Archive through February 28, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 photons: Archive through February 28, 2003
By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 08:08 pm: Edit

Regarding number three, does that mean the photon would still have standards of 8, and two turn overload limits of 24? Or that the standard would be 12? Just want to be sure I'm clear...

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 08:15 pm: Edit

I guess that's still open to debate.
I would say 9+ is still an OL.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 08:51 pm: Edit

As I said before.

In order to get the same crunch power of the Jackpot of the MY Fed CA against a fairly typical opponent for it as you would need to have the Fed XCA against it's typical X2 opponent to have a jackpot of SIX 24 point photons.

We can have four 24 point Photons and a hell of a lot of flexibility and not break the bank.


So 24 Point overloads Plus 8-12 point standards and 4-6 point proxies plus 16 point fastloads plus overload proxies can all be crammed onto the Fed XCA without risking breaking the game.


Overload range should be R8 to help it place nice with the GWs. If we go to R10 overloads then 16 pointers will still make mice-meat of the enemy vessels and thus most of the BPV invested into the ship will be R10 overloads, and I'ld rather have an A.S.I.F. and Bridge as Special Sensor and 1.5 Power per Warp Box and 5 point BTTYs and X Full Aegis than just simply have the R10 overloads.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 09:05 pm: Edit

MJC,

Yes, we heard you the first time. Here's the trouble, though. While an MY Fed CA might have had more "crunch" than an XCA with four 24 point photons, the MY CA wasn't expected to play nice with previous generations (such as an EY D4). The X2 ships are, and they can't if we beef them up too much. A Fed CA with 24 point photons will likely crush any previous generation of ship. So, we have to be careful about just how much flexibility we add if we beef them up that much.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 09:13 pm: Edit

I agree. 4x 24-point photons is the most I'd care to put on a full-cruiser.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 10:32 pm: Edit

Quote:

MJC,

Yes, we heard you the first time. Here's the trouble, though. While an MY Fed CA might have had more "crunch" than an XCA with four 24 point photons, the MY CA wasn't expected to play nice with previous generations (such as an EY D4). The X2 ships are, and they can't if we beef them up too much. A Fed CA with 24 point photons will likely crush any previous generation of ship. So, we have to be careful about just how much flexibility we add if we beef them up that much.


Well I'm glad someone did.

Sure it'll still play nice and the Flexability option do not increase the damage...as such.

Consider the Overload Proxy.
We take four 24 point photons and realising that we will fire at R8 or less in a heavy EW we change to overloaded proxy using our 4 impulse change over to proxies.
If we find a heavy EW enviroment then we won't do more damage as such but do what damage we will do more efficemently.
If we don't find a heavy EW envirmoment then we have a 5/6 chance to hit with Photons that do half the damage ( 4 x 5/6 x 24/2 ) instead of our four 24 point photons that hit 1/2 the time or 40 damage instead of 48, the action is actually a step backwards in damage over regular overload fire.
In the R9-12 range bracket, if there is no EW shift to contend with then the doubling of the to hit chance and the halving of the damage exactly cancel themselves out.
It's only in the R13 to 40 bracket that having Proximity fuse switching comes to the fore.
But consider the Fed DNG and the DN+ and the BCJ, they could fire 6 Photons ( proxy or otherwise ) out to R30 which would be the equivelant of four 12 point photons ( 6 point Proxies ) being cast out that far ( well to R40 to be exact ) and those GW didn't break the game with huge base busting bombardments and killer retrogrades.


Four 24 point warheads isn't so radically different ( and is actually a two turn sumation of what X1s can already do in one turn ) from the BCJ, DN+ and DNG so upping the flexibility with 16 point unstable fastloads and proximity fuse switching and 12 point standards will all the ablities to be piled on-top-of that. The four 24 point photons simply won't brake the game.


Quote:

I agree. 4x 24-point photons is the most I'd care to put on a full-cruiser.


So long as the X2 Fed has both signifcant Crunch Power over both the X1 Feds and the X2 Klingons...it'll be sweet.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 12:15 am: Edit

Just a small chat about Playing nice with 24 point Photons.


A Fed XCA is about 330 to 360 BPV so it fights a Fed BCJ and an NCA.

The NCA and BCJ move along in the same hex because the GW player feels that the X2 player won't be able to Pop his NCA anythime soon.


The XCA reaches R8 and fires an alpha strike on the BCJ in an attempt to make the BCJ both have a missing shield and hopefully be under shock as it tries to replay with everything it has...and maybe because the XCA captain has a hunch the NCA has a little bit of SSReo being generated by the slow speed both ships are taking.

