Because full spread makes photons much, much better. It would guarantee one hit at range 8, rather than the 1/8 chance of no hits, and improve the odds of 2 hits at range 8 significantly as well. The downside, of course, is that you'd never get 4 hits.

But since the player making the shot can decide to use a "normal" or "full" spread shot, he can pick the one best suited to the tactical situation, which means photons are improved.

By Oliver Dewey Upshaw III (Oliverupshaw) on Friday, November 15, 2002 - 12:55 pm: Edit

Jonathan I think you missed Jay's statement "reroll each duplicate die one time." If you blow the reroll you are still out of luck and therefor you are not guaranteed a hit nor are you barred from getting four hits. Let's look at the infamous 5-8 range 50% chance of a hit. You roll the dice and get 4,4,5,6, reroll one 4 you get 4 again, rerolls complete you are out of luck. Or if you roll 1,2,2,3 reroll one 2, get a 1 rerolls complete you have four hits. If you roll 4,4,4,4 you reroll 3 of the dice and use what they now say even if they are all 4 again. Otherwise if a ship with 6 photons fired there would be no need to roll dice at all as by your interpretation none of the dice can match at the end of the rerolling and I guess a Fed Battleship would only be able to fire 6 of its 8 photons at a time as there would be no way to have 8 seperate results from a six sided die.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, November 15, 2002 - 01:28 pm: Edit

If you're going to do a "full spread", you put photons on 2d6. something like

2: 0
3: 0
4: 1
5: 1
6: 2
7: 2
8: 2
9: 3
10: 3
11: 4
12: 4

...and modify for EW.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, November 15, 2002 - 01:30 pm: Edit

That's about the only way I'd think photons could be changed without drastically altering their performance. Personally, I think they're fine as is. It helps to not try to compare them to what you see in the movies or TNG-era shows. Those sorts of weapons wouldn't make it in SFB without totally ruining the game, IMHO.

By Aaron M. Staley (Aaron_Staley) on Saturday, November 16, 2002 - 11:10 am: Edit

TNG? Oh, I see, the shows I never watch anyway...
Photons are great THE WAY THEY ARE! Altering them in any way beyond what they currently are will make the crunch ships (as I call them) invincible.
For me, it would be like proposing further improvements to the disruptor bolt beyond UIM's.
(and I generally play Klingons) It would create a weapon that would be close to perfect. Then all we'd have to do is find a way to fire it without expending power. Go figure. Again, my two cents.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, November 16, 2002 - 11:48 am: Edit

Aaron,

They DID do that, once upon a time...in the old rules for 2X ships, disruptors were not only more accurate, but could be double overloaded. And, they had capacitors to store energy so the drain wasn't so heavy. Now, that was the ultimate weapon.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, November 16, 2002 - 01:54 pm: Edit

Agreed. Double OLs only cost 6, were held for 1 or nothing (the memeory, gratefully, fades) and did 3x damage--15 at Range 0-1.

But then, there were a lot of problems with X2, such as 2:1 specific shield reinforcement combined with 5-point batteries combined with battleship shields.

I was once in a X2 cruiser free-for-all. The first alpha-strike to hit an X2 ship does no or light damage due to shields and batteries. If it takes a second before building back its battery power, it's instant-death.

SVC says that product was produced out-of-house and not subjected to the ADB's normal playtest regimin. It shows.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, November 16, 2002 - 02:16 pm: Edit

I bet. I played the 2X stuff when I got my hands on the supplement. It's...intense, to say the least. In truth, nothing can whip a 2X ship one on one. The special sensors, hold options, power curve and super weapons are just obscene. How about that advanced photon? Woof!

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, November 16, 2002 - 06:25 pm: Edit

I almost got someone to play an X2 Fed DD vs. and X1 Fed CA. X2 is good, but they're eggshells and I counted on the X1's internal durability to give me an edge in the theoretically even-BPV fight.

By Aaron M. Staley (Aaron_Staley) on Sunday, November 17, 2002 - 09:04 am: Edit

Mike R:

NO THEY DIDN'T! 2X is not released yet and the old 2X is pretty much considered obsolete or never happened. besides, 2x is WAY in the SFB future to even use for an example for changes that are being proposed for General war era ships. besides 2x ships are as close to perfect as I can really think of for now.
Until X2 appears on shelves (in 2050, and I'm pushing counters with a cane) there should be no further adjustments to any heavy weapon in the game.
That's my oppinion. If you think you can get me to change it, go ahead, I'm listening.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, November 17, 2002 - 12:06 pm: Edit

um...Aaron?

Mike WAS referring to the old X2...

It's the only rules-set we *can* refer to, for reasons you mention.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, November 17, 2002 - 02:17 pm: Edit

Aaron,

I'm not sure what the outburst is all about; I was simply mentioning the old Supplement #2 rules for advanced technolgoy heavy weapons. I know it's obsolete; I just brought it up as part of the discussion of "ultimate weapons." I'm not trying to influence anyone, or change anyones mind.

