Archive through June 11, 2007
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
The "X" Files:
OLD X2 FOLDER:
X2 photons:
Archive through June 11, 2007
Tos, could you expand on the reasons why the Feds need rear-arc defensive weapons on ships with lots of multi-shot phasers and dual-use drone/ADD racks?
If Fed aft coverage is lacking, adding a few large phasers should cure it. Why something as inaccurate and draining of warp power like a photon. I can't see a good fit here.
How would you avoid or deflect "me too"ism where everybody demands a new toy for their race?
Loren, what makes you think a G-rack is going to slow down a flotilla of Centurians? PFs will remain effective weapons platforms in the X2 era.
John, I'm not advoacting the photon rack yet, just following the path to its logical conclusion. In a history where an X2 ship might be expected to deal with a PFT the X2 ship is going to need some lateral defenses. When the ISC built their fleet they invested considerably in lateral defenses. If the ISC were right, not saying they were, why wouldn't other races try the same thing?
As to why not just add some P5, well, that's boring.
What I don't understand is why this weapon should have variable damage against different Size Class targets. Type-IV drones behave that way, as do Type-K plasma torpedos. But photon torpedos?
Earlier it was suggested (probably by Jeff, but I don't recall for certain) that this was related in some way to the "photon freezers" used by A-10s and A-20s. Well, A-10 and A-20 photons vary in warhead strength according to whether the torpedo is normal or proximity. But they don't vary in strength by target size class and I would personally prefer that these didn't either. It just "feels wrong" to me somehow.
If the concern is that this will make the system too good against ships, I think there are other ways to keep them in check.
Just my .02 quatloos worth.
All one need do to keep them from being too good against ships is limit them to X-Aegis (SC5+) targets.
Alan Trevor:
This is a "work in progress".
We are still grappling with just what a "photon Rack" is... the variable damage was (I think) suggested as a way to reduce (somewhat) the huge energy cost of photon torpedos against likely targets (those being drones, shuttles, fighters bombers, and to some extent, PF's). (by trading the lower energy cost verses lower damage to specified types of targets).
IF the general consensis by the board, that "a photon is a photon" then its a moot point.
The idea is to develop a "photon like" version of the ISC rear defenses (such as rear arc plasma F's) that can be effective against PF's and such.
The other problem we havent solved is the proposed "fast firing" of 2 or more photons per turn...if a X2CA has 2 such photon racks...with 4 photon charges on each rack... giving the X2CA the ability to fire up to 8 photons within 1 32 impulse turn is very powerful and would clearly be too much of the Uber thing... you'd have players moving ships into battle in reverse so as to get the "defensive" photon racks to bear for the first alpha strikes... and that was never the intention of the proposal.
Quote:If Fed aft coverage is lacking, adding a few large phasers should cure it.
Alternately one could look into LS, RS and 360° firing arcs for the Phaser suite.
I've got to say, that Rapid pulsing of Ph-6 shots from an X2's Ph-5 should be hell on PFs and fighters as is.
Rapid pulsing on PFs isn't going to happen against a PF unless the PFs get within rapid pulse range, something PFs with seeking weapons need not do.
I have to agree that the Ph-5 with is even damage curve (as proposed) and rapid pulsing as two Ph-6 (which is still in deep debate) would be pretty rough on PF's largely because of the sligh extention of range (PF's take large damage before reaching strike range).
I forgot to mention that I had proposed a similar idea in the Fusion Gatling (which I don't want to discuss here). It was similar in that it used fusion charges from fighters in a rack system. The key is that you could pre-load several shots. I would love to see something similar done with the photon freezer pods as a power saving weapon for small ships.
Romulans and Gorns already have the Pl-F/L as zero hold weapons and I suppose the Disruptor races could have something similar too.
Jeff, Toss:
I just think the attrition threat will be greatly reduced and that existing defense technologies (with their logical advancements) will handle the remaining threat. The GX-Rack has the advantage of being 360°. It can actually reach out against PF's at extreme range with drones causing them to take action in defense (usually with their main weapons). IIRC, the PFS will not be able to use a channel to tell X-drones to go away either. Having a GX-Rack means you have drone aboard which makes available the scatter-pack.
