Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board

Archive through March 04, 2003

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 photons: Archive through March 04, 2003

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 01:51 pm: Edit

I know the current thread is dealing with arming energy and "throughput" but...

How about looking at a x2 photon this way:
•2 space weapon
•fires 2 torpedos per tube
•keep the same to hits, but if the 1st torpedo hits, then the 2nd torpedo hits automatically. If the 1st misses, then you may roll for the 2nd one. This gives the this photon a slight targeting/to hit advantage, but still retains the 'jackpot mystique' of the photon we all love or hate depending on what are the die results are and which side of the tube you are on.
•also for ship SSD layout, you could have 2 on a 'cruiser' (in effect 4 torpedos), 3 on a 'battlecruiser', 1 on a frigate-remember that they are 2-spaced weapons requiring 2 hits to destroy
•keep 120° firing arcs for regular torpedo
•increase firing arcs to 180° if you fire an underloaded (miniphoton)
•decrease firing arcs to 60°if it is a heavier damage torpedo

This kind of photon still needs input on how much damage and arming and 'to hit' but the feel of this weapon is new yet still photonish.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 02:07 pm: Edit

How about the enhanced proximity fuse rules from SSJ1? That was pretty cool, and wouldn't seem to be a game breaker. Anyone played with those rules yet?

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 02:28 pm: Edit

I'm sorry, but that's not going to fly.

Quote:
2 space weapon

I wrote up an SSD with the ph-5 as a 2 space weapon. The response was unanimous. "Yuk!"

Quote:
2 torpedos per tube

If you can fire 2 torpedos per tube, then the ship is more damage resistant if you have 2 torpedo boxes and 1 torpedo per tube. See the debate on batteries for more information.

Plus, this looks very much like the refitted Enterprise of the movies.
ADB doesn't have the rights to any of that material.

Quote:
keep the same to hits, but if the 1st torpedo hits, then the 2nd torpedo hits automatically. If the 1st misses, then you may roll for the 2nd one. This gives the this photon a slight targeting/to hit advantage, but still retains the 'jackpot mystique' of the photon we all love or hate depending on what are the die results are and which side of the tube you are on.

You mean that to jackpot, you only have to hit with the first two rolls? There's nothing "slight" about that.

Let me break it down for you.
Range 8, no shift, 1-3 to hit

# hits	Old way	Your way
0	1/16 6.25%	1/16 6.25%
1	4/16 25%	2/16 12.5%
2	6/16 37.5%	5/16 31.25%
3	4/16 25%	4/16 25%
4	1/16 6.25%	4/16 25%

The average jumps from 2 hits to 2.5 hits.
At range 4, it's even worse.
Range 4, no shift, 1-4 to hit

# hits	Old way	Your way
0	1/81 1%	1/81 1%
1	8/81 10%	4/81 5%
2	24/81 30%	16/81 20%
3	32/81 40%	24/81 30%
4	16/81 20%	36/81 44%

The average jumps from 3 hits to 3.1 hits.

Plus, it's easier to count how many torpedos you're firing, pick up that many dice, and roll.

Quote:
•keep 120° firing arcs for regular torpedo
•increase firing arcs to 180° if you fire an underloaded (miniphoton)
•decrease firing arcs to 60°if it is a heavier damage torpedo

The photon torpedo is not a beam weapon. It's a torpedo. How much is in it does not have any bearing on where the computers can send it.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 03:31 pm: Edit

MJC,

If you can show how a 6+2 arming sequence constitutes abuse and how it can easily occur, no problem.

At the moment, I just don't see it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 06:39 pm: Edit

John: My suggestion was for the arming of warheads above 16. For warheads 16 or less you could arm them any way you wanted with in the current rules. I have to say MJC is right here that getting a 24 point warhead (too big IMO) from an arming sequence of 10+2 will give the Fed a huge advantage. Especially on turn two. The distance needed to throw 40 warp into photons is already there on turn one, so the fed will only be going about speed 10. Then on turn two he can just allocate a triffle 8 and speed up to anything (<=30)and be fully ready to do battle with a BIG stick. Almost like having 24 point disruptors that arm for 2 each.

