Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board

Archive through February 14, 2003

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 photons: Archive through February 14, 2003

By Aaron Gimblet (Marcus) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 09:04 pm: Edit

Im not much married to going any direction with the Photons... though id prefer 12-24 just too keep the OL crush the preferred Photon Use. Lets keep Photons Photons. The other plus side is that with a smooth 50% increase in firepower compared to X0, we can fairly easily review and 'guesstimate' our changes to other heavies.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 09:53 pm: Edit

All we have to do is agree on a standard of comparison.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 12:34 am: Edit

The biggest problem I have with photons is their ability to do incredible crunch while held using very little power. I don’t support going beyond 16-points for a full overload and instead offer these compelling upgrades.

Key:
Turn 1 max power [+ Turn 2 max power [ + Hold Power ] ] = Warhead, range limitations and notes

X0:
1) 2+2=8 Standard
2) 2+2+1=8 Held Standard
3) 4+4=16 Overload, range 8 max
4) 4+4+2=16 Held Overload, range 8 max

X1 adds:
1) 4=8 Fastload Standard, range 15 max
2) 6=12 Fastload Overload, range 8 max

X2 adds:
1) Photons can be armed with dial-a-torp warheads between 4 and 16 (warhead = 2 * input).
2) Proximity fuse gives –2 to hit at all ranges and all warheads for half damage. Proximity fuse is always installed and firing method is selected at time of launch rather than EA.
3) No EA distinction need be made to differentiate a fastload and a multi-turn load. In X1 (XE4.5) photon loading requires a notation describing type in EA.
4) 5=10 Fastload Standard, range 30 max
5) 6=12 Fastload Overload, range 12 max
6) 8=16 Fastload Overload, range 8 max

Advantages of X2 photon:
1) Improved range for 10 and 12-point torps (30/12)
2) Improved proximity fuse
3) Improved dial-a-torp warhead settings
4) Eliminates cryptic EA notations required in X1

These changes provide significant enhancements to the photon without resorting to boosting the warhead. If you still feel you need a boosted warhead then I would propose that warheads between 17-20 be allowed but require reserve warp to complete and be non-holdable.

7) (two-turn load totaling 8 input power) +2 reserve = 16 point overload with 2 reserve warp added when fired to boost warhead output to 20. Range 8 max, non-holdable.
8) (two-turn load totaling 8 input power) +2 hold +2 reserve = 16 point held overload with 2 reserve warp added when fired to boost warhead output to 20. Range 8 max, non-holdable.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 01:02 am: Edit

Here's a radical idea:

For X2: revert back to the X0 photon, but with only one exception: eliminate the hold cost.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 01:13 am: Edit

Quote:
The biggest problem I have with photons is their ability to do incredible crunch while held using very little power. I don’t support going beyond 16-points for a full overload and instead offer these compelling upgrades.

That's not going to be as much of problem in X2 as you might think.

With 4, 24 point Photons, held ( and thus not required to be held with warp power ) you'll pay 3 power per tube for a total of 12 point of power, which is nimiscule compared to the 58 to 70 point of power TOTAL that a XC is supossed to be running around with at just 20.6% to 17.1%.

A Lyran opponent with four Disruiptors will be spending 16 points of power on his disruptors to fire them ( or 8 to hold them ) which is 27.6% to 22.8% and the holding costs will be 13.8% to 11.4% but the ESGs will be able to inflict about R3 30 points of damage and R0 40 points of damage, each and the ship'll have a pauir of them.

Now it seems to me that the ability to hold massively devistaing shots for the Fed vessels isn't very cheap, considing how much power the Lyran may spend every round or every other round if he wishes to hold. The Fed is paying the average of the Holding cost and the arming cost of overloaded disruptors to hold it's weapons each turn.

I say that's a good thing and should do nicely...although it'll be altered when we finnally have a plan for the X2 Disruptor.

