Archive through January 25, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 photons: Archive through January 25, 2003
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 11:18 am: Edit

I think we have too many cooks.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 02:08 pm: Edit

Then maybe we need to do an "iron chef" cookoff. :)

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 02:51 pm: Edit

heheh....can the analogy go any further?

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 07:44 pm: Edit

Being from New Orleans, I say "Kick it up a notch. BAM!"

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 08:26 pm: Edit

In that case I say water is the key ingrediant.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 10:07 pm: Edit

OK, watered down X2 torpedo. Fires every turn, warhead strength of 8.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 11:10 pm: Edit

We could choose not to improve the Phot-torps at all.

How's this sound for an X2 cruisers.

2LF+L Photons, 4FA Photons, 2RF+R Photons & 2RA Photons.

I can dig it.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 11:17 pm: Edit

Sounds like a proposal that belongs on an X0 BB, not an X2 CA.

A Fed CA (regardless of tech level) has 4 torpedos. Warhead has varied, reload time has varied, but not the number of torpedos.

There aren't enough rows on an EA to load 12 separate torpedos.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 11:52 pm: Edit

So why did the YCA have 2?


It's a bit like saying that since the D7 and D6 and D5 all had 4 Disruptors that therefore the 6 disruptors on the DX and DXD were wrong.

Also note that it's 10 Torps, and even a B10 can can deal with that on it's EAF.

I wouldn't scrap the idea of many Phot-tubes because it's acononical...I'ld scrap it because it's a book keeping chore.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 12:34 am: Edit

It's not the same for the Fed. Cruisers have four photons. It's a Fed thing. The YCA is irrelevent to that because the cruiser before that had none.

I think the X2 Fed CC should have FOUR PHOTON TUBES. What comes out of the tube is a matter for debate. If X2 has no improvement tactically for the Photon I'll spit. There has been no change for too long. The old agruments have been that is got the OL and the Prox. OK that's true. But by 205 there has been no change for a long time. It doesn't have to be a big change. But something...please. For X2 at least.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 01:35 am: Edit

Ya know....this kinda has to do with Photons, so I put it here.

What about giving X2 ships, maybe just Feds, the ability to hold warp power in batteries over the turn break?

Fed have 4 tubes.

Now, what to give them for a gimic....hmm.

What about the photon shotgun? many have proposed over the years? decided at the time of firing. divide warhead by 4, that is the number small warheads in the shotgun. Target on SC 5 and smaller of course. so, a 16 point OL can fire 4x4point photons. All must be fired in the same impulse. You can fire them at seperate targets or all at one. Great way to trash fighters, or PFs or seeking weapons (if needed).

Thoughts?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 08:03 am: Edit

Quote:

How's this sound for an X2 cruisers.

2LF+L Photons, 4FA Photons, 2RF+R Photons & 2RA Photons.



The biggest problem I see with that is that it's going to make the 2X cruiser awfully big. Even with normal photons, you'd need a huge amount of power to get the most out of them. I'd prefer to stick to a lower number, four to six at most. Not for canonical reasons, but because it fits the size and power available for the sort of 2X ships I'm thinking about.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 10:10 am: Edit

How about this for the X2 photon:

Hit chart:
0-1 2-3 4-6 7-10 11-15 16-40
std 0 1-5 1-4 1-3 1-2 1-1
prox 0 0 0 0 1-4 1-3
OL 1-6 1-5 1-4 1-3 0 0


1 turn arming weapon
max power 8
max warhead 16
holding as X0

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 11:33 am: Edit

You know, here is an improvement that I haven't heard before. Why not reduce the Myopic zone to just R0. So, make the first column on the Photon Chart 1-3. It's minor and not game breaking.

I just took a good look at that chart Jeff. It's interesting. You just adjusted the ranges. I really have one problem with it. You moved the minmum range of the prox. out two hexes. Why not add another column for ranges 9-10 with standard to hit 1-3 and prox to hit 1-5. Then make a note that proximities cannot be overloaded if you like. No need to devolve the Prox to improve the Photon.