Thats too much of a pay off for biding you time for one turn.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 06:42 pm: Edit

I can see fast loading a 16 point photon. But for anything above that, it should be an even split on turn 1 and 2. So, for a 20 point warhead, it would be five and five. No other combination would work...call it stability, if you need a reason. That way, the power cost is split and keeps the Fed honest while still allowing a bigger warhead, if they want to pay for it.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 06:53 pm: Edit

We're getting to the point where everyone has their favorite idea and there's no way to integrate most of them into one proposal.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 06:55 pm: Edit

Yup. The sad fact is, they could all work in the right circumstances, if they were properly balanced. There just isn't any one right answer.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 06:59 pm: Edit

Quote:
An X0 photon can be armed as a 2+2 standard.
When OL, it can be armed 2+6, 2+3, 6+2, or any other combination.

If you have a turn where you're short on power (reload and run away, for example), you can put only 2 power in this turn, but still have the option later (no matter how costly) to fill a full overload later.

The reason I proposed 10+2 (or more properly 2+10) is to keep this option open for the Fed ship.

Sure, if you put 2 points to each torpedo on the first turn, then ramp it up to full OL on the next turn, all the lights in the non-essential areas will go dim and the ship will slow to a crawl. But that's how Fed ships have flown since the overload setting was invented.

It comes down to playtesting. Analysis on the bulletin board is not going to be sufficient.

Agreed Playtesting will be the final arbiltor, but I really think that 4 O/L UIM Disruptors are going to have a lot of problem dealing with 16 point Fastloads that can be held ( one of the offshots of removing the instability rule ).
4 x 6/6 x 6 Vs 4 x 16 x 3/6
Which puts the Klingons at a big disadvantage ( by 12 points of damage per turn ) with a slight advantage in power ( 16 points used by the Klingon and 32 by the Fed ) but a 50% increase in damage for a 100% increase in power and the ability to hold; is a powerful advantage especially if combat can be made to occour at a range closer than 5.

Quote:
•keep the same to hits, but if the 1st torpedo hits, then the 2nd torpedo hits automatically. If the 1st misses, then you may roll for the 2nd one. This gives the this photon a slight targeting/to hit advantage, but still retains the 'jackpot mystique' of the photon we all love or hate depending on what are the die results are and which side of the tube you are on.

Overload Proxies seems like a simpler way to take the EW thing out of the game, and relying on existing ideas within the game will be easier to impliment.

Quote:
MJC,

If you can show how a 6+2 arming sequence constitutes abuse and how it can easily occur, no problem.

At the moment, I just don't see it.

This is an attempted flamewar, right?

My Bent is not with the 6+2 power or even with the 10+2 ( although it'll be problematic ) but rather the majority of my beef with the propossed nearly unlimited Photon arming is two fold.

Firstly 2+10 is a very big blow, just get to R1 and walk away at speed 16 ( which is quite fast ) but I would arm 3 x 2+10 plus 2+3 and run away at 30/16 changing speed in the middle of the turn (you never can tell if you'll take an A3 Torp hit on the DAC).
82 Points of damage at R1 is still pretty bad to GW ships even if it isn't 96.

Secondly the Standard Opponets ( the Klingons ) are bound to have 4 Disruptors and 2 Drone Launchers whilst the Feds are bound to have 4 Photons and 2 Drone Launchers, so we need to get the Photons pretty well balanced with the Photons.

We might be able to get 6 X2-Disruoptors to balance with 2+10 loaded ( or 10+2 ) Photons but trying to get 4 without high damage disruptors ( which move the Klingon Flavour of the ships towards being like photon users ).