The other thing about the X2 cruisers is that they'll be tough.
If you have 5 BTTYs holding 5 Points, then you'll be able to take a 24 point Photon and clear it away with BTTY power and still have 1 point left.
If you have 12 X2Ph-1s ( 36 points in the Caps ) you can pay for a 24 point Photon hit with Caps-to-SSReo and still fire 8Ph-1 shots in your attack run.
Then you have the 40-50 sheild boxes ( 50 - 60 if Caps-to-SSReo doesn't get added ) that'll take another two 24 point warhead to be breached.

Quite simply in X2 Cruiser duel the Federation Cruiser will fire it's 24 point warheads and do a little tiny -3 to 18 points of damage ( depending on a bunch of things IF IT GETS ALL 4 TO HIT.

The GW and MY Fed CA crucifies the target cruiser with 30+ internals if it gets all 4 Photons to hit.

Simply put, in an X2 duel the Feds could run around with 32 point warheads and still be only about as danagerous as they were to their oppoenents during the MY period.

Lets just be happy with the fact that the Feds are a crapshoot and not bemoan the possibility that the 24 point warhead might come to pass.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 09:50 am: Edit

MJC: The ship you describe in your above example would likely have a BPV in excess of 600. Come back down out of the clouds. Forget X2 vs. X2 duels; please, I implore you. Our challenge is finding a balance between X2 and X0/X1/XP. I'll keep an open mind to 24-point photons if you can show me an example using X0 where it isn't unbalancing. Assume I'm flying a 200 BPV C7 and give me an example where a fair duel could work.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 03:36 pm: Edit

Tos,

If the photon gets no damage upgrade, no heavy weapon does.

The increased capacities you list come down to eliminating the prox photons' considerable myopic zone (and thus allowing overloaded proxies) and giving the photon a limited R12 overload and a full-16 fast-overload. The rest appears to boil down to hand-waving.

This would be great if the Fed was a saber-dancer because these are all mods that conduce saber-dancing.

The Fed isn't a sabre-dancer.

The photon's forte is crunch power at the cost of accuracy. That's what makes a photon a photon. This IMHO demands a warhead increase. Minimum increase would be 20.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 05:23 pm: Edit

"This would be great if the Fed was a saber-dancer because these are all mods that conduce saber-dancing."

Thank you. That was indeed what I was striving for. X2 ships are too valuable to risk being crippled or destroyed during the trade wars.

By Aaron Gimblet (Marcus) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 05:32 pm: Edit

Tos... assuming no other changes to the hull (not the case, but our anticipated final vessel is rather more than 200 BPV, too...) Isnt the fight your describing not all that different from a non-shocking BCJ vs a C7?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 07:34 pm: Edit

I'll second that concern. Here's another.

If everybody's a saber-dancer, doesn't that limit rather than open up tactical options?

War is not a game for the meek. If your strengths are diving in there and dropping a sledgehammer on someone, you're best off going with it.

I think a Hydran Admiral said that.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 07:40 pm: Edit

Trying to make the Fed a dancing ship will ruin the fun of the photon, as well as just making it a Klingon with Photons.

The photon is designed to annoy at long range and kill at close range. There really are no other settings.

Trying to say an X2 ship is too valuable to risk in combat is like saying the CVN Enterprise too valuable to risk in Combat.

They are ships designed for war.

Sure, the phasers will give them a longer effective range, and upgrading the prox torp will let it be even more annoying at range. But a Fed should never be a dancing ship.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 08:31 pm: Edit

What if we declare the 1-turn fast arming as too expensive to maintain on a multi-role ship.

Rapid-arming photons works well enough on a dedicated warship that wasn't supposed to survive 3 years anyway.

But it's too much of a maintenance headache for multi-role X2 ships (and I'm thinking of the DDs and CLs, not just the CA)

Then, we can scrap X1-rapid arming, and go back to the photon we all know and love (to hate).

With one or two exceptions:
• Increase in warhead strength
• Elimination of hold cost

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 10:12 pm: Edit

"Trying to say an X2 ship is too valuable to risk in combat ... too valuable to risk in Combat. They are ships designed for war."

That's really the ideological point isn't it? X1 ships are designed for war. In most of the timelines proposed X2 ships are designed for peace.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 10:15 pm: Edit

Quote:
MJC: The ship you describe in your above example would likely have a BPV in excess of 600. Come back down out of the clouds. Forget X2 vs. X2 duels; please, I implore you. Our challenge is finding a balance between X2 and X0/X1/XP. I'll keep an open mind to 24-point photons if you can show me an example using X0 where it isn't unbalancing. Assume I'm flying a 200 BPV C7 and give me an example where a fair duel could work.

Okay since the XFF would be around about 130 BPV and the XDD would be around about 240, the 200 BPV C7 is not really got at fighting ither so what we'll do is make an ASSAULT FRIGATE at 200 BPV for the example.

We take the Fed FFX and make the following changes to get our 200 point assault frigate; the XFA.
• Generates 1.5 Warp per Warp Box
• X2 Photons
• 10 Shield box increase on forward shields and 5 on rear.
• 5 point BTTYs.
• And the really assault part all Phaser replaced with Ph-5s.

So the XFA and the C7 run at each other and through carful manouver the C7 gets a perfect oblique with the Fed, despite the Fed not trying to get it. The had C7 launched an ECM drone and generated 5 ECM, but the XFF guessed well and generated 8 ECCM.
The C7 fires for 9R1 Ph-1 shots plus 4 O/L UIM shots and inflicts a total of 39.5 points of damage.
The XFA fires with both Photons with 24 point warheads inflicting some 24 points of damage plus it fires three 3R8 Ph-5 shots for 10.5 point of damage for a total of 34.5!

The Klingon generates 1 SSReo on the facing sheild and pumps all 6 BTTYS into SSReo and thus has 2.5 sheild boxes left.

The XFA stops some 15 points of damage with BTTYs and Caps-to-SSReo of 9 points of power and still takes some 10.5 points of damage to the sheild ( leaving it with 23.5!

The C7 launches three Type IV-F drones from he B racks and chases the XFA.
The XFA counter by launching 2 type XII drones from her X2G-racks and turns away, allowying her unfired Phasers and her 1.5 point of power to rapid pulse away the last of the chasing drones.

At the start of the next turn the XFF will be chased by the C7 which will try ti inflict as much damage as it can before the PHOTONS are re-armed.
Their relative EAs shall look like this:-

System\Ship	C7	XFA
Generated power	44	28.5
HK	4	2.5
EW	6ECCM	7 ECM
Recharge BTTY	6	3
Heavy Weapons	16	12
Recharge Caps	4 ( planing on another oblique )	4 Planing to rapid pulse down drones )
Power for movement	4	0

Quite simply the XFA can be run down by the C7 unless it chooses to devote a lot more power to movement, a lot less power to Heavy weapons and lot loess power to recharging the BTTYs.
Note also that neither ship was excessively hurt by the encounter, which is the nature of fighting an excellent dancer like the X2 vessels.

Quote:
"This would be great if the Fed was a saber-dancer because these are all mods that conduce saber-dancing."

Thank you. That was indeed what I was striving for. X2 ships are too valuable to risk being crippled or destroyed during the trade wars.

You can still dance with the Photon, it's called the Bastard Sword Dance.

Letting the X2 ships defend well, but not too well, is where the X2 expense will be, if the XFA in the above runs around for a few turns, without slowing down to arm those 24 pointers, she'll have her Full BTTY and Full Caps a lot sooner than the C7 will get that Falnk sheild back upt o full strength.
So after a while the C7 captain would remember that descression is the better part of valour and leave...match over with no real result which is exactly what the trade wars would generate more often than not, since you're "at peace" you don''t have the impotus to actually destroy ships and no body wants an interstellar incident, not even the Klingons.

