Archive through June 06, 2007
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 photons: Archive through June 06, 2007
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 03:59 am: Edit

Quote:

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.


To a certain degree that logic is premissed on the idea that the type IF-ECM/VII-ECM drone will suddenly become uninvented.
Type II-ECM drones sucked and in the period Y120-150 it simply didn't exist...but that is not the same universe as the Feds find themselves opperating in.

If there is an ECM gimic that's better than the ECM drone; does everyone get it (including those who still keep ECM drones) or just the non-drone users (which will really make the Klingon and Kzinti players pleased) so the Feds will get fewer negative shifts which is one of the saving graces of Fed X-tech and Photons.

Quote:

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.


In the trade wars period, a Neutral Planet that the Feds want to reclaim may indeed have found a way to buy surplus Lyran ships (especially since the Klingons and Lyrans have had a strong alliance).
Secondly, an Orion ship working as a Minesweeper with ESGs to do minesweeping and then opperating as a Merc' to attack a Fed military vessel; isn't completely out of the question.

A Fantastic weapon that is seldom used isn't likely to given away for a weapon whose role is already duplicated.

Quote:

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 ?


I think you haven't noticed that there is a differance between adding a weapon and keeping a weapon.
If practically every Fed ship had mine-racks, I'ld be saying that the Feds are unlikely to give up those mine racks. Same goes for SWACs.

Quote:

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.


And yet Fed X ships (this is still an X2 Thread???) do have large numbers of drones and percentages.
If a regular explosive warhead drone can get the enemy to sideslip one hex to get a better firing position on the drone; and that one hex put them firing on a fresh shield instead of a weak one, that's 20 odd point of internal damage you've saved yourself from.
A Photon point defense weapon just isn't going to create artificial terrain the way a seeking weapon (drones) can and will. You've railroaded yourself into either clubbing the enemy with your point defense photon or clubbing his drone with it but that's the limit of all of your flexibility.

Furthermore you're setting yourself up to fire one shot per turn were as a standard Fed G-rack is really an ADD-8. Dealing with huge numbers of seekers is easier with a G-drone rack than a photon-point-defense system.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 10:34 am: Edit

MJC:

Point#1. You can't change SFU history to suit yourself.

The fact that you are (again) igonoring, is that until the Federation created the plus refit, Fed ships did not have drone G racks.

Point#2. According to MCJ, Federation worlds in the former territory of the Federation during the "trade Wars" time period will now be equipped by the Lyrans?

Simply stated, I find your logic improbable at best.

Point #3. This is a proposals thread in the X2 discussions, the purpose is to discuss a photon based point defense system, or in the other vein, an additional capacity for a standard photon tube to use and arm an additional type of photon torpedos (the 'Charged' photon).

Your continued attempts to change the discussion is not appreciated.

Point #4. I suggest, that if you really wish to discuss more "stupid drone tricks", be they ADD-8, swordfish or armored drones or whatever, you take it to a different thread.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 10:58 am: Edit

I haven't read all this but I'd point out that there is nothing established that there are unaffiliated worlds in the Alpha sector after the Andro War nor any definition of the Trade Wars. Such speculation can only be based on either player proposals or the long dead Supp.II history. In fact, SVC has stated that come OpU that all the races borders have returned to their original possitions (although he hasn't published that anywhere that I recall).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 11:38 am: Edit

Quote:

Quote:"• SPs are just too good at reducing the enemy phaser barrage."

Response:

So what?


So you're going to R4 (a good Photon range) and your six drones ( be they type VII for his X ship or type IF for his GW ship ) from your SP get shot down at R1 by his six Ph-1s. Then you get to R4 and you get shot at by six fewer phaser-1s and take 24 fewer points of damage.
This hard hitting Photon flinging thingy is looking at putting 8 point of damage on the enemy.
Particularly from a Federation viewpoint where crew survival is at a premium; you're giving up the ability to do some pretty nifty majic tricks for a weapon which duplicates existing abilities.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 04:30 pm: Edit

Loren:

Thank you, I was beginning to wonder if something had changed... but it would appear that MJC "is making things up again".

MJC:

Off topic.

Please limit your posts and ramblings to the proposal in question.

