how would that scenario play if the Feds had a marginal improvement to standard loads at ranges 9-12 and 12-30? Like in both Mikes proposal and mine.

By Stephen W. Fairfield (Sfairfield) on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 01:00 pm: Edit

Making the standards hit on a 1-3 (9-12) would make them prefered to proxies at that range. Having them hit on a 1-2 at range 13-30 would still favor proxies I think, but it would be close, and would probably lead to people doing range 30 standard load narrow salvos, which I think we want to avoid. I'd still be hesitant to make standards hit on a 1-3 at 9-12, becausee they'd probably overpower disruptors. I'll try to run the number later when I get a chance (essentially, do the same as the photon analysis above, except that it's 4xproxy, r20, 4xStandard, r10, 4xOverload, r=0,1)

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 01:14 pm: Edit

Tony,

I get you, but again, the comparison of x ship versus x ship sort of levels the playing field in more ways than one. The CCX can fast load and fire photons from a distance, but if he does that, it's going to slow him down considerably. Figure normal photons, at 4 points a pop, works out to 14 points of warp power from the engines. With no other warp expediture but movement, the CCX can get up to speed 26; the plasma out strips him by 14. A firehawk X as I recall has 2 plasma M's, and 2 plasma S's. If the Fed turned and ran from these at range 9 or so, he'd get caught and take some hefty damage; not sure how much, I'd have to work it out on a chart.

I'm not totally against a change, mind...I just think eight is too much. Anyway, 'nuff said on that score...it really belongs on another thread.

By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 01:15 pm: Edit

But, but, but ...

Oh nevermind - I'm now convinced, Photons suck, plasmas rule (even on open maps), and I'm sure no one has bothered to respond to Andrew Harding's 11:53pm post from yesterday because they don't want to humiliate him...

Andrew - I'll take you up on your challenge. My only counter request is that we start at range 30, you go speed 5 (can't change) and I go speed 0 (can't change). You move directly towards me firing as often as you like. I'll clean the floor with you scoundrel!

By Stephen W. Fairfield (Sfairfield) on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 10:37 pm: Edit

:p

I'd take Andrew up on his challenge except:

a) I suck at actually playing SFB.

b) I don't have SFBOL

c) I suck at SFB, so I'm not the right person to test a tactical issue.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, April 29, 2002 - 09:09 pm: Edit

Just for fun, this weekend I played in pick up game with a freind to test the theory that bolting is better than photons. I won't go into any serious details, but here's the basics.

Fed fleet: 1xDN+, 1xCAR, 1xNCL, 1xDD

Rom Fleet: 1xCondor, 1xFirehawk, 1xWE, 1x Snipe

Game started on open, closed map, WSIII. No EW in play.

In the first turn, the feds (me) fired up 12 proximity photons at range 29. Of the 12 that were fired, 7 actually hit; all on the condor. 28 points scored on the condor forward shield.

2 turns later, the rom player was uncloaked and firing all bolts. He thrashed the DN pretty well, but didn't knock down the shields. I fired again, this time with standards. I fired 8; hit with 4, again all on the condor. Lucky me, 3 hit the same shield and down it went, taking out one of his plasma S's, and a phaser.

It just got worse from there for the guy. I've decided this. Bolting is okay at close ranges, but it doesn't beat the photon, and here's why...you loose them too fast. On the WE, one torp hit knocked out any chance to bolt at all...you'd have to hit even a fed DD four times to achieve the same result. So the number of launchers has a definate effect on the longevity of a bolting plasma player's ability to win. Bolting is a nice supplemental ability, but it just doesn't hang with the major DF weapons. I think plasmas are best used in their normal seeking mode, where they can dish out the most damage.

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Monday, April 29, 2002 - 10:17 pm: Edit

's why the Fed DD is an abomination to nature man...

By Stephen W. Fairfield (Sfairfield) on Monday, April 29, 2002 - 11:39 pm: Edit

I always wondered why the F-DD wasn't subject to shock, nasty little (if underpowered) thing that it is.

Oh, and yes, I would only suggest bolting for ships with 4 torpedoes.

By Matthew J. Francois (Francois42) on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 08:45 am: Edit

Isn't the DD the same basic saucer as the CA? They just had to pack in systems a little tighter, since there was no rear hull for the shuttles, AuxCon, etc?, and this makes it more vulnerable to damage.

-Francois
francois@purdue.edu

By John de Michele (Johnd) on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 12:08 pm: Edit

Sfairfield said:

>I always wondered why the F-DD wasn't subject to
>shock, nasty little (if underpowered) thing that
>it is.

Because the concept of shock wasn't in the game at the time the Fed DD was introduced.

John.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 04:55 pm: Edit

John,

Good catch on that. I always figured it was because the DD and CA hull were pretty much the same, and that the BCJ has shock because of where the 2 extra photons are located. Shock for a DD would sure suck, if you're a fed.

By Alan Bloniarz (Madmax) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 04:35 pm: Edit

Mike, you've been brainwashed! It's the only explanation for why you've been converted over to believing the photon is fine the way it is.

Seriously, your test that 'proved' the photons are okay to yourself is rather arbitrary and flawed. Try a different test--try using the same ships and having a target at range 12 moving away at the same speed as the firing ships (i.e. constant fire at range 12) and see how the various ships now fare. Now, repeat the test at range 15. What do these tests prove to you?

