This idea is loosely based on the US Navy’s torpedo problems during WWII:

The photon torpedo is a remarkable weapon, one remarkable not only for its damage potential but also its unreliable nature. Despite BuOps insistence that there is nothing wrong with the photon torpedo Federation field commanders incessantly complain about the weapon’s inaccuracy.

Trials conducted in the field as well as examination of data gathered by fire control specialists desperate to refute recent claims of incompetence leveled against them by BuOps leads Fleet Command to suspect that the MkXIV photon torpedo is plagued by at least two different problems, each of which has complicated detection and correction of the next:

It has recently been brought to the attention of Fleet Command that peacetime safety protocols resulted in the warhead and warp enabling sub assemblies for the photon torpedo being independently tested. We were somewhat shocked to learn that not even a single live-fire exercise was included in the calibration testing for the MkXIV photon torpedo. As BuOps is well aware, fleet command has long suspected that an error in BuOps’ calculated speed for the photon torpedo is responsible for miscalculated firing solutions. Our field trials have confirmed BuOps assertion that the calculations are precise – for the test conditions. If the warhead assembly is removed from our standard issue MkIV photon torpedoes prior to firing the results are exactly as predicted by BuOps calculations. However, if the torpedo is fired with an intact warhead assembly the results vary considerably from what is expected. Our engineers believe the magnetic bottle used for warhead containment is somehow interfering with the operation of the warp enabling sub assembly. Observation indicates that the actual speed of the torpedo seems to vary proportionally with the square of the strength of the magnetic bottle used to contain the warhead, which brings us to the second problem.

Cost containment measures prior to the war and calls for reduced materials consumption since the start of the war have resulted in a gradual reduction of thickness in the photon torpedo casing throughout the course of the general war. An unintended but well-known consequence of this is that the torpedo’s power regulator unit has less effective shielding than originally specified. At the time, the resulting minor fluctuations in magnetic bottle strength were deemed inconsequential, however, in light of recent findings it should now be obvious that this has had significant detrimental impact on accuracy.

The good news in all of this is that some of our more resourceful engineers have found a way to divert power from the photon’s warhead to stabilize the warp enabling sub assembly. This brings the torpedo’s speed back in line with the value expected by the targeting computers and results in improved accuracy, although at the cost of a reduction in damage.

(Sometime during mid to late general war the Feds gain a new firing mode for the photon torpedo. This firing mode may be assigned/unassigned during energy allocation like the proximity mode is and is designated with an “A” for accurate. Photons fired in this mode get +1 to hit but do 20% less damage).

By Alan Bloniarz (Madmax) on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 12:41 am: Edit

Here's a link to some info on the problems the US Navy had with their torpedos during WWII for those who are interested:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm

By Sam Clark (Tyranassam) on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 04:52 pm: Edit

Alan:

Are you proposing that a photon-A automatically hits at ranges 0-2 (assumes no other shift)? How would you deal with feedback associated with autohits?

By Kirk Spencer (Kspencer) on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 05:22 pm: Edit

No, Sam. He's proposing that a Photon-A automatically hits at range 2 - it's not an overload, so 0-1 is still off-limits.

hmmm. First, I assume you mean 25% (2 points) not 20% (1.6 points) of damage reduction.

Now then... 24 points guaranteed for photon-A at range 2. With standards, I gamble that I can do the same or more (probable, but not certain). There's almost no reason to use standards as it is.

I'd make one more suggestion (I think) - a photon charged as A can be held, but cannot have its charge increased (changed to standard or to overload).

More thought - by your background reasoning I can improve Proxes as well. This would give me, hmmm, a really good chance of generating 12 points of damage (1-5) for ranges 8-12, and better than 50% (1-4) for range 30. I'd want to make certain this wasn't overwhelming the disruptors....

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 05:27 pm: Edit

So, you are saying that a Fully OL torp would do 13 damage, or 12, with a -1 to the die roll basically?

So at range
2 hits on 1-6.
3-4 hits on 1-5.
5-8 hits on 1-4.

Nifty.....I'll take it.

You do realize though that in the SFU a photon is not a solid object.

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, March 28, 2002 - 06:07 am: Edit

Photons do have mass - just not much.

By Bruce A. Campbell (Ltlsoup) on Thursday, March 28, 2002 - 07:52 am: Edit

I love it, give it a number and ship it off to the quartermaster corp for immediate distribution.

Seeing that the Fed's are based on the US Navy, and the rational is long winded and sounds logical I don't see why they would not accept it as cannon in SFB. My question is why would any player not use the new targeting solution all the time?

By Jeff Williams (Jeff) on Tuesday, April 02, 2002 - 02:15 am: Edit

Isn't there a place on the board already for Federation wet-dreams??

By Alan Bloniarz (Madmax) on Tuesday, April 02, 2002 - 10:49 am: Edit

Thanks for the feedback guys. If there is enough interest in this idea I'd go to the trouble of putting together a more specific set of rules for a photon A. The original post was just to see if anyone was interested in the overall idea.

CEF, I guess I'm guilty of cross contamination. I was thinking of the photon torpedoes from the movies. I haven't seen anything anywhere in the rules describing exactly what a photon torpedo is.

