Archive through June 01, 2007
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
The "X" Files:
OLD X2 FOLDER:
X2 photons:
Archive through June 01, 2007
MJC,
You may have your cake, or you may eat it... but you still have to choose.
This proposal allows you faster standard photons, or normal over loads (up to 16 point war heads), but not both at the same time.
The "flavor" photons is the ability to use proximity, Overloads or (if looking at other races than the federation) non standard heavy weapons (such as) overlaoded disrupters, enveloping plasmas or (in the case of the Hydrans) fusions or hell bores.
I would point out (since you seem to discount the affect) that charging the magazine rounds still requires 2 turns of 2 poits per torpedo... exactly the same as loading a normal standard load photon.
If you want to use overload torpedos, go ahead.
Knock your self out.
The magazine clip photons would allow ships to use warp power for movememnt instead of overloading photons... the effect in this case is to convert photons from a "shock" weapon to more of a strafing system... subject to the limit of 1 photon shot per tube in 32 impulses (no two shots within 1/4 turn)... while still requiring the player to "load" the photons with warp energy.
One interesting side issue is that an opponent wont know that the Fed ship he is facing is slowing down to load over loads for a standard overrun attack... or preparing multiple magazine clips for a series of high speed strafing runs...
No, really, you're making my point.
If we halve the damage of the photon but allow it to fire every turn; we build a "Disruptor" that's more serverly affected by EW.
Photons should have crunch power.
MCJ, no you defeated your own point...
There is no halving of the damage... a standard photon still does 8 points of damage, and still requires 2 turns to load.
Disrupters, if they adopt the same kind of system become half turn loading weapons from the aspect of saving it to a magazine charge.
No, there is halving of the damage because you don't get overloads.
I arm the mag' on turn X and X+1.
Because I'm putting 8 warp power a turn into the mag' I don't attack untilk turn X+2 and then I attack on X+3, X+4 and X+5.
The maximum damage I can generate is 32.
I paid 8 + 8 + 0.4 + 0.3 + 0.2 + 0.1 for a total of 17 oints of power.
On the other hand if I use a standard GW photon with 4+4 arming, I can fire on turn X+1, X+3 and X+5.
The maximum damage I can generate is 48.
I paid 24 points of warp power in total.
Thus the standard GW photon is doing 50% more damage for about 50% more power than the photon magazine concept.
Sure it's pratically all front loaded energy but the loss in output is staggering.
Quote:the draw back is only standard shots may be used in the magazine (ie, no mixed loads), and if there are ANY rounds in the magazine, the ship may not load any overloads, proximity or (in the case of other races weapons such as plasma torpedos, enveloping torps or sabot etc).
That kills it for me. If X2 weapons are to be more flexible, then using a system that forces you to fire only standards has little appeal. I don't want to be restricted to standards ever. If you could use this with mixed loads, I'd say "maybe"; but as it is, it gets a "no" from me. Not that that matters much, but there it is.
Not saying I'm in favor of the idea, but:
charge based photon launcher
probably 4 charges
1 power every turn to hold any number of armed photons
fire one per turn, 8-impulse delay
all standard load, no overload function
cannot be fast loaded
cannot prox (unless an A-10 can)
max range 10 or 12 (whatever the A-10 range is)
RA only firing arc
XCA would mount two
Smaller units would mount one or zero launchers
designed to perform the same anti-PF, anti-Fighter mission that the ISC rear PL-F are.
Mike Raper posted:
"That kills it for me. If X2 weapons are to be more flexible, then using a system that forces you to fire only standards has little appeal. I don't want to be restricted to standards ever. If you could use this with mixed loads, I'd say "maybe"; but as it is, it gets a "no" from me. Not that that matters much, but there it is."
Mike, the point is to make the two options compatible.
If you are ok with 1 standard torpedo every 32 impulses for (per Tos' 4 round magazines, for up to 4 turns), then the rapid load magazines is the more tactically flexible system.
if you don't need the full magazine load of 4 standards (to use the number Tos suggests) then only load 3 rounds for the magazine (only loading a single round (or even two rounds) for the magazine gains you nothing and saddles you with with the "no mixed loads" penalty.
the magazine option allows you the chance to have 4 standard photons (which again because MJC doenst understand it, had to be armed with 2 points of warp energy each, for 2 turns) which can be fired 1 per turn over 4 turns (128 impulses).