Quote:
Tos... assuming no other changes to the hull (not the case, but our anticipated final vessel is rather more than 200 BPV, too...) Isnt the fight your describing not all that different from a non-shocking BCJ vs a C7?

Yeah a 4 photon XDD will fight a lot like a BCJ.

Quote:
Trying to make the Fed a dancing ship will ruin the fun of the photon, as well as just making it a Klingon with Photons.

The photon is designed to annoy at long range and kill at close range. There really are no other settings.

Trying to say an X2 ship is too valuable to risk in combat is like saying the CVN Enterprise too valuable to risk in Combat.

They are ships designed for war.

Sure, the phasers will give them a longer effective range, and upgrading the prox torp will let it be even more annoying at range. But a Fed should never be a dancing ship.

MMmmm seems like a lot of consensus for the 24 point crush.

Quote:
What if we declare the 1-turn fast arming as too expensive to maintain on a multi-role ship.

Rapid-arming photons works well enough on a dedicated warship that wasn't supposed to survive 3 years anyway.

But it's too much of a maintenance headache for multi-role X2 ships (and I'm thinking of the DDs and CLs, not just the CA)

Then, we can scrap X1-rapid arming, and go back to the photon we all know and love (to hate).

With one or two exceptions:
• Increase in warhead strength
• Elimination of hold cost

Could work but it s little bit to compicated...so the Dedicated warship X2 ( the XFA and the XDA and XCC for starters ) will have Fastloads but the XFF, XDD and XCA won't.

[Coughs behind hand ]...KISS!

I'm waiting for Tos to pull his hair out at the idea of removing the Hold cost on the Photon.

We should start from the point of veiw that the X2 Photon can and will do everything that the X1 Photon can...it should be taken as a given.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 10:40 pm: Edit

Quote:
We should start from the point of veiw that the X2 Photon can and will do everything that the X1 Photon can...it should be taken as a given.

With that I can agree on. A tech step forward shouldn't restrict you from something you could already do. (Not withstanding Windows.)

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 10:51 pm: Edit

Kenneth, what about the Linux Photon?

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 11:25 pm: Edit

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 11:37 pm: Edit

Good attempt at comparison, but I’ll still pick a few nits.

Why does the Klingon get to use an ECM drone and the Fed not get one? The one shift the Fed gains should dramatically reduce the Klingons damage output.

In your EA example for the turn after fire are you seriously suggesting that the X2 ship plot zero movement and the C7 plot a movement of 4? That isn’t terribly probable.

If both ships did what you predicted then the turn 2 EAFs would look like:
Fed: HK+EW+Photons+Movement+Excess = 2.5+8+6+11+0.5 = Speed 31 (or 32 if allowed)
Klingon: HK+EW+Disruptors+Movement+Reinforcement = 4+5+16+19+1 = Speed 18
I’m assuming turn 1 the frigate spends pumping up his photons to full strength and using sufficient reinforcement to block any long range disruptor fire.

Why did the Fed get to range 8 with the Klingon? The Fed will fire its 24-point photons at range 10 and have no reason to see range 8 of the Klingon. Klingon takes damage, Fed doesn’t.

Why is the Fed launching drones at the Klingon? They won’t hit and you would be better served by using ADD shots at his 4 drones.

Why are you using average damage? Rhetorical question but had both 24-point torps hit we would be looking at an unhappy Klingon.

This terrible monster of a frigate you created has a 50% chance (if you narrow salvo) of putting a big hole in the C7. If I understand the C7’s center warp capabilities correctly they are not available for movement which means the two warp hits you will likely get will drop the C7 to a max speed of 29. The frigate now totally controls the tempo of this game and can only loose by becoming impatient.

On an open map you would need a 240 BPV C5 to give the XFF a run for its money. Fresh out of DNLs? I fear the C10 at 300 BPV will fare about as well as a C7. The B10 should be competitive and make the Fed sweat, if it can get lucky firing through the EW shift over several turns while keeping the down shield safe from P5 fire. An ISC DN (240) should be able to take it down too.