IMHO, a full X2 cruiser could fully face-off with a PFT and it's flotilla and the PF's would die. You might see a crippled cruiser but that would be tough. Add a new more effective PF defensive weapon and the PF's have no chance. So how do you balance that? With BPV? Then will the ship be balanced against other threats?
I'm not saying it's impossible to make this balanced just seeing a very upward climb to get there. One way would be to see major imporvements to PF's themselves but I'm pretty sure that ADB won't go there (you all know about that story).
Last thing,
the great advantage of the GX-rack is that it is a zero power defense. If you replaced it with a photon rack and were crippled then you'd have almost no chance to defend yourself. Drone hits are relatively uncommon compared to power hits.
One could argue that the photon rack would have unlimited reloads but if you are defending yourself to that degree I'm thinking that power is your reloads and you will be losing that just as fast. If you think you will be losing your GX-rack you can unload it partially to save to drones from destruction, repair it, and reload it all for zero power.
Loren, no one is suggesting that the photon rack replaces the GX rack, its a supplemental weapon. The free reloads of a photon rack would only be a logistical consideration as the GX should have sufficient reloads for most single battle engagements.
Tos:
Well actually...
Is there a reduction in anti attrition work associated with the move from 12Ph-1s to 8Ph-5s?
It could cause the Photon thingy to be warrented.
Tos, be that as it may I was still citing that circomstance. The situation get worse when its added to the GX rack deployment.
Loren, MJC is still the only one who called for replacing the GX rack with a photon thingy...
For a variety of reasons (listed earlier if you have an interest in looking it up) that was said by several people to be a really bad idea.
I do, have to question your statement that the situation gets worse when "its" added to the GX rack deployment.
ADD rounds kill type I drones, and the dog fight drones (the Type VI's) have a limited ability to damage size class 4 and larger targets (see rule FD2.54).
having a "photon rack" available would allow the 2XCA to begin its point defense combat at ranges much farther than the max range of the ADD rounds... and allows the 2XCA a direct fire anti drone capability that GX dog fight drones cant match.
Is this a "good thing"? not sure at this point, but I suspect it isnt as bad as you seem to be implying, and thats why I think we need to discuss it a bit more before it can be determined.
I'm not trying to shut down discussion so please don't think that if anyone is. I think killing attrition units at further range just make a bad situation worse for attrition and therefore doesn't play nice with GW.
Existing tech already make the situation very rough for attrition units so I don't think there needs to be resrearch done to combat a technology that is already considered obsolite.
Beside, just the Ph-5 (proposed) would be very effective against a PF. It already reach out a bit further that any weapon the PF would carry so the initiative goes to the X2 ship every time.
I don't think X2 should wade through attrition units like clearing brush and I think adding a longer ranged point defense cannot be balanced. Is Long Ranged Point Defense an oximoron?
But that is the point... isnt it?!?
That X technology makes attrition units obsolete... IMO X2 should be even better at killing attrition units than X1 ships were.
X2 ships should have a significant advantage over PF's... atleast as great as that between GW era ships and the First Early years ships (the W refits, not the Y) as it is two technological steps removed.
I'm not talking about X1 ships... that has already been published... X2 should be atleast 1 more step more advanced than the General War ships... and the clearest demarkation that can be taken, short of creating a fleet of "uber" ships, is to make the X2 generation ships deadly against PF's fighters, bombers and drones while retaining the general "ship to ship" playability that GW ships have (to a certain extent) against X1's.
Now, that said, even the Photon Rack that we've been talking about wont (as it is presently configured) "wade through attrition units like clearing brush"... the power consumption alone (some 16 points of warp power) limits the number of times even a X2 ship could afford to power up a full load of charged photons during battle (and that is for one rack, not the two that Tos was talking about.
Second issue is the inherent inaccuracy of photons... nothing has been said about changing the charged photons to hit tables.
Third issue is the rate of fire thing, the original proposal called for 1 photon per turn, and the whole rack couldnt be cleared in much less than 4 turns at max ROF.
Tos suggested making it possible to fire faster, but we still havent gotten to that subject either.
What the photon racks allow is the idea of "layered Defense", layered to the extent that the charged photons could be used against X-Aegis targets up to 15 hexes from the ship, and any threats (be they PF's, Fighters or drones etc) can be dealt with by the GX rack and defense phsers (Down fired phaser 1's as 3's, or the new phaser 5's or 6's or whatever the X2CA gets equipped with).