This system allows the player to choose between "normal" photon loading... or to have 4 charged photons per tube for use in strafing attacks where single standard photons are available every turn.
If your plan is to start with overload over run... then you don't need the magazine option.
if you want to "soften up the target" some before charging full over loads, then 3 or 4 turns of "Sabre dancing" or "Plasma Ballet" (at higher tactical speeds because the energy that would normally go to loading the photons is now available for movement.
The decision is made at the traditional point of the "filling out of the Energy Allocation Sheet"... so your choice of words "using a system that forces you to fire only standards" is not really correct... no one is forcing you to do anything... you may choose to have magazine loaded your photons, or you may choose to use normal loading with maximum flexibility, which ever best serves the needs of your planned tactics.
You are being forced because choices you make on turn X are with this weapon; still affecting you in turn X+5 at the very soonest.
Even if the arming is 2+2 for the whole mag (which I think is not what you're trying to say), you've still got a weapon that has a five turn arming cycle-short of ejecting everything from the mag and even then you have to go a whole turn to arm a new photon.
It ties the player to a choice he made in turn 1 all the way to turn 5 and a hell of a lot can change tactically between those points in time.
(Answering MJC's 10:54 AM post)
First, the number of "charges" in the mag is variable... from 1 to X. Tos suggested 4 and I think that is a reasonable number, but 2 is workable too and actually exactly matches the GW OL Photon pattern rather well.
Second, the is no retriction that all of the photons on a ship must have exactly the same types of photons armed at the same time... if a ship has 4 photon tubes, then 1 could be magazine loaded, another could be holding Overloaded photon, a third could have a proximity photon and the last could hold a regular standard 8 point photon.
If you started the scenario at WS III, turn X+1, with a fully loaded magazine clip of 4 photons charged, you could (should you choose to), "dump" the magazine clip of 4 charged photons on turn X+1 and then charge the photon tube on turn X+2 with any style photon you want.
the "X+5 at the very soonest" comment is utterly false and misleading.
Going back to look at Tos' suggestions...
Tos posted: "charge based photon launcher
probably 4 charges"
Response: fine, sounds reasonable to me.
Tos Posted:"1 power every turn to hold any number of armed photons"
Response: not sure about this... depending on how many of these "charge based Launchers" there are, (depending on size class?) this might be "not too good of a deal"... if a Size class 3 XCA only has two (see below) then a 1 point charge per turn cost per launcher amounts to (at full loading) a holding cost of 0.25 per torpedo...and if there is only 1 torp in the magazine clip then the holding cost is 1.0.
dunno, does anyone else have an opinion?
Tos posted: "fire one per turn, 8-impulse delay
all standard load, no overload function
cannot be fast loaded"
Response: sounds reasonable... Mike Raper, If you are still monitoring this thread, this would be a good place to address the issue... It sounds like you want the flexibility of a "normal photon"... this technology is a "spin off" of fighter tech... and fighters can't reload heavy weapons... if you feel that "a photon is a photon" and that ships have the power resources to use photons... this might be where you could adddress your concerns.
Tos Posted:
"cannot prox (unless an A-10 can)
max range 10 or 12 (whatever the A-10 range is)"
Response: given that this is predicated on fighter photon charges, I can see this as reasonable.
Tos posted:"RA only firing arc"
Response: well, if this is a defensive energy weapon intended to replace ADD racks with a energy direct fire weapons, then OK.
If the photons are meant to be a ships "heavy weapon" and could be used in the normal photon positions... then no, I dont agree. the Arcs are different if mounted in different places on the ship... and if this is a modified photon launcher in the traditional photon bay... then the arcs would be the same as the original photon launcher. At least thats how I'm looking at it... comments?
Tos Posted:"XCA would mount two
Smaller units would mount one or zero launchers
designed to perform the same anti-PF, anti-Fighter mission that the ISC rear PL-F are."
Response, I partially adddressed this above, again, if the intent is a point defense weapon... then OK.
If the intent is an additional X2photon option, then no, I wouldnt agree... depense on where the system would be most effective.