I beleive this is the second time I have requested your cooperation to stay on topic.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 09:28 pm: Edit

I didn't read MJC's post (too long...sorry) but in his defense, back when this topic was going hard and heavy there was a ton of talk about their being substantial neutral zones and borders between the alpha quadrant races; these borders were one reason we initially talked about X2 ships have longer strategic range and greater strategic speed, so that they could actually cross the border and get back. Further, there was a lot of talk about newly independent worlds buying technology and GW era ships at bargain prices from pretty much anyone they could, and that this would be the basis for a good many of the battles that would take place in the Trade Wars, were they to happen...and if so, you could very well see former "northwest" Fed worlds buying tech from the Lyrans to protect themselves from pirates or any other predatory power.

Now, this is all just speculation on our parts, but unless I misremember, most of us agreed more or less with this set-up for the trade wars as being logical and conducive to good play. It's certainly not canon until SVC says so, but I'm pretty sure that's where MJC is coming from. Just thought I'd toss that out; back to lurking, now.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 09:46 pm: Edit

Mike, glad to hear from you!

the thing about MJC posts is, he has a tendency to kill discussions... which may explain why there are certain threads that he has been banned from (the tactics thread being an example).

The case here, is a discussion about a Photon Torpedo loading option (either a charged system or a point defense thing) is what we should (in theory atleast) be discussing... not the value of existing (and published) systems that are already in the game.

the case for scatter packs, swordfish drones and ADD's has been made long ago and does nothing to further discussions of the current proposals.

Heck, there is justification, imo, for discussing strategic speeds for X2 ships, and how the border areas changed the patrol/operating areas of the fleets... but that really should go into a different thread, not the Photon one.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 11:27 pm: Edit

I'm 3/4 done with an updated timeline piece aligned with what has come before. Need to get back to it tomorrow or the next day and smooth out the edges before I can post it, in the correct topic of course.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, June 04, 2007 - 01:47 am: Edit

I'm not a topic killer from the point that I want to see ideas die except in a few cases.
I didn't like skids launching fighters to give a convoy a C.A.P. because you'ld need about 10 fighters to do it and at that point, why not put an AxCVL in the convoy!?!
I can't think of any other idea where I've been a nay-sayer except here.

The Feds already have a traditional Fed anti-seeker weapon. It's called the Phaser.
Now if you make a Photon Flinging Defensive weapon; that's substantially better than a G-rack, I might be willing to be convinced that the Feds would go for it for X2. But as things stand; when you add on Stupid Drone tricks (specifically ECM drones and Probe Drones) to the abilities of the G-rack to defend the vessel...you'ld have to have something substantially better than the G-rack's defensive abilities before one would go for it.
As things currently stand; the G-rack gives you a better defence plus the ECM and Probe abilities.


Now, if you want to have the Photon Flinger in addition to the G-rack...I'm very willing to listen!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, June 04, 2007 - 02:19 am: Edit

Let me try this out on you and we'll see where things go.


PHOTONIC CHARGE CASTER
The Photonic charge caster was developed in an effort to miniturise the Photon torpedo.
The weapon mounts a 360° launch mechanism attached to a set of "charging bays" and launches small charges of reacting matter and antimatter.
The Federation chose to give up their Drone racks in favour of the Photonic Charge Caster because of the ability to strip enemy shipping of weapons with the Photonic Charge Caster in addition to defending the vessel from drones, fighters and PFs.

• The Photonic Charge Caster holds 8 mini photon casings.
• Each mini Photon casing may be charged for one point of warp power on each of two consecutive turns.
• Each mini Photon casing may be held for 0.25 point of power ( any kind ) each turn.
• Once one/some/all the mini-photon casings in the Photonic Charge Caster begins arming (or is being held), none of the mini-photon casings that did not begin charging may be charged.
• The mini-Photon casings may not be overloaded and may not be set to fire in proximity mode.
• The mini-Photon casings may be fired from the Photonic Charge Caster from the second turn of arming or during any turn of being held.
• Once fire begins, a player may stop firing on any impulse. The Photonic Charge Caster is not limited to any particular target and may fire on a different target each impulse whilstever it has mini-photon casings availible.

• The Mini-Photon Casings may be fired up to a rate of 1 per impulse.
• The Mini-Photon Casings can be ejected from the Photonic Charge Caster and new arming may begin the very next turn.

