Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through February 08, 2003	25		02/08 02:48pm
	Archive through February 10, 2003	25		02/10 12:50am
	Archive through February 16, 2003	25		02/16 01:59pm

I think, at least for my SSDs, ill assume 'leading burst' bores. It seems the least-attacked theorm here.

Sides, hydrans are already mizia bait, and mizia deliverers of fear. If you cut to 2 HBs, the mizia problems for them get worse, and you loose the joy that is 4 hotloaded weakest-sheild mizias every-freakin-turn.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 09:21 pm: Edit

Actually I was thinking about the entire damage being focused onto a single shield and I think I would allow it with a few combined penalties. I think I'ld allow 4 hellbores on a cruiser if it had some limitations.

• A range limitation ( say R15 or maybe R8 )

• No flexibility, You can't start loading something and then finish it as one of the these nore start on of these nor finish loading it as something else. ( A 7+7 arming cost should mean there is no confussion ).

• Two turn arming only ( see below for details) which can not be held.

• Inaccuracy (the defending target gains 5 natural ECM when attacked by the hellbore ).

• A turn of coolling after fire ( and this is the divice to stop the Hellbore from trouncing on Photons as the primary shield smasher weapon ).


I would consider firing the weapon in overload mode as well.

• Regular R8 overload limitation.

• Three turns of arming as 7+7+7 which can not be held (but is a standard that was continued so the Player does not need to state that he is going for an overload until the final turn of arming).

• Two turns of cooling.

It then becomes the extension of the arming cycle that stops the all facing shield damage hellbore from becoming more devistating than the Photon.
a 100% increase in the damage to the shield coupled with a 50% incease in the arming cycle length comes out at a mere 33% increase in fire power ( not counting the EW effects ) which is actually less powerful than the 50% increase in the photon.

I'ld also like to allow standards fastloads to be finished off in the second turn as super overloads that inflict twice the damage as standards but can only be fired in the usual direct fire and enveloping modes ( i.e. no shaped charge ).

By David Cooke (Dcooke) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 01:03 pm: Edit

A function I'd really like to see added to the hellbore would be some kind of holding ability, and since I've been shouted down when I suggested it as an earlier upgrade, X2 would seem like the logical place to do it.

While it is true that hellbore ships tend to have extra APR, it is still difficult to them to move quickly while arming all their weapons in the manner that, say a Fed CA, can. How about letting X2 hellbore ships hold a standard hellbore for 1.5 points, or an overload for 3 points?

By Ed Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Dave the refited Dragoon vs a Refited CA give the Hydran a top speed of 27 on the first turn of arming and if the fed only uses 2 to each photon he has a tops of 24. If it is the second turn of arming and the fed goes for full overloads he can only do 7 it could be higher if he commits more power on the first turn of arming put then he is slowed down a corresponding amount then. Th Hydran even moving to full overloads can still do 15. so it would seem if you want to do what a fed CA can do then we need to slow you down. remember it costs warp power to arm a photon. Hey this is from a guy who is you fed ally in 2 campaign games. I wish I could move the speed and have the power of the Hydran, 43 points of power, what a fed CA that would make.

ed your ally.

By Ed Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 03:40 pm: Edit

Xclass are almost as bad, If I overload my 4 phots it costs 24 warp power, which limits me to speed 20, if i do use fast overloads i cant hold them. Hellebores cant be overloaded, but can be held at the standard level and you will still have the power to move faster than the fed,Overall it seems that the Hydrans when compared to the fed have an abundance of power. dragoon X to fed CX, also you can use the battery power to arm the hellbores if needed.

Your ally again.

By David Cooke (Dcooke) on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 10:35 pm: Edit

Ed,

I hope I won't be jeopardizing any of my alliances by doing so, but I have to disagree with you on a couple of these points.

The Fed CA vs. Dragoon comparison is a good one, but let's make sure we are comparing apples to apples.

For the unrefitted CA vs. unrefitted DG, it's 34 power to 40 power; 6 points in favor of the Hydrans. For the CA+ with AWR refit (probably most appropriate comparison, as the "+" is all the DG ever gets), it's 36 points vs. 43 points; again 7 points in the Hydran's favor.

For the unrefitted Fed, loading 4 standards limits the ship to speed 22, after paying housekeeping. For the Hydran, it's speed 24, which is fairly similar. For the refitted ships, it's speed 24 for the Fed, and speed 27 for the Hydran. Again, advantage goes to the Hydran. So for standard loads, I would agree the Hydran has a power and speed advantage, although it could be argued that the power advantage is offset by the disadvantage of the Hydran's phaser-2's vs. the Fed's phaser-1's.

However, photon holding gives the Fed a number of options that the Hydran does not have. Even an unrefitted Fed CA can run at speed 26 while holding fully loaded standards, or speed 24 holding overloads. An unrefitted DG can't do better than speed 13 with overloads (16 for the DG+), under any circumstances. The Fed can also choose when to fire his overloads; the Hydran is irrevocably committed when he overloads. This is particularly an advantage when the Feds enter at WS-III; WS-III doesn't help the Hydrans to nearly the same degree. That's a big deal; I don't think I need to point out to you that one overloaded photon volley will cripple or destroy most ships.

Now, looking at X1 ships: the Fed CX has 48 power (44 warp) and 5 batteries (X-batteries), and the DGX has 54 power and 4 batteries. As before, a modest power advantage for the Hydran. However, look what happens when they start fast-loading: The Fed slows down to 28, but the DGX is down to 26. The Fed can also fast-overload, while the Hydran is limited to fast-standards; a big Fed advantage, especially since the Fed can also do partial-overloads to maintain high speed. Additionally, the CX has 12 phaser-1's to the DGX's 9.