I could more easily see a charge-fed disruptor than photon.
I fear as an offensive weapon a photon rack would change the Fed flavor too radically. Offensively the X-Photon is quite flexible enough. As a defensive weapon, with restrictions similar to those the ISC have, we can avoid this problem.
John and Tos:
Why not let each race with photons, disrupters and other heavy torpedo weapons use it as a "charge-fed" system... then the only question is offensive or defensive?
It would reduce all heavy weapons delay/firing cycles... but balance that against the need to load the charges in the first place (1 turn delay for disrupters, 2 turn delay for photons).
In the photons verses photon comparison the photons whould inflict more damage per turn than a disrupter charge... but the disrupter races likely would have twice as many charges as photons... so when the photon race expends all charges, the disrupter race is still good to go...
Lets try to make the weapons different so that we don't get the same taste in every race.
MCJ:
It would appear that you forgot that photons and disrupters do different amounts of damage.
Different damage capacity is still, by definition, "different".
The problem with a defensive photon launcher based on the ISC lateral torps is that ISC lateral torps have limited offensive value, not no offensive value.
An ISC ship can pop off one lateral F-torp offensively each round. This would roughly translate to firing one D-Phot offensively per turn.
Question: is there a need here? X-Aegis can engage PFs. A FIRST-GEN X-ship can slag a PF with great ease. With its extra range, the P-5 will do an even more admirable job.
The Feds already have a defensive weapon, the ADD function of the G-rack. if there's a need for defense, wouldn't it be better to agument that?
Maybe a "type B" warhead that does 1 pt to SC4-, 2-4 to SC5 (PFs) and 2-7 to shuttles and drones.
You trade a sure-kill against drones for the ability to damage PFs (and ships a little)
Well there is one argument in favor of such a thing as a defensive photon magazine... effectively unlimited rounds (subject to the energy reloading costs...)
with drones and ADD's each ship has a stated number of such munitions available at the begining of a scenario... but so long as there is warp energy available to arm the photons, there is no "maximum number" that could be expended in combat.
Perhaps (and I'm offering conjecture here, not a formal proposal) instead of improving the G rack and drone technology... the federation could choose to "further refine" its photon torpedo technology to allow it to replace the more limited G racks with an energy weapon system ala photon torped point defense weapons...
With a "clip" of 4 photons, limited to firing one "round" per turn (32 impulses & not within 1/4 turn of any previous firing of the system), a ship could expect to kill 1 drone per turn with such a system before it requires much energy to reload.
With 8 points of damage potential a photon (assuming a sucessful hit) will kill most drones and inflict serious damage on fighters and (again making an assumption of no shield reinforcement) do serious damage to most interceptors and PF shields.
A photon is, in a limited sense, like a "single hit, single kill" weapon for most drones.
One problem with the photon as a defensive weapon is it cannot be fired at a range of 0-1. That's a problem I can live with.
I agree.
Even with the inherent inaccuracies of the photon, it still gives a good solid 'hit' for a successful shot.
Just not an auto-kill... but if it does hit, whateven the target was knew that it had been hit!
In one sense, a defense photon "auto-magazine" is a true "Fed only" kind of system in a way that ADD's never were... and even the G rack is limited to the time periods after the plus refits became available (year 165?)
It would give the Fed X ships something that only they would have... not like the klingons or the Romulans will suddenly start putting photns on every hull!
Another problem is FD1.52 which means your R2 shots will miss half the time.
I can see a defensive Photon being developed as a Mad Scientist Workshop thing for an SSJ but not X2. Once you use the name PHOTON people start making assumptions ( like it can be fired at ships ).
I don't think the Feds would ever give up the drone.
• Probe Drones are just too useful to Federation vessels that are always trying to keep casualties to a minimum.
• ECM drone just provide too much protection.
• Shatter Packs are too good at reducing an ESG.
• SPs are just too good at reducing the enemy phaser barrage.
• Drones cost no warp power...indeed no power.
• Swordfish and armoured drones are too good at changing the enemy battle plan.
Who'ld want yet another axe (like more Photons) when they can have a bag of majic tricks (like a drone rack) in addition to their basic set of axes.