As to the question of balance, if all races X2 ships get a middle ranged point defense system based on their heavy weapons (such as photons, disrupters, etc), then the only balance issue is X2 ships verses attrition units... and we already know that X technology makes PF obsolete.
If you haven't tried mega-fighters, do so before deciding more advanced point defenses will make attrition units obsolete. Mega-fighters are just baaaaaaaaaaad news.
Jeff: If X1 made attrition ineffective then why would X2 need to advance?
Why create a device to overkill something that is going away?
Mike Raper: Hit anything with enough photons, it will affect their "Day"... 
.
loren: I think PF's are a bit more resilient than you and Mike Raper are giving them credit for... like all "good" movie monsters, to truly "kill" them requires a stake thru the heart or something very serious like that...
the so called photon rack isnt perfect by any means, but it does have the portential to do serious damage to PF's... far more than what ADD's and type VI drones are able to inflict.
IMO, part of the problem in dealing with PF's is you seldom see just one PF... they typically arrive in either casual groups (2 to 5) or full flotillas of 6 (including more often than not, a leader and a scout).
The X-Aegis rules make X1 ships better able to deal with PF's... but not enough to render them "obsolete", imo.
There are still uses for PF's and the X-Aegis rule didnt quite do enough to prevent PF squadrons from attacking X1 ships...
I would suggest that PF squadron commanders should fear the progression of technology... from the "ho hum" General War era ships, to the mild (fairly serious?!?) X1 ships to the dreaded X2 class ships... there should be a qualitataive difference.
Otherwise, what is the point of X2? if it is "the same" as X1, what is the point of upgrading to a new series of ships and designs if there is no difference between them?
Otherwise, what is the point of X2? if it is "the same" as X1, what is the point of upgrading to a new series of ships and designs if there is no difference between them? "
I agree. I think there are a lot of people that want X2 to be only a slight improvement, but if this is the case, how is it a new leap in technology? It is called X2 after all, not X1 refits.
J.W.:
Since you've got the whole thing completely ass-about. Maybe you should quit telling people what I think. I'm much better at telling people what I think than you are about what I think.
Quote:But that is the point... isnt it?!?
That X technology makes attrition units obsolete... IMO X2 should be even better at killing attrition units than X1 ships were.
Actually our first object is not so much to make the official future history, come to fruition but rather to make X2 play nice with GW.
To that end, ramping up the BPV in the attrition stakes and then getting swampped by an enemy who uses full warships is a bad idea.
However the shift back down to 8Ph-5s might create room for a point defense photon flinging thingy so perhaps some playtesting is in order.
Quote:Second issue is the inherent inaccuracy of photons... nothing has been said about changing the charged photons to hit tables.
That's dangerous ground.
Why can these Photon thingies hit better and regular photons can't!?! There'll be a flood of letters and emails demanding that Regular X2 Photons use the advantaged to-hit numbers.
And then the Klingons players will get upset...
I really for sorry for the poor old Gorn sometimes.
Quote:Otherwise, what is the point of X2? if it is "the same" as X1, what is the point of upgrading to a new series of ships and designs if there is no difference between them?
To large degree there is the cultural differances of X2.
Ships designed in the trade wars period will have to cope with limited ecconomies by being very different ships. Too expensive to just throw away like an X1 ship (oh, yes X1'll survive better than GW ships but the reason for such hammering battles is gone (The GW ended as did the Andro invasion)) these vessel will instead be designed around being able to get back to an FRD and get repaired. The ASIF becomes a big bonus that allows the XCA (using my ASIF especially but all ASIFs to this to some extent) to survive blows even when losing weapons, so the hulk that is left has no weapons to fight but still a fair amount of warp power and is then able to leave.
The S-Bridge ability to perform science at longer ranges means the X2 vessel will be safer from monsters and therefore better able to perform more activities because it'll spend less time in an FRD.
The Phaser-5 means the X2 vessels can fight at longer ranges which leaves less risk of being tractored, H&Red or over-run and thus completely killed rather than merely being defeated. The reduced numbers of Phasers makes these ships easier to opperate and cheaper to opperate but also means that X1 and GW ships can get near killing blows with an over-run.