• The Photonic charges will cause the following damage to the following targets.
Shuttle Fighter and Drone 8 points
PFs 4 Points
Ships 2 Points

• The Photonic Charge Caster has the following to-hit numbers at the following ranges.
R2 R3-4 R5-8 R9-10
1-5 1-4 1-3 1-2

• The Photonic Charge Caster is a 360° weapon.
• The Photonic Charge Caster was developed as a point defense weapon and is not a heavy weapon and is not penalised when firing on drones (or any other target except where shown through the reduce damages).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, June 04, 2007 - 02:52 am: Edit

And just to show that I'm willing to admit that nobody's perfect.

• The Photonic Charge Caster is destroyed on DRONE hits on the DAC.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, June 04, 2007 - 01:20 pm: Edit

(blink, blink)

(MJC posted: quote:"I'm not a topic killer from the point that I want to see ideas die except in a few cases.
I didn't like skids launching fighters to give a convoy a C.A.P. because you'ld need about 10 fighters to do it and at that point, why not put an AxCVL in the convoy!?!
I can't think of any other idea where I've been a nay-sayer except here."

Just to confirm:

Your purpose in this discussion is to kill this idea, is that correct?!?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, June 05, 2007 - 03:29 am: Edit

In so far as the Photon Flinging Thingy needs to be substantially better than a G-rack at a G-rack's primary activity (defensive combat) to compensate for the loss of the G-rack's secondary activities; yes.
Yes, I'ld like to see bad ideas die, a death; specifically by those who propose the idea seeing why it's a bad idea.

To that end.
The Feds have fighters which unless we develop a photon flinging thingy for fighters will still be using drones. And if you have a drone industry for fighters then it's a little silly to not put drones on ships; especially because there really isn't anything that can duplicate ECM drones and Probe drones.
Furthermore Probe drones and ECM drones and SPs are increadibly useful.
Plus the G-racks uses no power to do its thing which is good for the Feds who are always short on power and need to direct warp power to their actual photons.


Give me an idea I can get behind and I will.
And quit quoting fractions of what I said to make me look foolish...it's totally uncool.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, June 05, 2007 - 08:08 am: Edit

Quote:

In so far as the Photon Flinging Thingy needs to be substantially better than a G-rack at a G-rack's primary activity (defensive combat) to compensate for the loss of the G-rack's secondary activities; yes.
Yes, I'ld like to see bad ideas die, a death; specifically by those who propose the idea seeing why it's a bad idea.



Fair enough. The first part of your post, about this device being "substantially better" than G-rack is bothersome. The G-Rack is already the best all-around defensive device in the game, short of the web caster. You can use ADD's, and pretty much any type of drone you want, including toys like the ECM drone. All this for an item that costs less to repair than a simple ADD rack. If you want to replace it, it should be about the same in defensive abilities, not better...especially given the other defenses an X2 ship is likely to have, like better shielding or other protection, better speed, better defensive phasers, better move precedence, etc. In short, you can't improve every aspect of the ship and still have something that's balanced.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, June 05, 2007 - 09:27 am: Edit

I never thought that the Feds would ditch a GX2 rack to gain a photon rack. I figured a cruiser would have two of each. Will Fed X2 ships have fighters?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, June 05, 2007 - 09:28 am: Edit

MJC posted:

Quote:"And quit quoting fractions of what I said to make me look foolish...it's totally uncool."

IMO, you require no assistance to make you appear foolish... you are accomplishing that all by yourself.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, June 05, 2007 - 09:32 am: Edit

Tos:

MJC is the only person who advocates ditching the GX2 rack.

IMO, if the Feds were to adopt a modified photon launcher, they would do so while keeping the GX2 rack.

For the life of me, I cant understand why MCJ wants to ditch the GX2 rack... there are far too many reasons to keep it in service.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, June 05, 2007 - 11:43 am: Edit

Quote:

MJC is the only person who advocates ditching the GX2 rack.



Well, in fairness to MJC, the whole concept of the G2X rack is so nebulous at this point that it's hard to really discuss how good it is. There are several different proposals for it, as I recall, and none have been agreed on by the board at large...never mind SVC. I just object to his photon defensive thingy being better than even a normal G-rack, because to be frank, G-racks (especially later when they can be loaded with nifty ammo) just plain rock.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, June 05, 2007 - 05:25 pm: Edit

Mike Raper, We havent been allowed to discuss what effectiveness (or lack there of) the photon thingy might have since MJC vowed to kill the discussion.

