his ECM drone with phasers!!)

Late/Post War Era: BCH(G/F/J)s, NCAs, DWs, X-ships and the like. Ships are now less dependent on the power-hungry photon and switching to more low-energy weapons. The AWR in significant numbers is now considered standard. While the photon still has it's role in these ships, it's being used now in more of a fire support role with the standard or partial overload state while more energy goes into speed and EW. The fact that it is on board makes enemy units extremely reluctant to overrun Federation ships, who can dump reserve warp into them for added damage after they have dealt with Federation drone waves. Strong drone waves force enemy units into counter-maneuvering which Federation ships can exploit for assorted tactical advantages. Or they can be used to partially offset superior Klingon drone waves when needed. Other races advances make combat speeds much faster overall (20+) and the Federation HAS to be able to keep up with the battle while still having guns to fire when it gets there.

Carriers: Lots of drones. Gatling-armed escorts for drone and plasma defense. More drones. Fighters with gatling phasers. Even more drones. Fighters armed with photon torpedoes. Still even more drones. Ships lobbing proximity-fused photons at ships dodging drones. By the way, did we mention the drones??

By Alan Bloniarz (Madmax) on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 08:27 pm: Edit

Eric,

It wouldn't be much of a discussion if different viewpoints aren't being presented. It would be more of an 'affirmation mantra' or a group-hug. No one took exception to people who aren't in favor of improving the photon in the various photon topics, only in presenting their views in a non-constructive manner.

I don't think internet discussion forums are at the top of the short list of places to express your thoughts and have everyone simply agree with you.

By Eric Stork (Merchant) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 01:55 am: Edit

Alan, true. But there is one thing I am curious about.

Define "non-constructive" please.

By Alan Bloniarz (Madmax) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 10:52 am: Edit

Eric,

I don't know, how about the following:

Non-constructive = attacking the poster or their playing ability instead of presenting a valid game reason for not making the change. Name calling. Saying 'because I don't like it, that's why'. Things like that.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 01:15 pm: Edit

Alan: Exactly!

By Captain Ebersole (George_Ebersole) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 01:51 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Here is what you can do. Go to a gaming shop and pick up some dice. Test roll them, but just before say "Four overloaded Photons, range eight."

---

By Eric Stork (Merchant) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 01:51 am: Edit

Alan,

attacking the poster or their playing ability instead of presenting a valid game reason for not making the change.

I don't know about the "attacking" part. That's subject to interpretation. I could define a post by Chad Calder where he told me "Please go read the ESG rules before trying to debate about their effectiveness." as an attack. On the face of it, it sounds pretty condescending in tone to me, but that's partly because I'm the recipient. If, for example, someone else was the person Chad directed this at, it would not be much of an attack to me because I'm not the one getting it. I believe once Marc Baluda considered my "King Stork" routine as an attack of a kind when I meant it in jest while discussing Lyran fighter changes. I'm going by the statement "However, you are the king and it's your way or the highway. I'll be gettin' on the road now." and it could be true to him. But I have used a similar routine at times with others, on and off this board and I'm not always considered "attacking" or wanting my way or the highway. Definition of "attack" is different from person to person, there is no one overall law which governs that. But I try not to bother with stuff like that for a variety of resons I won't go into now.

As for playing ability, it could well be the case. Note I say could, to define it further, I'd have to go on a case by case basis. My reason for that is natural aptitude.

Of the times I have actually played, I've played Federation, Klingon, Kzinti, Gorn, tried Lyran. Of those five, the best success I had was in Kzinti/Gorn (not counting Scenario (SP1701.0) CARRIER ESCORTS? in CL13 which plain sucks for the Kzinti). I'm better off playing those races than trying the other 3 (though I no longer acknowledge plasma). I will not even discuss Romulans as the cloak rules put me to sleep.

In a more real-world example, when I was in the Army, I worked in the Signal Corps. In the civilian world, this can be equated to Telecommunications. When I got out, I figured I would work in a field that I did in military service. I had the experience so it made sense at the time. For the past 3 years, I've held 2 jobs in Telecom and hated both with a passion. In the last year, I've taken aptitude tests with both the NY State Dept of Labor and at an online site called The Princeton Review. Both tests show my natural affinity isn't Telecom, though I do have a decent Technical score. The field I work in best is Literary (writing, legal, acting, etc.). I could even do Technical Writing because of the Technical score.

The point of both previous paragraphs is to illustrate that where your interests lie may well not be where you think or want. In SFB, you may want to or think you can play Federation, but they may not be the race you are suited to. Claiming this as an "attack" would be similar to saying the Dept of Labor and The Princeton Review are completely wrong and "attacked" me by the test results.

Sure, I'd love to play Federation. But they are not the race I have the best track record in. If I had to play, I'd choose Kzinti or a non-plasma race using anything but X-Ships I haven't tried to see if I do better with them.

Name calling.

Definitely.

Saying 'because I don't like it, that's why'.

Of course.