X2 ships will very much be; of, for and by, the trade wars period. And that will make them quite different to X1 vessels.
The above is not to say that X2 technologies will perfectly match the Dynamic of X2. E.g. with more warp power and longer range weapons, an ASIF becomes somewhat superfluios.
But rather the lower tempo of battle (because few battles will be worth losing an X2 ship over) will create a return to the MY way of doing things.
The new "boarders" will create a new "wild west" or "mad max" enviroment where the law and order brought by the government will be reduced and restricted by the crippled ecconomies of the empires. To paraphrase The Right Stuff;" No bucks; no T.J. Hooker."
Because combat will shift to a matter of being able to cut a better deal at the negotiating table, no body will "take it personal" and nobody will "fight like there's no tomorrow" because it isn't personal and there is a tomorrow...it's just a question of fighting to make sure you don't get lumped with the lousey end of the bargin.
So the better protections developed as advances to fight the Andro become the catalyst for X2 ships having the edge that lets the Empires over time "retake" what was once theirs. X2 will suffer light damage when they lose and then be able to be repaired in a fraction of the time it would take to build a new ship and train a new crew whilst the newly Neutral worlds will find themselves protected by ships they don't have the resoarses to maintain let-alone repair.
So how do the great defeat the many???...with salami tactics; one slice at a time.
If we consider a Fed XFF as being a Fed FFX with 3Ph-1s instead of 5Ph-1s and twin 24 point photons and 6 extra shield boxes on every shields and 4 extra warp engine boxes and 2 extra labs (for longer durations "scientific missions") and regenerative shields (2 free shield boxed per turn (DamCon for free)) and an ASIF and Full X-Aegis and an S-Bridge.
We have a ship that can compete in a fairly level battle with a Fed NCLa+.
At R8 and assuming the XFF gets a -1 shift and is at a 0 shift to be hit. Both vessels generate 32 points of Phoptons damage on average and the XFF generates about 8 and a half phaser damage points (IIRC) and the NCLa+ generated about 8.66 points of phaser damage.
At R12 and assuming the same EW situation, the XFF can generate 12 points of Photon damage (using 12 point standards...fastloaded) and 4 points of phaser damage to peel the onion of the NCLa+ at a steady rate.
The NCLa+ on the other hand is firing off alternate Photons for 5.33 damage and another 4 points of Phaser damage for about as much damage as the XFF can shrug off with BTTY.
Where the NCLa+ truly comes into its own is in an R1 centerline shot, where the XFF generates about 19.5 phaser damage and 48 photon damage but the NCLa+ is generating 40.33 points of phaser damage and 64 points of photon damage.
So the XFF and her Empire wins by:-
1) Getting both a -1 to hit and a +1 to be hit.
2) Using Fastloaded 12 point standards whenever the NCLa+ tries to arm/hold overloads. But switching to either 12 point fastloaded overloads or 24 point overloads as soon as the NCLa+ drops her overloads and tries to arm standards.
3) Using the strategic speed to leave and find some planet that could only afford to buy a DW. And waiting for the empire to send either an XDD of a second XFF.
4) Wait for the spare parts (and technically qualified crew) to get few and far between. Once the NCLa+ loses a Photon, an LS Phaser-1, an RS Phaser-1, her G-rack, a transporter, a tractor and her probe due to G30 (inactive systems) it'll be a much easier for the XFF to take her on.
Indeed if a planet has a particularly low population, the ship might have a poor crew (due to lowered selection criteria) from the day it gets commissioned in the service of that neutral planet.
So why does the Federation sell the NCLa+ to the neutral world and then choose to opperate the XFF?
1) The XFF can do science at a level the NCLa+ just can't match thanks to her drone percentages and S-Bridge.
2) The XFF can move like crazy and thus chase down X-pirates. Also higher strategic speeds means the fleet needs fewer ships to do the same patrolling.
3) The XFF has a smaller crew and thus is cheaper to run.
4) The workers and designers who build the XFF will keep their skills up and thus can go on to build XDDs, XCLs, XCMs XCAs or even XCCs when the money becomes availible.
MJC: for the third (or maybe fourth time) please try to stay on topic.
Most of what you wrote in your last three postings do not pertain to X2 Photons... and some of the parts that do pertain, such as the 24 point warhead X2 photons have been (I believe) rejected by the propsals board.