For the most part I like it. With this chart the Photon could still be a two turn arming weapon with fast load ability and it would be greatly improved. Also, with the high speeds of X2 I can definatly see the first shots being at R35-R40.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Eagle) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 12:02 pm: Edit

I suggest we increase the myopic zone!
Giving ships more powerful weapons and at the same time removing the limitations can make them boring. SVC was right when he once turned down a proposal to add a battery refit to all ships (so they could het on reservepower only): It's working around the limitations that makes it fun.
The myopic zone can have an impact on decision making in some situations. Make that happen more often! That way the life of the Fed captain will be more interesting:)

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 12:52 pm: Edit

If you increase the photon damage, remeber that you also increase the Fed feedback damage. You can't make a Newer, more advanced weapon less effective then its older counterparts.

By Mark James Hugh Norman (Mnorman) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 01:53 pm: Edit

Another idea for photon arrangements on ship (well really just a modification of what's above)
How about 2LFL,2FA,2RFR on cruisers and 2LFL,1FA,2RFR on Destroyers and 1LFL,1FA,1RFR on frigates.
For cruisers and frigates this has the same number of photons firing at the target when trying to protect your forward shield, but if you can centreline the opponent you can increase the damage by 50% (but you have to be careful or you could lose your shield 1) I took the destroyer back a little on the principle that a destroyer probably cannot fire as many weapons as a cruiser.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 01:53 pm: Edit

What about this:

X2 Photon is a true one-turn weapon.
4 points arms a standard
4 1/2 - 8 points arms an OL
Can no longer apply 2 power on the first turn.
Max warhead is 16 damage / 8 power.

X1 was a hybrid one-turn/two-turn weapon.
Could arm an OL in one turn, but no more than 6 power.
Could apply 2 the first turn and 2 the second to arm standard.

0-12-34-67-89-1011-1516-40
standard01-51-41-31-31-21
Prox00001-41-41-3
OL1-61-51-41-31-300
Damage8888888
Dam. Proxxxxx444


1-5 to hit with a prox at 9-10 seems a bit much, considering there will be a -1 shift (autohits) whenever fighting X1/X0.

By Mark James Hugh Norman (Mnorman) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 09:18 am: Edit

Jeff: we need to keep a distinction between photons and disruptors. For this we would need to beef up the 2 turn shot, not the 1-turn shot.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 12:05 pm: Edit

But unfortunately, X1 rapid arming already made the photon a (limited) one turn weapon.

My disruptor idea helps bring back the distinction.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 01:12 pm: Edit

But this blurs it again.

The photon as simply a 1-turn arming weapon is both aesthetically displeasing (to me personally) and loses some Fed racial flavor.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 01:56 pm: Edit

X1 allowed the photon to be armed in one turn as a flex option, and it offset the extra 50% disruptors the Klingon X ships were getting. I'm all for continuing one-turn arming, but not making it one-turn, period. The photon does plenty of damage; it just doesn't hit well. Figuring out some way to improve that, but not breaking it, is our best bet, IMHO.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 02:07 pm: Edit

To make the Photon purely a one turn arming weapon actually makes it worse for the Feds who have now the option of the same thing (Fast Load) or taking their time and putting power in a little ata time. The Pure one turn arming makes it so you HAVE to use all four power in one turn to load it. That would hurt the Feds and way slow them down.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 02:51 pm: Edit

I see your point Loren. The "extended arming", i.e. 2 turns, may still be tactically useful for the Feds. And so it's worth keeping as an option.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 09:56 pm: Edit

Quote:

But unfortunately, X1 rapid arming already made the photon a (limited) one turn weapon.

My disruptor idea helps bring back the distinction.



If you keep the X2 Photon as being able to load a 12 point in 0ne turn and a 20 point in 2, you may well find people returing to the turn of attack, turn of defense styler of Fed combat that is more traditional.
12 jumps up to 16, really means 16s, ONLY when a good firing opportunity didn't present it'self.
We need to make the two turn damage SO massive that people are will to give up good off turn phaser shots in order to build 2 turn heavies.
Perhaps we won't get that until the Two Turn Photon is able to dish out 24 pointers ( or maybe even 28 pointers ) but where-ever the point is, we should bring that Two Turn warhead up to close to that. ( and 96 points of damage from a narrow volley is not a game breaker, the Kzinti CS can do that with just getting the right 2/3 of her heavies to hit and 112 can still be beaten by hitting with all her Havies from R4 or less ).

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