MJC:
Two things:
first, If this "auto-clip" photon is a "dedicated point defense" system, then IMO it should not be a FD1.52 listed item... although a negative modifier for using against larger targets may be appropriate(perhaps the "yeild" is "right sized" for Size Class 5 and small units but less effective than "real" ships... similar to the differential that type VI drones have in causing damage to fighter&drones compared to PF's and ship.
Second, If the "Magazine Fed" photon launcher is intended to be an anti ship system... then the FD1.52 listing is correct as it is a "secondary capacity" given the primary mission is as a "ship killer" (loose characterization).
Either way, I don't see it as killing the idea.
As to your second issue, I would remind you that this is not your proposal nor your "idea". I posted it to the X Photon thread to reopen discussions on X photons.
To that extent, it worked.
MJC posted:
Quote:"I don't think the Feds would ever give up the drone."
Response: fortunately, the people deciding such things are named "steve" and not MJC.
quote:" • Probe Drones are just too useful to Federation vessels that are always trying to keep casualties to a minimum."
Response:
The Federation had ships that did not carry drones for decades before the plus refit added G racks and drones. I imagine that if they decide that a "point defense" photon is needed for X ships, that they will either find a way to provide probe drones or something else that works better than "old tech" like drones.
Quote:"• ECM drone just provide too much protection."
Response:
Again, Fed Ships served for decades without ECM drones. perhaps there needs to be a X tech ECM gimic/device that is superior to ECM drones.
Quote:"• Shatter Packs are too good at reducing an ESG."
Last time I looked, the Lyrans did not border the Federation. For you to demand a specific systme/capacity that is only effective on the rare chance of meeting a specific technology only available on a limited number non neighboring race's ships seems silly.
Quote:"• SPs are just too good at reducing the enemy phaser barrage."
Response:
So what? cloaked decoys work well too, does that mean the Federation should have one on every ship? how about a SWAC? or PF's on Mech links? Again, this seems like a silly point given that the Federation is supposed to use photons... not drones as their primary weapon system.
{bQuote:"• Drones cost no warp power...indeed no power."
Response:
So what? Mines dont cost any power either... does that mean the Federation should install mine racks in all of its ships ?
Quote:\-2"• Swordfish and armoured drones are too good at changing the enemy battle plan."
Response:
So what? The Federation is not a "primary drone using race" like the kzinti. most Fed ships have 1 (occassionally 2 or more) drone racks... under normal conditions there is neither the number of drone spaces or CO's to be able to afford all of the most expensive equipment available... after all we are not talking about a CVA or a SCS here. I see this as a meaningless distinction as Fed ships dont have the drone spaces to warrant large purchases of special drone types in the numbers needed to engage in "stupid drone tricks" games.
quote:"Who'ld want yet another axe (like more Photons) when they can have a bag of majic tricks (like a drone rack) in addition to their basic set of axes."
You really need to study the proposal a bit closer... you basic understanding of it is seriously flawed.
First, (depending on which aspect your looking at, either a normal photon launcher that could load charged photon charges or a defensive point defense system) the photon launcher is just what it sounds like... a system the could load normal standard photons, proximty photons, over loaded photons or a "magazine load" of up to 4 charged photons able to be fired in a short burst of 4 turns (instead of 1 shot every other turn over a period of 8 turns).
Secondly, Tos suggested that it might make a point defense system... if you adopt his POV then it truly isnt a heavy weapon anymore... so your "Axe" analogy falls apart.
A magazine-fed photon borders on movie/TNG technology and runs a small risk of legal attention from Paramount.
It sets up a demand for overloading/prox-loading the charges.
A defense-only version would tend to force the "fed slowdown" problem onto an X2 Fed due to power demands of offensive + defensive photons.
John Trauger,
I don't recall ST:TNG either displaying or referring to photons as "magazine-fed"... I do recall thinking on a number of episodes that the cycling time of each "salvo" of photons being rather quick... but I don't understand how there could be a "copy right issue" with time between shots...
The propsal was intended to prevent overloading /prox-loading as an option once the choice was made for "fast standard" loading of normal warheads... if you want proximtiy or overloaded photons you have to do it the old fashioned way...and use the normal rules to accomplish it.