Jeff, thanks for the constructive criticism.

By Shannon A. Ward (Delcar) on Tuesday, November 12, 2002 - 03:51 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

You do realize though that in the SFU a photon is not a solid object.

---

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, November 12, 2002 - 04:29 pm: Edit

Not really a page for it. SVC's word is law though

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Tuesday, November 12, 2002 - 07:58 pm: Edit

I think this actually sounds pretty cool (though I hate being on the recieving end of those dreaded photons).
Kirk and Christopher's comments (critiques) mirror mine so I won't repeat. And I very much agree that once armed as an A, it must be maintained as an A. I'd also suggest that OL's not be armable (is that a word?) as an A.

2 cents

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - 01:15 pm: Edit

SVC is relying on the Classic Trek definition of a Photon torp that existed before Wrath of Khan: a Photon torp is matter and anti-matter kept apart by a photon force field...hence the name.

By Dave Morse (Dcm) on Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - 05:24 pm: Edit

> Kirk and Christopher's comments mirror mine so I won't repeat.  
  ^^^^

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - 08:23 pm: Edit

Ah, but if you really review the entire contents of dicussions in the rules and in Captains Logs it is understood that there is a physical object that makes up the torpeedo.

Specificaly: There is a guidence system that can recieve a PROXIMITY FUSE that is fitted to the torpedo. There is some device that prevents standard Photons from arming at range 0 or 1 as well.

Another weapon that is often thought of as not being a solid object, but is in part, is the plasma torpedo. It too has a guidence system that does several things including tracking with 2 eccm and able to HET.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - 09:56 pm: Edit

I always assumed photons were just energy with no physical casing, at least in SFB. Otherwise, you'd have an ammo count to deal with. Not significant in a single game, but in a scenario, it could matter in the long run. Oh, well, just glad we don't have that to deal with.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - 09:59 pm: Edit

Good point. I always imagine those objects are small compared to Trek's solid gelcap-torp.

I imagined that the solid part of a plasma torp could fir on a fireplace mantle, about a meter long or so.

The fuse part of a photon is probably smaller, just a small sensor rig and the equipment to breach containment at (hopefully) the right moment. I envision it as fist-sized.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - 10:06 pm: Edit

Dave,
You forgot to mention Christopher Pike.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - 10:16 pm: Edit

I remember some listing on the refited Enterprise of about 200 casings for Photon torpedos in storage. If your scenario or mini campain uses that many per ship then, whoo hoo, write about it!

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - 11:21 pm: Edit

Glenn,

Not to mention Robert April.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, November 14, 2002 - 06:02 am: Edit

I seem to remember somewhere in a film something like "load photon torpedoes" was said. So, although the actual fired weapon may not be a torpedo in the classic sense (i.e. it has no solid mass), it is prepared in some kind of solid shell. The antimatter/matter/photon balance in the shell could probably be prepared over a period of time using ship's systems (which after all, can generate antimatter), allowing effectively limitless ammo. I imagine that this is only done in emergency, or the loading system would simply not be installed in the ship, as it it would be a hazardous undertaking, and storing lots of pre-prepared torps in stasis would be easy.

What I have found amusing was when a torp was doctored in one of the films to home in on a cloaked ship. Paricularly intriging was the weapon's ability to bend its path, hardly an intuitive property of a photon torp.

By Aaron M. Staley (Aaron_Staley) on Thursday, November 14, 2002 - 07:57 am: Edit

I disagree about changing the photon in ANY way, as this makes any ship with this weapon too powerful. My two cents.

By Paul Stovell (Pauls) on Thursday, November 14, 2002 - 11:25 am: Edit

Don't think this is rule is "neccessary".
From an effectiveness/unbalancing point of view....
If not allowed to OL then for std
r2 1-6 r3-4 1-5 r6-8 1-4 BUT doing 6 points of damage this makes it very similar to an UIM disr OL with the dis(ad)vantage of two turn arming cycle. It won't actually do as well as a UIM disr at any range under 8.
If added to proxies but still with the 25% reduction then 1-3 for 4 points or 1-4 for 3 points is moot except against ECM shifts where the A would have an advantage. Non-proxA would be 1-2 for 6 again moot unless ECM shift when worse.
At range 9-12 1-3 for 6 against 1-2 for 8 or 1-4 for 4 is the ONLY range bracket that the A torp has an edge and then only if no ECM shift.

So, can't say I'm in favour but can't see anywhere that it can cause abuse. It might make a nice option for those who hate the photons for always missing or always taking out their favourite ship with lucky dice.

By Jay Paulson (Etjake) on Thursday, November 14, 2002 - 07:33 pm: Edit

A far simpler method to average out weapons is to alllow ships to fire a 'full spread.' Just the opposite of the narrow salvo rule, if a number is rolled multiple times reroll each duplicate die one time. This makes all hits or all misses much less common with no inherent changes to weapons, arming times, or ecm.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, November 15, 2002 - 06:03 am: Edit

Jay.

Great idea. You have made intant friends with all of us who have rolled the quadruple six at range 2... Why hasn't this been suggested before?