Remember a Fed CA in an oblique at R4 does 16 points of damage with her phaser suite and 4/6 of 4 x 16 with her heavies, THAT's why the feds use the Two Turn method, the Phaser damage is pityful compaied to the heavies.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 10:44 pm: Edit

If the photon can do 12 each turn, then 24 every other turn is the same damage over two turns.

As a minimum, I would expect X2 to improve the one-turn firepower from 12 to 16. How much the two-turn firepower increases is another story.

X2 battles will have a faster tempo than X0 fights. The ships will routinely be running 31 and the drones may be faster than that.

I have a pair of ideas as to how to improve the disrtuptors and the photons, while still trying to retain the difference in fire rates.

X2 photon:
One turn weapon
Can use "extended arming", i.e. 2 turns

	0-1	2-3	4-6	7-8	9-10	11-15	16-40
Std	x	1-5	1-4	1-3	1-2	1-2	1-1
OL	1-6	1-5	1-4	1-3	1-3	x	x
Prox	x	x	x	x	1-4	1-4	1-3

X2 disruptor rifle:
(The details are in the X2 disruptors thread.)

Shot	0	1	2	3-4	5-10	11-15	16-22	23-30	31-40
Small	x	1-5	1-5	1-5	1-4	1-4	1-3	1-2	1-2
Medium	1-6	1-5	1-5	1-5	1-5	1-3	1-2	x	x
Large	1-6	1-5	1-5	1-5	1-4	1-2	x	x	x
Mega	1-6	1-5	1-5	1-4	1-3	x	x	x	x
Damage	0	1	2	3-4	5-10	11-15	16-22	23-30	31-40
Small	x	5	4	4	3	3	2	2	1
Medium	10	10	8	8	6	6	4	x	x
Large	15	15	12	12	9	9	x	x	x
Mega	20	20	16	16	12	x	x	x	x

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 12:18 am: Edit

The Feds would be much better served by more photons (including rear firing) then by heavier photons. 16-point photons already break the game every time they jackpot. 24-point photons are unthinkable. You get the same results by giving a ship 6x16-point photons while reducing the jackpot odds and increasing damage resistance. A much better trade off then worrying about some archaic 2-turn arming sequence. The photon can be improved in ways other then making the warhead larger.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 12:25 am: Edit

Is 4x16 each turn combined with the range increases two messages up enough of an improvement?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 05:02 am: Edit

---

Quote:

If the photon can do 12 each turn, then 24 every other turn is the same damage over two turns.

---

---

Quote:

Is 4x16 each turn combined with the range increases two messages up enough of an improvement?

---

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 09:52 pm: Edit

Proposed X2 photon rules (my idea, after seeing everything else on the board)

On the first turn of arming:
• On EA, the decision to use a two-turn or one-turn arming cycle must be chosen.

If using two-turn arming,
• Between 2-6 points of energy must be used.
• Using more than 2 commits the torpedo to overload.
• A torpedo using two-turn arming cannot be fired on the first turn, even with reserve power.

If using one-turn arming,
• between 4-8 points of energy must be used.
• Using more than 4 commits the torpedo to overload.

In either case,
• The decision to use a proximity fuse must be made on the EA that arming is complete.
• This decision cannot be changed until the next EA.
• A proximity fuse cannot be placed on an overloaded torpedo.
• If not fired on the turn arming is complete, the torpedo may be held as in the normal rules.
• No torpedo can have more than 8 points applied to it (not including holding energy}, resulting in a 16 point warhead.

The only difference between this and X1 that I can see is that in X1, no more than 6 points of energy can go to any torpedo, which explains the 12 point warhead.

One other change, ranges have improved.

	0-1	2-3	4-6	7-8	9-10	11-15	16-40
Std	x	1-5	1-4	1-3	1-3	1-2	1-1
OL	1-6	1-5	1-4	1-3	1-3	x	x
Prox	x	x	x	x	1-4	1-4	1-3

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 10:15 pm: Edit

Why would I ever commit to 2-turn arming the weapon?

It appears that I can fill out an arming intended to be 1-turn as a 2-turn but not the reverse, so why ever arm as a 2-turn?

Moreover, you are removing from the photon a capability it currently has...the ability to finish arming on the second turn if you don't fire it the first.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 10:22 pm: Edit

Having a 2 hex overlap bewteen proxi and Overload may not work to the effet you want as ships may jump 3 hexes on each other.

I'ld like to have Proxi Overloads, as it's the best way I can see to avoid the UIM Overloaded Disruptor 5/6 hit effect of almost always being able to score the expected damage.

I'ld also like to see 10 or 12 point standards as they would be fun. Perhaps a 6 and a 4 point standard would be fun too.

I'm not sure I like R10 overloads, they may add so much to the BPV the FFXX will be taking on BCHs.

I'ld also like to ask, why does that 0.5 points of warp added to overload the Photon allow it to hit 50% more often at R10?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 10:27 pm: Edit

Actually, this is an idea that could be make the X2s true dancers without causing them to be unbeatable in against the GWs.