So, while it is true that hellbore ships have a power advantage over the Feds with non-X technology ships, this is offset to a considerable extent by superior Fed firepower (same power cost for P-1 vs. P-2, but substantial damage difference) and greater Fed tactical flexibility. When you get to X1 ships, the Hydran power advantage is lost, and the Feds retain their phaser advantage and most of their tactical advantages.

Unless the X2 Hydrans get a larger power increase or some other major new tactical advantage that the X2 Feds don't, I don't see how the X2 Hydrans would come out ahead, even with holding ability. If you still think my proposal would give too large a power advantage of the Hydrans, use the X1 standard holding cost and 4 points for the overload hold, and only allow non-fastloaded hellbores to be held.

Your Comrade-In-Arms (all three of them)

By Ed Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 12:34 pm: Edit

The main problem of comparing the 2 weapon systems is that in order to equal out the damage the fed will have to have some form of OL. In a mid range battle the HB willget internals first, just because once you get a weakened shield it become very difficult to protect. So what results is a Fed that has t use more power to OL the photons and at the same time move at a high rate of speed in order to close the the OL range. Now granted a great deal is going to depend on the players involved, and if you are using electronic warfare which has a greater effect on the Photon than it has on the HB, something else to spend that power on. Fast loads are not all perfect for the fed. If he fast loads them as OL he is limited to 12 points and they cannot be held. If he goes with standards or Proxs the advantage goes to fast loaded HB, also remember the power in the batteries can also be used to arm HBs. Based on average damage the standard HB will do better at most ranges than the Standard Phot. Hey eventually we will find out which is best, because in the end "There Can Be Only One" in our campaigns

Your friendly Fed

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 07:09 am: Edit

I just had a screwball idea for X2 PPD:

What if it had a "cloak jammer" setting where the pulses would be directed against a cloaked Romulan, the objective being to try and reduce the effectiveness of a cloak or trick it into decloaking?

This just popped into my head and it hasn't gone anywhere beyond that. Any ideas?

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 08:08 am: Edit

Sort of a "flashlight", to go with the T-bomb's "flash-cube" effect.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 06:24 pm: Edit

Perhaps each pulse reduces the Romulan cloak?

First pulse hits normally, but reduces the Rom form 2x range +5 to +4
Second pulse reduced to +3, then +2, then +1...

At no point does the 2x range ever go away.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 07:50 pm: Edit

Yeah that sounds right. Kind of makes the ISC cloak hunters.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 08:09 am: Edit

Personally I think DAMAGING THE CLOAK is probably a bad idea. How long does the effect last and why does it occour?...and how does it get restored???

Besides which isn't a PPD a weapon that need a lock on in order to fire at a target???


Now splash damage having a flashcube like effect, that I can see. ISC STROBE LIGHT anyone!?!

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 03:02 pm: Edit

MJC,

There would be no actual damage to the cloak, just a temporary reduction of its effect.

The effect would last for between 2-4 impulses after the last pulse hit, then the cloaked ship fades back as if recloaking.

The effect has to last for a little while because the cloak negates wavelock and the PPD has to roll to hit with every pulse.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 02:44 am: Edit

Any takers on this? I haven't really gone anywhere with this other than just the basic concept. I think John T. and Mike P. are heading where I was thinking. MJC you misunderstood, the idea wasn't to damage but to use the PPD to reduce the effectiveness of the cloak like the "flashcube" effect of a T-bomb. "Strobe Light" actually describes it well but as John says: no damage.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 04:39 pm: Edit

If the effect is too good, you can have the cloak snap back to full on after the last pulse's effect period is over.

It'd be sort of like semi-flashcubing the cloaked ship without ever really locking-on.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 04:00 am: Edit

I'm not sure a strobe light would sound right for a continuois lock on such that plasma can reach there target but I supose using the PPD to get a lock-on that then lasts four the duration of the PPD pulses and thus allows Plamsa to reach the cloaked vessel, would be a very handy weapon for the ISC to have when fighting the Romulans.

I'ld argue that the pluse causes a lock-on roll just like a T-bomb but inorder for the weapon to provide enough signal for the plasma to track the pulse had to be spread out over a slightly longer time and thus inflicts no damage to the cloaked vessel.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 04:28 pm: Edit

A lock-on roll could easily be too good.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 07:24 am: Edit

Lock on roll with penalties?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 03:53 pm: Edit

The normal lock-on roll is pretty harsh.

It's just the sheer number of chances to get lock-on...

I'd give you a chance at lock-on for successful hits after the +5 part of the cloak range is dropped to 0. That would force the ISC to choose between trying to get lock-on attempts and focused damage on a single shield.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 01:09 am: Edit

Make the decision whether to jam the cloak or to cause some damage?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 04:32 pm: Edit

Not so much decide between damage and cloak effects so much as spreading the PPD pulses out to produce long-term degradation, which usually means the damage will be spread on two, possible three shields or trying to really sand blast one or two shields.

That said, allowing the PPD a non-damaging flashcube option would be interesting.

I fire one PPD in flashcube mode so all the pulses hit for no damage and flashcube the cloaked ship then roll for lock-on. A std PPD would give as many as 4 lock-on possibilities, giving an ISC fleet a substantial chance and a fair number of ships coming out with lock-on.

That could also be too powerful.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 05:17 am: Edit

But worth playtesting some day?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 03:27 pm: Edit

Knock yourself out.

I don't have the spare time.