By Aaron M. Staley (Aaron_Staley) on Sunday, November 17, 2002 - 05:00 pm: Edit

Yeah, Sorry, I have to remember capitals mean yelling (which I'm definately not doing). My point is that the old X2 is just that. Old and obsolete. How can anybody use that material for a basis in discussion? Even X1 is all screwed up now because of errata (my opinion only). Granted, when X2 does come out, the heavy weapons will have some drastic improvements made to them.
However, during the General War, ISC invasion, and Andro invasion, I don't believe that there would be any significant or historical technological breakthroughs that would change any heavy weapon currently in use. Photons are good where they are.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, November 17, 2002 - 07:35 pm: Edit

Then we agree. Photons, IMHO, are peaked. To make them better, even for X2, will mean making them nearly a super weapon...unless they change from a 1D6 to a 2D6. Accuracy is the only thing left to improve after 1X, unless you wanted to make them more damaging (let's hope not.)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, November 17, 2002 - 08:45 pm: Edit

Well, there is always that "Lite" Photon idea of mine.

By Aaron M. Staley (Aaron_Staley) on Monday, November 18, 2002 - 05:22 am: Edit

Actually, I've seen the light photon somewhere, and I liked the idea. I would have been for putting them on the Fed non-cruiser units if it wasn't for the fact that over half of the SSD's would have to be changed and it would probably unbalance the game. But I did like it LK.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, November 18, 2002 - 11:49 am: Edit

There were at least a couple of light photon ideas. Mine was...if you can overload them, how about underloading them. It was simple:

Lite Armed Photon Torpeedo: Arms with two Warp power, one each of two turns. Damage=4, max range=12. (Commited to Lite status one Turn 1. Can eject and start over Turn 2.)

Alternative arming: 2+1. The decision to arm as Lite is made on the second turn. Damage=4, max range=30.
Status is announced at the point of firing. Could have a Proximity Fuse (Damage=2) but that would be pretty desperate.

The idea is that the first two points of arming are for the drive system. If you underload the drive system it can't contain a larger warhead and go as far.

It would have limited utility but would be useful, particularly to cripples and small ships trying to keep up with a fast fleet. That old Fed DD might fire more of these than anybody.

By Aaron M. Staley (Aaron_Staley) on Monday, November 18, 2002 - 12:00 pm: Edit

Hmmm. still I wouldn't make an official change to the current photon rules for pre-X ships.

By Scott Iles (Smrl) on Monday, November 18, 2002 - 08:04 pm: Edit

I posted an idea that I don't think got any comments at the time, so I'll try again.

How about a "spread" of photons, that would add +1 to the die roll of up to one-third of the photons fired, at the cost of subtracting 1 from another third. The last group would fire normally. This would increase the chance of at least one hit, while not affecting the overall percentages.

For example, a CA fires four photons. One would have a +1 to hit, two would fire normally, and one would have a -1. A DNG would divide them into equal groups of three. A ship with less than three photons could not create a spread pattern.

Any thoughts?

By Aaron M. Staley (Aaron_Staley) on Monday, November 18, 2002 - 08:22 pm: Edit

The odds of you still getting one hit are still pretty good without what you're proposing. Besides, what kind of fire control could do this?
(without REALLY reaching into the severe depths of science fiction imagination).

By Jay Paulson (Etjake) on Monday, November 18, 2002 - 09:07 pm: Edit

Also that kind of spread will have alot of abuse from differnt photon loads.

By Scott Iles (Smrl) on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 - 01:18 am: Edit

I was thinking more along the lines of a firing pattern where you accept that some will miss in exchange for a better chance of some hitting, rather than a different type of fire control. Sort of the opposite of a narrow salvo.

Now that I think about it, there isn't any reason that most heavy weapons couldn't use this. Of course, I'm not familiar with every weapon in the game, but I see this as a way of making the photon a little more predictable.

By Aaron M. Staley (Aaron_Staley) on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 - 05:48 am: Edit

I would assume that the word "predictable" means to achieve close to the same effect every time. The majority of alpha strikes with photons I've seen (when used properly) have a 50% hit ratio. This is still very good. Closing with an enemy is not really a problem either with those AWR's (which I consider the big photon fix anyway).
Patience is the key, along with maneuver.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 - 01:17 pm: Edit

...and there's a plethora of photon-fix topics along with a "Fix the Feds" and "Give the Feds what they want" topics.

This has been thrashed through at least once before. Proposals such as "one auto-miss for +1 to the rest" aren't new.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 - 01:25 pm: Edit

Loren's idea about underloading a photon is interesting to me, and doesn't seem like it would break the game. However, ANY proposal to make the photon more accurate, EW resistant, powerful, or cheaper to arm is going to make them too powerful to use. This, from someone that previously lobbied to make them more accurate. They're fine. I did rather like the old mini/mega photon rules, though, and have used them before in play. They certainly do add some bite to the vanilla Fed DN, and the minis provide some interesting abilities for the DD and FF.