Thirdly...and these are things you tend to think of when one types.
If you have 6 AWR and 48 Warp ( and 4 Impulse and five 3 Point BTTYs ), you can move at 21 (12/30 (changing speed in the middle of the turn) which will be do-able under X2 Accelleration... probably ) and load 8.5+3.5 and move at 32 on the second turn (paying 10 points of warp for that final point of movement).
Under the Instability rule you couldn't arm this way and thus you'ld have a attack that was easier for the four Disruptor Klingon to contend with.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 07:07 pm: Edit

Quote:
John: My suggestion was for the arming of warheads above 16. For warheads 16 or less you could arm them any way you wanted with in the current rules. I have to say MJC is right here that getting a 24 point warhead (too big IMO) from an arming sequence of 10+2 will give the Fed a huge advantage. Especially on turn two. The distance needed to throw 40 warp into photons is already there on turn one, so the fed will only be going about speed 10. Then on turn two he can just allocate a triffle 8 and speed up to anything (<=30)and be fully ready to do battle with a BIG stick. Almost like having 24 point disruptors that arm for 2 each.

Thats too much of a pay off for biding you time for one turn.

Actually it's biding your time for about half a turn.

Quote:
We're getting to the point where everyone has their favorite idea and there's no way to integrate most of them into one proposal.
Quote:
Yup. The sad fact is, they could all work in the right circumstances, if they were properly balanced. There just isn't any one right answer.

Yeah but there's a few ideas which are very wrong.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 07:11 pm: Edit

I though my proposal was a comproise of the general direction of this thread. Or at least, that's what I was trying to do.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 07:23 pm: Edit

Loren,

You now know why even MY/GW photons have limits on the amount of overload energy they can have in the photon tubes when the game starts.

On turn 1, the Fed is going to come in *holding* photons and finishing the arming.

The limit imposed on older-tech photons is no more than 6 points of energy in the photons from previous turns. We could adopt that.

Then if someone wants to pull a 10/2 arming split, they'll have to do it with the enemy all over them.

I'd like to see that.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 07:40 pm: Edit

Quote:
Agreed Playtesting will be the final arbiltor, but I really think that...

We're really to the point where we need integrated proposals.

Some of us have taken a race and built up proposals for them. I'm still working on the Kzintis, perhaps you'd like to design another one.

Quote:
4 O/L UIM Disruptors are going to have a lot of problem dealing with 16 point Fastloads that can be held ( one of the offshots of removing the instability rule ).

There are proposals on the board for improving the disruptor. 2 shots a turn, increased damage, more disruptors.

Quote:
Firstly 2+10 is a very big blow, just get to R1 and walk away at speed 16

If you get to range 1 of a Fed ship with full overloads ready to fire, you deserve to get your doors blown off.

Quote:
but I would arm 3 x 2+10 plus 2+3 and run away

Standard Fed tactic in any age.

Quote:
Standard Opponets ( the Klingons ) are bound to have 4 Disruptors and 2 Drone Launchers whilst the Feds are bound to have 4 Photons and 2 Drone Launchers, so we need to get the Photons pretty well balanced with the Photons.

We might be able to get 6 X2-Disruoptors to balance with 2+10 loaded ( or 10+2 ) Photons but trying to get 4 without high damage disruptors ( which move the Klingon Flavour of the ships towards being like photon users ).

Playtesting will determine if the Klingon needs 4 or 6 disruptors.

Plus, Klingons have other advantages to offset the photon-disruptor disparity.

Two-shots-a-turn disruptors could also balance against the photon.

Quote:
Thirdly...and these are things you tend to think of when one types.
If you have 6 AWR and 48 Warp ( and 4 Impulse and five 3 Point BTTYs ), you can move at 21 (12/30 (changing speed in the middle of the turn) which will be do-able under X2 Accelleration... probably ) and load 8.5+3.5 and move at 32 on the second turn (paying 10 points of warp for that final point of movement).
Under the Instability rule you couldn't arm this way and thus you'ld have a attack that was easier for the four Disruptor Klingon to contend with.

Take one of the Fed XCAs that have been proposed and fill out the EA. Speed, EA, housekeeping, reloads, suicide shuttles, phasers, recharge batteries, shield reinforcement.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 08:00 pm: Edit

Quote:
You now know why even MY/GW photons have limits on the amount of overload energy they can have in the photon tubes when the game starts.

On turn 1, the Fed is going to come in *holding* photons and finishing the arming.

Is this a tournament rule, or does it also apply to non-tournament Feds?

Quote:
The limit imposed on older-tech photons is no more than 6 points of energy in the photons from previous turns. We could adopt that.

If we change the maximium warhead, then we have to change the arming cycle.

Eitehr of these could work:
•Limit of 6 power per torpedo a turn.
•Minimum of 2 power per torpedo a turn, but you can max out the torpedo on the other turn.

Combine the two and you have the GW torp.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 08:19 pm: Edit

John T: I knew that but in my example I was ignoring any turn 0 energy. I was strickly observing turn 1 and turn 2.

Impulse one of turn 1 the enemy is still far away and speed ten is enough to keep him out of OL range. So the enemy is NOT all over the Fed. Turn two the X ship can tripple it's speed so the slow speed of turn one is of no cosequence. In fact, it caused the enemy to come to the Fed. which is good. Energy saved.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 09:00 pm: Edit

Quote:
Playtesting will determine if the Klingon needs 4 or 6 disruptors.

Plus, Klingons have other advantages to offset the photon-disruptor disparity.

Two-shots-a-turn disruptors could also balance against the photon.

I was talking about disruptors with +2 UIM, +2 Defracs, 4 Point Disruptor Caps linked to the Phaser Caps and having a 6 impulse turn break rearming period.

Two shots per turn disruptors are just yuck. Lets not give every weapon on the ship a rapid pulse firing ability.
I'ld rather go to X2G-racks launching drones with a GW C-rack's 12 impulse delay than see double-shot disruptors...and I'ld rather not see the X2G-racks fire 2 Type VII drones per turn ( 'though four Type IX would be cool )!

Quote:
If you get to range 1 of a Fed ship with full overloads ready to fire, you deserve to get your doors blown off.

Still the Photons do more than break even at R4 or closer over the disruptors getting two +2UIM R8 O/L Disruptor shots in the same arming period which is quite a difficult thing to achieve.

Now how exactly does a GW ships avoid having a ship ( which moved at speed 30 during the second half of the previous turn ) which is moving at speed 32 for the entire turn; from getting to R4?
For that matter how does it avoid having the Fed X2 cruiser; getting to R1!?!

Speed 32 for an entire turn with all four Photon tubes loaded up with 24 point warheads is an increadible capasity.
We should either make the 24 point photons hard to build ( the instability rule ) or we should make the Klingons ( and all other races ) brisseling with weapons.
And brisseling with weapons causes problems for the "play Nice" crowd!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 09:23 pm: Edit

Quote:
Take one of the Fed XCAs that have been proposed and fill out the EA. Speed, EA, housekeeping, reloads, suicide shuttles, phasers, recharge batteries, shield reinforcement.

I think my comments are general enough to not need to specify the ship I would be basing my number off.

But just to clear it up for you.

•Take a Fed CX.
•Remove 8 Warp Engine Boxes.
•Allow each Warp Engine to generate 1.5 Power per box.

•Add 10 boxes to all shields.

•Remove Phaser 3, 4 7 & 10...these would if the X2 fights against the war be reinstalled (as Ph-5s ).
•Label the remaining Phasers as Ph-5s

• Grant non Blinded special sensor for cridge ( at the special sensor cost of 1 point of power )

• Grant an A.S.I.F. of afforable ( say twice as much as the sheild costs ) power requirements.

• Grant Caps-to-SSReo.

•If X2 cruisers are designed for longer duration exploation missions then probably a few Hull and/or Cargo will be added.

But I don't think we need to be that specific when talking about Photon arming cycles.
The design I'm talking about is just touching up the CX will liquid paper and black pen as the starting point to develop X2 technonlgies from...it'ld be lousey if the mix of new technologies and ships format broke the game whilst X2 tech didn't and yet we never figured out how to solve the problem because we'ld done all our playtesting on ALL NEW, ALL DIFFERENT designs.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 10:41 pm: Edit

Jeff,

the limits on starting energy ina photon is not, IIRC, just a tournament rule. If you look in either the WS-III rules or photon rules you should find it. Try WS-III first.

Loren,
Straw EA, assuming were talking about a CC with 48 warp +6AWR +6IMP.

60 power -40 for photons: 20 left

-4 for H/K: 16 left
-10 for movement: 6 left.

-3 for special shuttles: 3 left for EW without digging into batteries.

The ship has telegraphed that it has put a heavy amount of power into photons due to the characteristic "Fed Slowdown" effect. Anyone that goes down his throat will be courting 96 points of damage from a photon slot machine. Just becaiuse you can't go down his throat doesn't mean you can't deal with him.

The Fed's EW is weak without digging into batteries, so you snipe and get a drone wave going if you're a disr/drone race. Plasma boats holding plasma have a pretty good power curve themselves so they can do some R10 phaser sniping and dare the Fed to chase them while making him eat plasma for the honor. Gorns are especially good at this. That leaves the Lyrans who can snipe but not toss drones and the Tholians and if the Tholians have web-casters, the tactics associated with the WC ought to work as well against X2 as GW.

An Orion might double engines and go down the Fed's throat anway, especially a X2 Orion

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 11:52 pm: Edit

J.T.:

Like I've said before 10+2 arming isn't really all that much of a problem compaired to 2+10.

And less of what you say holds true for a GW Vs X2 fight.

If an XCA fights a DNH then what good will it do the DNH to fight if the enemy can move at speed 32 against you, tractor you if it gets into range too early ( because of the huge BTTY compliment ) and blow 96 points of damage into your DNH at R1 on Impulse 1.
It doesn't matter if the XCA crawls away at speed 1 or speed 16 because the DNH is snail snot. And 2+10 arming lets you do this. At least the instability rule limited the ability to 2+8 arming for a 20 point warheads that couldn't be held.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 03:02 am: Edit

JT, Basic Set (S4.13) Weapon Status III
Multi-turn arming weapons may be assumed to be fully armed and are being held in their launch tubes; in this case, holding energy must be allocated on the first turn. Note that weapons that cannot be held (e.g. plasma-R torpedos) cannot be completed prior to this point.

I don't see anything that specifically mentions photons nor anything restricting overloads.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 02:29 pm: Edit

Thanks Jeff,
•you're right, photons are not beam weapons-I retract the damage based on arcs section.
•2 photons per ship are not kosher? Can anyone say Fed YCA?
•Courage Jeff, your P-V double-space weapons may have a place.
•the 'to hit' suggestion does make the photon better...x2 no? Just adjust the damage accordingly.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 02:41 pm: Edit

also, making x2 photons (for balance-all x2 weapons)that have upper limits and liabilites makes for interesting tactical decisions. If an a x2 photon proposal that has the capability of delivering BIG BIG damage say, should have a danger attached to it.

In the x2 hull thread, there are those who addressed this idea under my post.

Firing in mega-uber-mode should have dangerous consequences.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 04:08 pm: Edit

Roger,

Such as...?

Jeff, check for a separate notation on photons or feds further in the WS III rules.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 05:16 pm: Edit

Quote:
also, making x2 photons (for balance-all x2 weapons)that have upper limits and liabilites makes for interesting tactical decisions. If an a x2 photon proposal that has the capability of delivering BIG BIG damage say, should have a danger attached to it.

In the x2 hull thread, there are those who addressed this idea under my post.

Firing in mega-uber-mode should have dangerous consequences.

So long as we stay away from die roll based consequences. We should avoid the die rolling contests that was the misfire rules and allow for creative tactics that aren't (solely) dependant on luck.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 05:17 pm: Edit

Absolutely. One of the original 1X rules that was quickly canned was the unstable fast load rule for photons. It was so risky, nobody bothered. I can see adding SEP's for firing 24 pointers, or something similar. But no random rolls, please.

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