The XCA fires 6Ph-5s (from her 8) and four 24 point Photons.

The BCJ fires six 16 point Photons and 8 Ph-1s.
The NCA fires 6Ph-1s and four 16 point photons.
Four ADDs should protect the ships so all the Phasers are committed.

The XCA generates ( 48 + 21 ) 69 points of damage agsinst the BCJ's #2 shield.

The GW ships inflict ( 80 + 30.333 ) 110.333 points of damage.

The BCJ stops 7 with BTTY and 30 with actual shield boxes to take 32 points of damage internally.

The XCA stops 15 with Caps-to-SSReo and a further 25 with BTTYs ( although that could be only 15 before the BTTY refit ) and another 40 with shield boxes for 30.33 points of internal damage, some of which the A.S.I.F. will mitigate.


If the BCJ was a BCG then there would be a different dynamic with the XCA taking 16 points fewer internals but with the 6 type IVF drones the GWs could russel up the XCA would have to use it's drones defensively aswell as some of it's phasers...and the NCA would probably become the primary target.


All in all, the fact that four 24 point Photons were mounted on the Fed XCA didn't cause harm to it's ability to play nice with the GW ships.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 12:33 am: Edit

And the X0 ships weren't firing through a +2 ECM shift because, we weren't playing with EW? The XCA Captain didn't have an ECM drone?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 04:12 am: Edit

Maybe the GW ships had their own ECM drones and the XCA was firing through a +1 shift of it's own!?!

6+3 is 9 you know.


Maybe the XCA thought that 14 Ph-1s would splatter the ECM drone it could launch and so launched an explosive module laidened drone instead?


Maybe the XCA captian thought that 4 Type IVF-Aa drones ( G-racks can launch those you know ) would smash his ECM drone???


Maybe the XCA captain was lazy and thought that it'ld be suchj a walk in the park tht he skipped carful drone selection altogether!?!


We can play this game for hours...lets not.
Just take it that the main thrust of the idea; specifically that 24 point warhead won't be much a game ruiner even between tech levels, holds true.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 11:09 am: Edit

24-point photons taken alone don't break anything. 24-point photons combined with every other X2 advance might. You can't look at a single system and declare it good without reviewing how it interacts collectively. As I pointed out your example fails because it doesn't take EW into account.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 01:54 pm: Edit

And this takes place during a Federation Civil Time War?

Maybe should recalculate that with typical enemies facing each other. That would not play out the same with the Fed XCC against a C7 and a D5K.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 06:24 pm: Edit

Tos,

Getting a +2 ECM shift may not be as easy as it looks, even against GW tech.

If X2 is fighting a drone-user, it is facing someone with an ECM drone as well. The result is a pool of 11 EW for X2 and 9 for GW.

Against a non-drone user, we have plasma tossers who get a free +3 ECCM for their torps when seeking and the tholians have the web and X2 can't deal with that any better than GW can.

That leaves Lyrans and bolting plasma as serious problem cases.

In the cases of GW w/ no ECM drone vs. X2 with a ECM drone, X2 can assure a +2 shift only by throwing 7 of 8 into ECM. That sledgehammer approach would leave 1 for ECCM and an intelligent GW tech can partly counter with 2 to ECCM and 4 to ECM, firing at -2 and putting X2 at a -1 back.

Yes, X2 has the EW advantage, no argument, but it can't casually stick GW with a -2 shift. It requires effort.

At the moment, X2 and X1 have the same EW resources available: 8 generated +3 for an ECM drone when available. If GW can cut the mustard against X1, we should be able to make sure it can do so against X2, even 24-point photon X2.

The real problem, as you also suggest, is whether we have simply overbuilt X2.

As long as we're shooting the breeze, pre-thinking it out with no playtest results to look at, I'm willing to put 24 forward as a baseline to measure everyone else against. If that jacks combat potential up too high, I'll change my mind.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 07:24 pm: Edit

Quote:

Maybe should recalculate that with typical enemies facing each other. That would not play out the same with the Fed XCC against a C7 and a D5K.



I might even take an F6, F5L and a D6D.

With ECM drones and Loaned ECM to the frignoughts, the X cruiser would be on the wrong end of the ECM shift.
And after 7 drones on the first turn and 10 drones every turn until the ECM drones run out of fuel, the Ph-5s'll be so little halop that the Photons might get imployed for Drone busting.