A 50% chance to win on turn 2 while taking no damage in return is not balanced. The reason it isn’t balanced is the 24-point photon. If the two photons both hit anything smaller than a battleship the Frigate wins. I don’t even want to contemplate the BPV of a 3 photon DD.

This is a perfect emample of where a playtest report is worth 1000 words.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 12:24 am: Edit

Quote:
Why does the Klingon get to use an ECM drone and the Fed not get one? The one shift the Fed gains should dramatically reduce the Klingons damage output.

Fear.

Fear that 3 Type VIF-Aa drone could take the ECM drone away.
Fear that some fraction of 6Ph-1s could take the Type VI-XA"A"ECM drone away.
Fear that loading up on a Type XI ECM drone would mean you only had 4 and not 8 type VI drones with which to defend yourself from 4 B-racks!

Quote:
In your EA example for the turn after fire are you seriously suggesting that the X2 ship plot zero movement and the C7 plot a movement of 4? That isn’t terribly probable.

I'll pretend there's no sarcasm in that.
The low speed was an exagerated comment, specifically that the XFA would be DEAD IN THE WATER if it tried TOO HARD to protect it'self.

That's the nature of the Caps-to-SSReo, you prtect yourself now but at what cost later in the battle, it's a little like the WW.

Quote:
Why did the Fed get to range 8 with the Klingon? The Fed will fire its 24-point photons at range 10 and have no reason to see range 8 of the Klingon. Klingon takes damage, Fed doesn’t.

As much as I would love to have R10 Overloads, it just isn't going to happen and still have the X2 ships Play Nice with X1 and GW ships with out the X2 ships being increaibly expensive and hollow and that means all the other fun stuff like ASIFs won't be availible.
Besides which you need to get to R8 to get that deadly 3.5 output on your Ph-5s!

Quote:
Why is the Fed launching drones at the Klingon? They won’t hit and you would be better served by using ADD shots at his 4 drones.

Okay, I would have though the message was implicit but can see where you didn't follow.
The XFA launches two X2 Dogfight drones from her type X2G-racks, to destroy two of the incomming drones and by turning away brough her unfired phasers into arc to deal with the last drone by rapid pulse.

Quote:
Why are you using average damage? Rhetorical question but had both 24-point torps hit we would be looking at an unhappy Klingon.

Because covering each damage outcome and it's percentage chance to occour makes the story so clouded as to be un tell-able.

Quote:
This terrible monster of a frigate you created has a 50% chance (if you narrow salvo) of putting a big hole in the C7. If I understand the C7’s center warp capabilities correctly they are not available for movement which means the two warp hits you will likely get will drop the C7 to a max speed of 29. The frigate now totally controls the tempo of this game and can only loose by becoming impatient.

Note really, the C7 would kick in the last point of ECM and run along happily with a +1 shift which would drop this to only a 33% chance.
It's a bit like saying a Fed DD can take three turns to build four 16 point warheads and narrow volley at an effective range ofeight her Romulan WE opponent for a massive blast of enough internals to copletely wipe out her entire heavy weapon's array...what can I say, Hey we ARE talking about Feds here.

Quote:
This terrible monster of a frigate you created has a 50% chance (if you narrow salvo) of putting a big hole in the C7. If I understand the C7’s center warp capabilities correctly they are not available for movement which means the two warp hits you will likely get will drop the C7 to a max speed of 29. The frigate now totally controls the tempo of this game and can only loose by becoming impatient.