This is the same kind of behaivor that killed the tactics thread, and is (IMO)a reason why people refuse to post new ideas...

In any event, the G rack does an excellant job, that isnt the point.

There are examples in the game where some weapons do not function as well as they need to, look at the Disrupters (rule (E3.0)) for example. if the disrupter was a "perfect design" with no possiblity of improvement, then there woulld be no point or need to have rules E3.61 and E3.62.

It would nice if MJC would allow the discussion to procede so we could determine if there is merit to the the 'Photon thingy'... All we really know now is that MJC is opposed to discussion the concept... and that is not helpful.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, June 05, 2007 - 11:01 pm: Edit

J.W.:

To answer the question of who brought up replacing drone racks.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 06:21 pm

Quote:

Response: well, if this is a defensive energy weapon intended to replace ADD racks with a energy direct fire weapons, then OK.



Now adding these photon flinging thingies to Fed ships. 8 "heavy" weapons on a Fed XCA and the Klingon XCA will be sent back to 6...I'm sure the Klingons will like that.
As a special arming option for Photons; okay, convince me. I'm not sure if the FA firing arc restriction of standard Photons will let the weapon be a good point defense option but go ahead and we'll talk about the idea.

I'll be glad to talk about a Photon firing option rather than a replacement of G-racks because it won't then be a debate of the essorteric fundmentals of the way races in the SFU choose to opperate their vessels/fleets/ecconomies.
If we talk about something that doesn't replace G-racks then we can just stick to THE MATH and make life much easier for ourselves.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, June 05, 2007 - 11:10 pm: Edit

MJC:

You are not a person who has to be convinced of anything. (Thank god!)

But, on the off chance that you are being honest, lets see if the discussion can proceed.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, June 05, 2007 - 11:16 pm: Edit

Lets reset this conversaion a bit as I think we are talking past one another.

A True/False survey to see where each other stands:

1) X2 Feds need a new offensive weapon:

2) X2 Feds could use a lateral LLR/RRR or rear RH/RA direct fire defensive weapon like a photon rack:

3) X2 Feds could use a PL-DX rack to serve the defensive role:

4) X2 Feds could use lateral PL-L torps like the ISC to serve the defensive role:

5) Any new defensive weapon the X2 Feds get should replace the GX/GX2 rack:

6) It would be better to create a new firing mode of the X2 photon then to create a new weapon:

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, June 05, 2007 - 11:18 pm: Edit

1) X2 Feds need a new offensive weapon: False

2) X2 Feds could use a lateral LLR/RRR or rear RH/RA direct fire defensive weapon like a photon rack: True

3) X2 Feds could use a PL-DX rack to serve the defensive role: True, though it would have to get past the tech-sloshing

4) X2 Feds could use lateral PL-L torps like the ISC to serve the defensive role: True, though it would have to get past the tech-sloshing

5) Any new defensive weapon the X2 Feds get should replace the GX/GX2 rack: False

6) It would be better to create a new firing mode of the X2 photon then to create a new weapon: False

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, June 05, 2007 - 11:51 pm: Edit

Obsolete: was typing while tos posted!

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, June 06, 2007 - 12:07 am: Edit

1) X2 Feds need a new offensive weapon: False I agree, just want to point out that the original proposal was an alternative fast loading photon thing... not a totally new weapon.

2) X2 Feds could use a lateral LLR/RRR or rear RH/RA direct fire defensive weapon like a photon rack: True I agree with this

3) X2 Feds could use a PL-DX rack to serve the defensive role: True, though it would have to get past the tech-sloshing ... i agree with this, and think that a point defense photon might "fit the bill" to some extent to avoid the "tech sloshing thing.

4) X2 Feds could use lateral PL-L torps like the ISC to serve the defensive role: True, though it would have to get past the tech-sloshing. I doubt that it could survive the tech slosh charge.

5) Any new defensive weapon the X2 Feds get should replace the GX/GX2 rack: False. again, I agree. I never wanted to replace the GX/GX2... that was MCJ's brain storm

6) It would be better to create a new firing mode of the X2 photon then to create a new weapon: False . the logic excapes me on this. by this reasoning, there should not be any other options for photons beyond the standaard 8 point warhead. no proximity function, no overloads (of anysize warhead), no fast loading of standards in the X rules...the fact is, photons have been improved in the past... why should the photon be frozen at any technology level? why not allow for improvements over time?

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation