Well actually I'm still not afraid of an X2 cruiser comming in at 480 BPV...but I guess I haven't learnt the particular lesson of high BPV threshold logic.

But there is a point. Four Fed FFGs will have trouble defeating a single CX even though at 300 BPV they outmatch the CX by 60 points.
The reason is that they have to pay a bigger percentage of their power for EW and a bigger percentage of their power to hold a WW (because they'll each need one if one needs one). Plus collectively they have a much larger movement cost (1.33). Plus there are thresholds:- If an FFG tractors the CX, it can tractor a buddy but then runs out of tractors but must drop trqctors if tractored by a buddy, the FFs can never exert a full 1 MC of dragging about but the CX can and does the moment it slaps on a tractor. Plus when an FFG explodes there is the chance of harming buddies but the CX is an all or nothing thing so it won't hurt any buddies because it has none.
Taking on one ship with a bunch of little ships is a particularly hard thing to do. Better to take on a bunch of big ships with an armada of little ships as atleast you can start breaking past thresholds of your own.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 11:36 pm: Edit

I guess with the whole BPV thing is that the Steves don't base BPV on a fixed or floating map, but rather a mix, nor with or without EW but rather with a mix.
Then there is the fact that Lyrans make life hell for Romulans but it's okay because they actually don't have a boarder and are allies in the GW.
BPV will always be a rule of thumb and no more.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 09:30 am: Edit

Assuming a 4 charge photon rack can be fast loaded in one turn for 16 power, that's an awful lot of power to spend to defend against at most four targets. This heavy power drain seems a sufficient balancing factor for allowing a photon rack to operate within the same offensive/defensive guidelines that the PL-D rack follows. One could argue that the PL-D rack is the superior weapon in most circumstances. Given the dial-a-torp nature of photons, I would tend to allow any of the photons to be charged in any combination.

With regard to the photon being an inaccurate weapon, remember it is likely you benefit from the -1 to hit, which makes this an auto-hit weapon at range 2. You still can’t fire a non-overloaded photon at range 0-1, another useful balancing factor.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 12:51 pm: Edit

Tos, that leaves us with a photon rack that has the potential of inflicting (if all four torps hit) 32 points of damage for an energy cost of 16 points of warp energy.

not a bad deal since the weapon does not lose strangth based on range (such as phasers do).

I originally wanted it to only fire standard 8 point ph0tons, but if the board feels that the photon rack would allow for any type of photon to be used, I wont argue.

seems like an awfully powerful system though...

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 01:02 pm: Edit

I would never agree to overloaded torps. My feelings are not as strong on the issue of Prox torps. Can an A-10 Prox?

I am still assuming a max range of 15 as per X-Aegis.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 01:25 pm: Edit

Tos,

Yes, A-10s (and A-20s) can use proximity-fuzed photons. But the setting must be made while the fighter is still on the carrier. The fighter itself cannot change from normal to proximity (or vice versa) while in space.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 01:38 pm: Edit

Assume for the sake of argument that we were to allow a prox torp in a photon rack. How would this be handled from a record keeping perspective?

Should we just do away with the record keeping and say that any X2 photon can fire fired as normal or prox at the time of launch?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 02:48 pm: Edit

I think thw standard photon rules are just fine: decision made at EA, can be changed on any subsequent EA.

A better question is why you would want to.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 03:34 pm: Edit

Well, for a standard ship mounted X2 photon, I did propose that the decision to fire as a proxy or standard could be made at the moment of launch; it increases flexibility without altering flavor. But that was for photons that pretty much still act like photons; two turn arming, big crunch, no changes in the to-hit numbers, etc. Not sure if it's needed with the other benefits of a rack system.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 06:16 pm: Edit

Mike Raper:

I'm still fighting for a two turn arming cycle for the photon rack, though there has been the suggestion to give it a "fast load" option.

I could see giving the photon rack the option of standard or proximity warheads... especially if you intend to engage targets at ranges between 10 hexes and 15... the game balance is a better chance to hit and thus inflict less damage balanced against PF's and such at moderate ranges.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 09:47 pm: Edit

I would still prefer to see the Photon Rack as an offensive low-power alternative weapon for small X2 ships. Similar to my Fusion Gatling proposal, it uses A-10 style canisters with zero hold standards in a rack, allowing the small ship to pre-load up to eight photon before a battle. On mid-sized ships it would supliment regular photon torpedo tubes and wouldn't be on SC3 and larger ships at all.

I don't like combining X-Aegis with this at all. I don't believe it will play well with PF's, which are GW. X2 will already be excelent at taking down PFs why make things impossible for PFs altogether?

Sorry, I guess I'm repeating myself.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 12:39 am: Edit

I'm with you there. I'm still not sold on it as a worthwhile defensive weapon

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 09:18 am: Edit

John and Loren:

How would the photon rack be segregated into various size class ships? I mean, if it is so useful on small ships as an offensive system that allows low powered vessels to use multiple charges of standard photns... why wouldnt large size class 3 ships want to be able to take advantage of the lower power needs?

I acknowledge that the larger ships have the power reserves to actively charge normal photon launchers... but it would seem to me that the larger ships could use the power "freed up" by the photon charges for other stuff as well (faster speeds, tractor anchor/auctions, electronic warfare etc).

Just seems to me, that if the photon rack is used as an offensive system, it would benefit larger ships as well as smaller types...

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 10:41 am: Edit

I don't think its practical to have an offensive weapon that doesn't require any power for 8 turns. That just seems broken to me.

Loren, you are not being a broken record. We have two different visions and I'd like to understand yours better since right now it doesn't make any sense to me.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 11:44 am: Edit

Photon Rack

Each box hold four freezer tubes similar to those used on the A-10 fighter (draws directly from that technology). Each must be loaded as a normal photon torpedo and has only two firing options, standard and proximity. This is recorded at the time of loading. In the ammo box mark either an S or a P. To change from one type to the other require the loss of one turns loading (power is lost and vented) and more power must be applied to finalize the change from one type to the other.

Range is limited to twelve. (I'd be open to some improvement here... maybe twenty for the better firing plateform).

A number maybe be loaded per launcher before a scenario begins depending on weapons status and any number may be loaded at one time with in the limits of power available.

WS0 = none pre-loaded.
WS1 = one or more in first turn of loading.
WS2 = Up to two fully loaded, two in first turn.
WS3 = All fully loaded.

There is NO overload function.

Rack may be fired once per turn given the availablility of loaded tubes. A given tube may be fired on the turn it recieves its final loading energy.

Availability. I picture this might be put aboard fighting frigates, probably two. Some destroyers might have two along with one standard photon. You don't have the Photon rack on larger ships except in cases where the ships role is not battle. X2 Tugs and LTTs might have a couple photon racks. The main reason is the range limitation AND the lack of an overload option, both things a ship of the line absolutly requires. Note that a limitation on the number of heavy weapons means you simply cannot just add a Photon rack to a ships normal complement of photons. They can only replace photons on a one for one basis. I suppose it might be possible for there to be a BCJ ype thing where two Photon Racks are placed in the dorsal possitions. You'd still have shock issues though (although they can never be overloaded).

Note on Frgates: I should remind everyone that my vision of the smaller classes of X2 is somewhat different that others. I believe that Frigates would be removed from the main battle-line because they are too fragile. They would become pure support units. There would be no battle frigate in X2. So you would have Frigates that were scouts, drone plateforms, escorts for small carriers (if there are any), local patrol (police) etc.
Destroyers would come in many verieties and have the most variants including line battle. So you would have the front line Destoryer meant for fleet/squardon battle and a Command type. But you'd also see all the variants of scout, escort, drone, etc. Some XDD's would have photon racks while others would have all full sized photons, depending on the mission. Frigate Squadrons would actually be lead by a XDD and wouldn't be patroling for battle but conducting some other mission. XDD Squadrons would patrol for battle and would be a fearsom pack to encounter.
XCL/XCM classes would be workhorse units able to handle many mission types but with few variants, probably only standard and command variants (Xork war may bring out more variants). Typically the design calls for the flexability of the standard photon only. Someday a variant may call for a Photon Rack, but not a first. Who know what they will need during the Xork Invasion? But that's a discussion for another day.
XCA/XCC is the big fleet command unit like DN are in teh GW. The even nastier XCH could come late-late in the history. These units never carry Photon Racks as replacing the fully flexible Photon Tube on a ship that can so easilly use them would be a travesty.

The idea is that the small ship uses the Photon Rack to do its thing and get away. Being able to fire every turn with no power cost means the small unit can keep up its speed while maintaining a stand-off threat to the enemy raider. But there is a time limit. You have four turns of continuous fire then you have to be away or be able to slow down. This probably means your in big trouble.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 12:53 pm: Edit

What arcs are you considering? In the non-combat role of the Frigate you describe it would seem plausable to have a LS/RS configuration.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 01:06 pm: Edit

What power would you provide an XFF with 2 offensive photon racks? Take XFF3 for example. If the 10-point Photons were replaced with racks, same arcs, would you feel a power reduction is warranted?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 01:50 pm: Edit

Same types of arcs as the Photon, 120°.

Maybe, 15 warp. I wouldn't do a lollipop either but that's a different discussion.

Engines should be sufficient for speed and house keeping.

One could argue the rack only hold two photon freezers too. You could still maintain continuous fire and have two turns of initially held photons.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 11:03 pm: Edit

Here is a basic Photon proposal for X2. Read it first before allowing the title to sway you please.
==================
Multi-warhead Photon Torpedo.

In Y205 a new type of photon torpedo was made available to all ships that carried photons. The weapon produced four small photon torpedo warheads with limited range. Generally it was less useful in combat but because of the reduced warhead size of the submunitions it had some uses beyond combat.

Operation: The MWP loads as a standard photon does; two warp energy on two turns. An MWP can also be over loaded but at reduced maximums. An MWP much be commited to and noted at the first turns loading. The proximity function maybe decided on the second turn (given no overload energy had been applied on the first). To switch to a standard photon the MWP must be aborted and a new photon maybe started. This occures during energy allocation only.

MWP's are too fragile to withstand fast loading.

After firing and when the torpedo reaches proximity to the target it breakes into four submunitions. Each submunition rolls to hit its target separately and if it hits it does 1/4 the damage of the total warhead size (round fractions down).
Loading examples:

Total size	submunition size	notes
8	2	standard limited to 12 hexes
8 proximity	1	limited prox at -1 to hit for each
OL 9-11	2	range 0 to 8 hexes
OL 12	3	range 0 to 8 hexes
OL 13-16	0	photon fails and is ejected

Targeting: Targeting is noted at the moment of firing. Either all four submunition are targeted on ONE target or one is assigned a specific target and the other three will attempt to strike random targets in the same hex as the primary target.


Uses:
Seeking weapons. Reducing a drones damage by a point can ensure that phaser threes can finish them off.

Some limited use against attrition units.

Cloaked targets: This is the primary use but denyed by the Federation. It is basically a photon carronade. Now this seems powerful against Romulans but I have another proposal that will give Romulans a defense against both the Gorn and Federation caronade. See Proposals: The X-files: Unplotted breaking.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 11:37 pm: Edit

So you have a limited anti drone system for ranges up to 12 hexes (assuming standard photon WH).

I could see this as a very good thing against large drone stacks or multiple fighters... say you have a Fed CA, that means with 4 photon tubes, it could muster up to SIXTEEN mini photons each one that actually hits does 2 points of damage?

Heck, thats almost as good as having phaser gatlings... and its available at ranges that Phaser G's only dream of doing serious damage.

the only question I have, is why not make it 8 submunitions and 1 point of damage each?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 12:17 am: Edit

Too many. And then what would the prox version be?

Nah, four is just right I think.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 07:47 am: Edit

You know, as a fan of the twenty four point warhead, I've been thinking lately (must use it in playtest sometime) that a combination of an X ship's ability to ignore small target modifiers and the 6 point proxy of a 12 photon, yeilds a great little SP killer.

Having an R12 limit will just cause SPs to be launched at R16 in an oblique and then spread the drones out so there's only one drone in each hex.
Kill the SP before it blooms should always be the S.O.P.!

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 09:44 am: Edit

A SP is an 8-point kill in the timeframe we are talking about.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 10:08 am: Edit

Which means a normal photon war head or 2 successful hits with proximity photons.

I think there may be more use in attritioning drones by the use of lorens multi-warheaded photons, than concentrating on SP kills.

Killing SP's before they bloom is the ideal... but your enemy is not likely to be as cooperative as MJC claims they will... with speed 32 drones, it is not as necessary for the SP's to close the range as it was with slow or moderate speed drones.

Plus, getting 4 successful hits with multi warhead photons on a SP at range 12 is not necessarily a sure thing. for a Fed CA with 4 photon tubes (and up to 16 multiple war heads in total)... It may be better "odds" of killing all or most of the drones by waiting for them to get close than trying to kill the SP at range 12... after all photons with standard targeting hit better at close range.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 10:54 pm: Edit

One of the things that came up in recent playtesting (my Fed XCA Vs a C7 and Fed BCG) was that although GW drones were pretty easy to kill for the X2 shp, they came in such increadible numbers ( I mean if I recall they kept themselves to a constant stream of 14 or so) that the X2 ship needed a good way to kill SPs at range. At one point a pair of Ph-5s killed an SP launched at R5, on the impulse after launch...the player of the Fed BCG really didn't like that.
Fortunately the drone control limit is 35 hexes and the range of photons is 40.

Tos, are you saying all shuttles will be improved by this time frame or just X2 shuttles?
GW SPs are a real problem because their drones are so cheap and numerous and the X2 ships are so expensive that a solid drone defense is needed.


As much as I'ld like to see cheap kills on drones, I wouldn't like to see it done with Photons (every one seems to keep forgetting FD1.52) as they shouldn't take two turns to commit a weapon that's lousy at plastering ships and they're the only Fed weapon that's actually good at plastering ships.

If a Fed ship gets to R8 of some GW era ships and doesn't have any photons to fling because they were all invested in drone defense...it's reduce the fun level...especially since the GWs have heavy weapons availible to commit.

I'ld rather let X2 ships hurl T-bombs through their Probe-launcher to kill swarms of cheap drones than see a heavy weapon like the Photon turned to anti-drone work in a highly restrictive rule. How do what ever the Klingons get, compare?