No changes to Disruptors or Photons from X1 except.

Photons get overloaded Proxies.
Disruptors get an Advanced UIM with a +2 bonus.

Sure the Klingons will hit 100% of the time unless EW upsets things, but the the Feds are Firing back with 83% so it's okay.
Perhaps the AUIM should have the old GW UIM 32 impulse problem and the attacker can choose which kind of UIM he shall fire ( UIM or AUIM ).

In this way the X2 vessels will DANCE.
But they will Dance inside overload range and thus actually get hit by the GW ships.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 10:28 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I'ld also like to ask, why does that 0.5 points of warp added to overload the Photon allow it to hit 50% more often at R10?

---

---

Quote:

Moreover, you are removing from the photon a capability it currently has...the ability to finish arming on the second turn if you don't fire it the first

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 10:37 pm: Edit

I'll have to check X1. i thought you could old a fast-loaded torp over for a second turn.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 10:39 pm: Edit

I don't think X1 ever forced a Rapid Arming Vs Normal Arming onto anyone.

I remember in X1 it says that it was Standard Practice to load 12 point Fast Overloads and then if a firing opportunity did not present it'self, to finish them off as 16 pointers.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 12:12 am: Edit

OL Proxies wouldn't be such a bad thing except that there MUST still be a myopic zone. Currently it is 8 hexes. I could see that going to half so the minimum range for a OL Proxie would be 5. I could not accept less than that. If this were to be then that would be the main improvement.

Careful consideration must be given to making a ten point standard. I'm not against this either and might could be mixed with the R5 Proxie but consider that allowing five point warheads with a 50% chance of hitting out to 30 (or maybe 40 for X2) is a huge thing. Maybe not so much with X2 on X2 duels but X2 against anything else or a X2 fleet against anyone else (X2 or not) would be extremely powerful. And 4 point proxie out to 40 is a big deal too. It's a super base busting ability for a fleet of Feds.

And you can't say there won't be X2 fleets because there will be. Just not commonly.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 07:32 pm: Edit

What if the prox torp, instead of an overload, gets a chance to score an improved hit?

Due to improved targeting systems on X2 ships, sometimes, the prox trop scores better damage than normal.

How about this?
If you need 1-3 to hit, then if you hit with a 3, you score 4 points. If you hit with a 2, you score 5 damage. If you hit with a 1, you score 6 damage. And if you roll a 4, you still miss.

Or would it make the system look too much like a phaser? 6-5-4-0-0-0

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 08:13 pm: Edit

Yes...too much like a range of effect weapon.

Better to have a 1/2 damage and +2 to hit proxi.
AND a 3/4 damage +1 to hit Vacinity or Locality shot.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 08:37 pm: Edit

Jeff, wait. I can see something like that but howabout scaled down. If a Proximity Photon rolls an effective 1 (i.e. if after EW the result is a one) then it hits right on top of the ship and does full damage (8).

Sort of like a GPD critical success roll. Heh? See??

You could make it even harder and have the actual roll be a one AND the effective result be one or less.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 09:53 pm: Edit

You know a total range of effect would mitigate the biggest problem I have with photons; their damage spikes.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 10:59 pm: Edit

Spoken like a true Klingon....Tholian...Lyran...Or Kzinti.

The biggest problem with Photons is that they are lousey in a heavy EW enviroment.

A true range of effect weapon instead would mittigate some of that problem.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 11:45 pm: Edit

OK, we keep the prox as it is. Racial flavor.

Very vulnerable to EW
a lot of power to arm
miss quite often
very sweet when most hit.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 12:12 am: Edit

Guys the std Photon is a bit weak in a duel situation. But when going up to Fleet size it becomes MUCH more useful.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 12:15 am: Edit

Proposal: The "Federation New Static Tuner Ultraplexing Proximity Identification Device."

This device nullifies all EW not generated by a specific device (i.e. ECM Drones, Scout Sensor Channels, EW pods)or naturally occuring. It is present on all Federation ships and effects an area of one entire parsec radius. It is powered with Life Support. The effect is lost when the ship is destroyed.

There, now the Photon is fixed.

Disclamer: This post is not directed at any one in any way. I just couldn't help myself. I'm in a funny mood.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 12:45 am: Edit

Loren,

Did your dinner have any special sauce on it?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 12:49 am: Edit

Can we declare that ECM drones are ineffective against X2 sensors?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 12:54 am: Edit

Ketchup and mustard. And yes, I got the darn mustard on my shirt! I hate that! F'N STUPID.

Tos, I think it would be a given unless it's a X2 ECM drone which would be developed. I can't see it being not.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 07:39 am: Edit

ECM drones are interesting but they got to the point where the side that didn't have them was at a major disadvantage. Basically they were somewhat unbalancing so we started to spread them to everyone else. Even plasma got one. Once everyone has the same thing all it does is slow the game down. An X2 drone ship could still launch an ECM drone, it just wouldn't work against another X2 ship.