Note really, the C7 could theroretically carefully choose to have a turn where it'll only load half the disruptors as standards and the other half as Overloads and thus have a turn whre it had a higher speed of the XFA hich is trying to build 24 point warheads again.
It could theoretically dance with 4 standards whilst the XFA tries to hold and or build it's massively expensive Photons...coupled with the attempts to shoot through the ECM shift of the C7's ECM drone and 6 ECM ( and disruptors hand bad ECM shifts better than Photons so the C7 captain won't mind if both ships use 'em ) and the energy one must keep expending each turn to deal with those four pesky Type IVF-A drones that keep moving into Aegis range every turn, and the XFA is not going to have a walk over.

Quote:
A 50% chance to win on turn 2 while taking no damage in return is not balanced. The reason it isn’t balanced is the 24-point photon. If the two photons both hit anything smaller than a battleship the Frigate wins. I don’t even want to contemplate the BPV of a 3 photon DD.

This is a perfect emample of where a playtest report is worth 1000 words.

She'll take a hell of a beating from the C7 at R5 if she waits to get to R4 to fire those Photons through that +1 shift.
Can you say Empty BTTYs, Practically Empty Caps and the Fed gets to deal with 10R5 Ph-1 shots and 4 UIM O/L Diruptor shots.
And that's before the C7 launches her drone wave.

If the XFA starts taking longer to build up her photons, that is not start on them until her Caps and Bats are full, then the C7 will probly have a SP and then everything stays pretty balanced.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 12:37 am: Edit

Your photon proposal wasn't specific and I assumed range 10 overloads were included with your 24-point warhead. I grant that the difference between range 8 and range 10 is somewhere between significant and huge.

My analysis was based on range 10 photons with a 1-3 to-hit. When used in conjunction with 24-point warheads its too much. With a range 8 limit both sides have the potential to cause damage, making the proposal less lopsided.

Curious, with all the discussion on extending the overload range of the photon, why do you choose larger warhead over increased range or increased to hit?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 12:48 am: Edit

1) We need something that drags the X2 vessel to overload range in order to avoid the fact that trading Standards for overloads will be a BIG change.

2) The output or sweetspot of the Ph-5 at R8 is 3.5 points of damage so going to ( P-VBa I think you might call it ) range 8 for the Figate isn't a silly move, even if it does put you into range of the C7's disruptors.

3) Since the Phaser have a much longer reach, the X2 can dance better than rugular ships so why allow it to dance and overload.
If the Ph-5 has a sweetspot of R6 then I might still be calling for R10 overloads but it's probably a whole lot of BPV-percentage just to confine all vessels to one particular tactic.

If I got to choose between Caps-to-SSReo + 5 Point BTTYs + the A.S.I.F. and R8 Overloads
Or
R10 Overloads and none of the pother special things then I'ld take the R8 overloads because the other aspects will give every style of play ( with the notable exception of dancing ); defesive, impromtu, mizia; a new feel and new way of doing things.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 12:58 am: Edit

But what if you got to choose between 16-point range 10 overloads and 24-point range 8 overloads?

What if you got to choose 12-point range 12 overloads plus 16-point range 8 overloads verse 24-point range 8 overloads?

Somewhere there is an equal balance. You prefer more crunch, I prefer more dance. Ideology again.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 01:03 am: Edit

Quote:
But what if you got to choose between 16-point range 10 overloads and 24-point range 8 overloads?

What if you got to choose 12-point range 12 overloads plus 16-point range 8 overloads verse 24-point range 8 overloads?

Somewhere there is an equal balance. You prefer more crunch, I prefer more dance. Ideology again.

I suddenly like that idea...especially with my recent disruptor post.

I could go for varriable range overloads limits based on warhead strength but if it blew out the BPV too much then I'ld rather just go with Heavy Hitting photons.

The Disruptor should be the weapon of choice for players that want to dance, if we're being completely fair.

By Aaron Gimblet (Marcus) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 01:17 am: Edit

Variable Range based on Loading? Sounds like a Tachyon Gun.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 02:28 am: Edit

Tos,

I would choose a range-8 24-point photon because, while more powerful, it plays nicer with GW-tech where X2 has to enter GW's overload range to deliver its own. There's a (potentially important) equality there.

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