Once the XCA launches it's photons the Klingons'll get in close during the rearming period ( hope all that BTTY Warp got used up on something else ) to actually do real damage.


I'm not saying it'ld be a cake-walk but the XCA certainly would be on the wrong side of the ECM situation.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 07:32 pm: Edit

Quote:

24-point photons taken alone don't break anything. 24-point photons combined with every other X2 advance might. You can't look at a single system and declare it good without reviewing how it interacts collectively.


That's one of the reasons why I say aim for the ships to be 320 to 360 and let them drift to 410 to 480 during playtesting.


Quote:

As I pointed out your example fails because it doesn't take EW into account.


How do you know I didn't take EW into account.
How do you know that I didn't say that the GWs generated no ECM because they new the XCA could get rid of it all with reserve power to ECCM and the XCA didn't power any ECCM because there wasn't any ECM to knock down and the XCA wouldn't get a -1 to hit if generated more ECCM than ECM.
I don't think X2 vessels should get a negative modifier, because I'm opposed to X2 vessels having a requirement that they must have outstanding crews.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 08:46 pm: Edit

In that case there is no wrong side. The F-XCC can shrug off the DF and hold off the drones long enough to spatter the F6, then the F5L (which you can't have because the F6 is a leader, IIRC) then the D6D (if it hasn't run away already).

I believe the 24 point Photon gives the Fed a single turn crunch value that cannot be beat. X-Batteries can hold warp (H5.5) (this could change) so all the Fed has to do is prepare correctly and it will have plenty of power to move fast enough to catch the rat. If the rat runs then it not doing anything else and will get phasered to death.

This will happen with the Fed XCC even with 16 point OLs but to a lesser degree. GW will have a better chance against 64 than 96. The F6 would go POP with 96 and phasers.

By Aaron Gimblet (Marcus) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 09:30 pm: Edit

But if we dont improve the output of heavy weapons, vs earlier eras, were simply in a situation where phaser dominace becomes more and more of an issue... the game becomes even more a 'phasers' game than it was before.

If we improve the throughput, but not the peak output, of the Photon, then we get an alternate lyrics klingon..

just IMHO.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 09:31 pm: Edit

Quote:

I believe the 24 point Photon gives the Fed a single turn crunch value that cannot be beat. X-Batteries can hold warp (H5.5) (this could change) so all the Fed has to do is prepare correctly and it will have plenty of power to move fast enough to catch the rat. If the rat runs then it not doing anything else and will get phasered to death.


A 320 to 360 BPV Fed XCC really shouldn't be fighting a task group because of the effect of force dynamics.

The Fed XCC should be fighting a B10.

Now does the B10 go pop under the 96 point jack-pot!?!


Now you see why the 24 point photon belongs on X2 ships.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 10:47 pm: Edit

"Fed XCC really shouldn't be fighting a task group because of the effect of force dynamics. The Fed XCC should be fighting a B10."

Historically (no I can’t prove it) there is about 1 BB per 2500 warships. It would not be inappropriate for an XCC to perform well against a lone B10 but that will definitely not be its historical opposition. Your statement completely ignores the sum total of SFU history.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 12:28 am: Edit

Quote:

"Fed XCC really shouldn't be fighting a task group because of the effect of force dynamics. The Fed XCC should be fighting a B10."

Historically (no I can’t prove it) there is about 1 BB per 2500 warships. It would not be inappropriate for an XCC to perform well against a lone B10 but that will definitely not be its historical opposition. Your statement completely ignores the sum total of SFU history.



Consider the Force Dynamic of X1.
A CX shouldn't be figting a CAR+ and a CL because the 240 odd BPV matches but the force dynamics don't ( having to pay HK and EW twice ).

But a CX shouldn't be fighting a lone DNG in a duel because that would be a vilation of the S8 rules and Historical opperations.

So too a Klingon C4 couldn't really fight a duel against a Fed CAR despite being about equal BPV because of the S8 and Historical limitations.


At each Technologcal Leap forward CRUISERS get to be playtested outside of their Historical and S8 situations because it's the only way we can know for sure that they are the correct BPV rather than just getting the BPV from the destroyers and then multiplying up.


If perhaps an X1 BCHX were to be designed then maybe, just maybe the XCC could Duel against that with a fairly equal BPV and thus it could be a battle that remains with historical and S8 limitations.
But otherwise we are going to have the balance these ships out with a lone B10 Vs the XCC simply because we are dealing with a two step jump in Tech Level and every other era uses the suspension of those limitations for a one tech level jump.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 02:48 am: Edit

we could always scale it back a bit, so that the ships are not uber vessels. I'd rather not have a BB for a crusier.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 11:27 am: Edit

I did put forthe an improved Photon with various levels of power including 20 point warheads. See above if you're interested. The extra 16 internals (over 4 x 20) in a single strike are deep and meaty ones. It does make a difference.

THere is a threshold where player skill can make up for some difference in force or era dynamics. But some things go beyond what that can handle. (and I'm not saying the GW is great and the X2 is poor, I'm saying both are good players.) 24 point warheads, IMO, go beyond that point.

I could be wrong, playtesting might prove that. Though, of course, I see the logic in my own proposal being...it's my proposal. :)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 02:27 pm: Edit

I can deal with that. We can start low and increase if the Fed looks wimpy.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 08:18 pm: Edit

Quote:

we could always scale it back a bit, so that the ships are not uber vessels. I'd rather not have a BB for a crusier.


Now for a question of SFB metaphysics...is a CX a DN?


I would think that the different style of play ( dance like a cruiser ) reach like a base ( we better than a B10 ) would make it not like a BB whilst still retaining the same BPV.


Quote:

I did put forthe an improved Photon with various levels of power including 20 point warheads. See above if you're interested. The extra 16 internals (over 4 x 20) in a single strike are deep and meaty ones. It does make a difference.


Is that with or without an A.S.I.F. running...in the second Alpha I might say deep and meaty hits are generated by the extra 16 points of damage but I'ld say a lot are going to be Hull and Lab and Shuttle and APR hits.


Quote:

THere is a threshold where player skill can make up for some difference in force or era dynamics. But some things go beyond what that can handle. (and I'm not saying the GW is great and the X2 is poor, I'm saying both are good players.) 24 point warheads, IMO, go beyond that point.

I could be wrong, playtesting might prove that. Though, of course, I see the logic in my own proposal being...it's my proposal.


I think 24 point photons will do nicely, especially against Disruptors with a few slight improvements, 6 impulse delay and +2 UIM and +2 Defracs.

Playtesting will provide the solution be it adding Boom Ph-5s to the Klingon or having a big difference in BPV between the two ships or mounting the fifth and six Disruptors on the Klingon.
Getting these ships to balance should be all that hard.


Quote:

I can deal with that. We can start low and increase if the Fed looks wimpy.


Start with the 24 pointers and see where raising the BPV takes you before you start thinking about watering down the photon, even the instability rule would be a better addition than a 20 point cap on the Photon because A) these ships are suposed to be a tech level above and yet they'll do less damage than a BCJ and B) statisticall speak these ships should be able to get away with mounting six 24 point photons and still not break the game (fighting eachother) so four 20 pointers is more than likely proof that we did something wrong rather than there being something wrong with 24 point photons.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 08:29 pm: Edit

So, the Fed will have a 16 point single turn Overload yes? That is all I really care about, the rest is superfullous. 24 pointers will get used when Pigs fly. A XCA spending that much power on weapons is going to be moving about speed 24, and will get cut to ribbons by a Klingon moving 31 with reinforcement.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 10:13 pm: Edit

Quote:

So, the Fed will have a 16 point single turn Overload yes? That is all I really care about, the rest is superfullous. 24 pointers will get used when Pigs fly. A XCA spending that much power on weapons is going to be moving about speed 24, and will get cut to ribbons by a Klingon moving 31 with reinforcement.


If you use the Instability rule!?!

Yes and No.

Yes you can build 16 point fastloads.
No you can not hold them into the next turn.
If you want to hold fastloads from the previous turn you'll just have to live with four 12 point warheads.


Personnaly I think, with the instability rule that 2 turn photons will be used ( 20 pointers ) because of the 4 points of free powering done at WS-III, holding those 20 pointers for 2.5 power each if no fire opportunity presents it'self in the first turn.
But after that the 16 point fastload will look pretty sweet and pulling pout for a turn and comming back and trying to use minimum warp power in you attack run will yeild 6+2 ( 16 pointers again ) so it'll be some very hard nuts who are willing to play either a three turn game ( holding for 3 points per tube ) or pay 24 points of warp during the attack run.


Still in an X2 duel I think it might be common to see the Fed go down to R4 of the Klingons, just to move beyond a throughput of 1.0!...I hope the Reserve Warp from previous turns works to be advantagious.

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