As I've said in other threads, the photon doesn't need to be made 'better' it needs to be allowed to do something 'different'. The trick to 'improving' the photon is to give the feds a valid mid-range tactic so that flying fed isn't one dimensional. i.e. overrun or run away. I don't know about you guys, but if I ever try to retrograde, my opponents just quit. That leaves me with one tactic, overrun. It gets boring.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 05:23 pm: Edit

The Fed's aren't one dimensional. Their war construction ships, in squadron strength or more, can saberdance at range 30 - at this range they are literally the best in the game. They have massive phaser-1 arrays (8 Ph-1 are statistically equal to 4 Disr at range 15, assuming nil EW). They have access to drones, allowing ECM drones and scatterpacks. They work very well with fighters; even the mass-produced F18 is superior to anything but the very best enemy fighters. They have a range of neat toys (super escorts, SWAC, super scouts, a little bit of plasma). Even their smallest ships can contribute effectively at long range. The Police ship outgrunts any other Pol and can give some frigates a hard time.

By Alan Bloniarz (Madmax) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 07:16 pm: Edit

No argument from me there Andrew. The feds are great in fleet strength, no doubt about it. In duels, they are decidedly lackluster.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 10:03 pm: Edit

Tourney data doesn't support that Feds are weak in duels. The Fed TCC is missing the drone rack (and therefore the scatterpack) compared to the regular CC, but still manages to give a decent account of itself.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 12:10 am: Edit

In general playing the Feds do have a few vanilla ships that have a hard time fighting because of the way the photon works. However, using the right ship with the refits and all the tools you can muster, the Feds can fair pretty well. In other words, you have to use the drones to manipulate the enemys movement then pound them with photons when the "set up" sets. The NCL and the Fed BCG/F are great in duels. Don't forget the NCC. Another one I like in duels is the CVL (the GSC carrier). That one can be hard to beat! Sure, it has only two photons but just try hitting the thing. And don't get too close least you get zapped with a LOT of P3s!

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 04:33 pm: Edit

Alan,

You said

---

Quote:

Seriously, your test that 'proved' the photons are okay to yourself is rather arbitrary and flawed. Try a different test--try using the same ships and having a target at range 12 moving away at the same speed as the firing ships (i.e. constant fire at range 12) and see how the various ships now fare. Now, repeat the test at range 15. What do these tests prove to you?

---

By William E. Wood (Wxmanwill) on Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 09:09 pm: Edit

I'm not a fan of modifying the photon from its current damage/accuracy. It's the weapon upon which all others torps are balanced. I think the photon is freaking scary if used right. However, not all Fed ships/tactics lend themselves to optimal use of the photon. I think Fed designers would try to add variations of the photon on specialized ships not ideal for standard employment. So... here's my rather limited idea.

Compact Reduced Arming Photon

Reasoning: Pre-General War Fed carrier doctrine used the fighter group on long range strikes. The CVS was used to support the group at range or use its cruiser armament to defend itself. Well, it makes sense that the CVS or even the DD didn't need 16 pt overloads in a battle. A tube that could only produce 10 pt overloads at two-thirds the size of a fully capable launcher would enable underpowered (DDs) or valuable ships (CVSs) to contribute more proximity warheads to a fleet battle (DDs) or in support of a fighter strike (CVSs). A CVS or DD would have six tubes versus the normal four.

Your thoughts?

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Wednesday, August 07, 2002 - 12:37 pm: Edit

That would make the Fed fleet even more freakin scary! Crap, indeed!

By Ben Moldovan (Shadow1) on Wednesday, August 07, 2002 - 12:53 pm: Edit

I don't know if anyone's thought of this before. Here's an idea:

Photons can be programmed to fire at 75% damage (std or ol) and hit at 1-4 at range 8.

.5*16=8
.66*12=8 so no increase in average damage.

This should be X technology. Their enemies got increased ability to take damage on some ships. The Feds did not, but get an option to make them a little less luck dependent. (By the way I still say the Kzin x-cruisers should get 6 disrs too. But this isn't the place to rehash those arguments.)

By John Trauger (Vorlon) on Wednesday, August 07, 2002 - 01:15 pm: Edit

mini-photons.

Rules in Module P4, along with Megaphotons, megaphasers, and X-Frax

By Jonathan Perry (Jonathan_Perry) on Wednesday, August 07, 2002 - 04:52 pm: Edit

Oh man, whydja hafta go and open this again?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, August 07, 2002 - 05:25 pm: Edit

I thought this was dead. Even I admit that photons need no tweaking...and I started this thread many moons ago.

Here's the thing. If I were ever, ever to do anything to improve the photon, it would be only one thing...I'd change it to a 2D6 weapon, and not a 1D6. That would help alleviate some of the EW effects that hurt the photon so much. But, as I say, that's IF I was going to change anything...and I'm not.

By Mike Grafton (Mikegrafton) on Wednesday, August 07, 2002 - 07:16 pm: Edit

Compact Reduced Arming Photon
abbreviated...

By Craig Horvath (Rslayer) on Wednesday, August 07, 2002 - 10:45 pm: Edit

I think the fact that neither of the Steve's have commented in this thread (or any of the many other "Impove the Photon" threads IIRC) is a simple statment that the Photon will remain as is.

RIP