That's my position too...for the most part, although a Jump cloak is pretty cool and is easier to afford.

A low-power Cloak wouldn't be too powerful if the right set of constraints were placed on it.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 01:38 pm: Edit

I posed the Arced Cloak idea because I was thinking how in x2 tech, Roms have the ability to fine tune their cloaking ability. See below:

Quote:
Another cloaking idea: cloaks with arcs. Get around it and then you can see(target) the uncloaked ship. Maybe the cloak that's 'arc-ed' is denser and more difficult to penetrate than regular cloak.

Now, if the arc cloak+fire+HET breaks the game (it can) then let's look at the second suggestion which is to have the ship totally cloaked, but certain arcs are more dense/effective/offer more protection at a COST (power etc.) Not much of a change, could be tactically useful at times.

Whaddaya think?

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 01:49 pm: Edit

if all the facings were voided by the fire
Not all facings are VOIDED by it, just treated as 'flashcubed'. That is, of course, essentially voiding it, but only for a brief period of time.

The arc the weapon fire out of is VOIDED, permanently (well, at least until the next turn when the cloak can be raised again).
an arc cloak was too powerful
Considering that, in the very next post, someone derides the 'arc cloak' as useless, I think it's safe to say that no, we have not come to that conclusion.

In any case, it doesn't ADD any real advantage - cloaking a whole ship still costs the same. It just adds a little tactical opportunities to the Rom.

Think about fighter or shuttles launches. Battle damage preventing the Rom from being able to AFFORD to cloak the whole ship. I'd like to add a 'cloak H&R' box to each arc, then, as well - instead of the single 'cloak H&R' now, which makes it far to easy to cripple a Romulan ship (currently, one lucky H&R raid, and suddenly you have a 15% BPV advantage on the Romulan ship assuming you were matched to begin with)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 05:57 pm: Edit

Roger,

The only way an arced cloak is at all reasonable is if you pay the full cloak cost and and drop hexsides of cloak to fire using the shield ruled (the cloak arc stays down for a min of 8 impulses)

Because the ship is still generating the cloak it would have to shoot against some serious penalty, such as all DF weapons shot by the arcecd cloak ship and all seeking weapons controlled by an arced ship when they impact roll on the "combat vs. cloak" chart for reduced damage, with the ECM/ECCM ship modifying the roll. AND all arc are flashcubed on the impulse of firing/launching.

We should also say that the ship launching weapons cannot transfer control to another unit, only release control (voluntarily or involuntarily) and can ONLY control seeking weapons through a "down" arc.

A released seeking weapon, of course, has the option of self-guiding if they have ATG or are plasma torps.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 07:35 pm: Edit

Professor X:


The thing about posting with our real names is that we post with our real names, but one of the advantages is that Somebody doesn't have to be a tag for a poster who posted the post above yours bar one.


Arc Cloak is bad!
Consider the T-bomb. Consider the H&R raid.

You don't just drop a sheild and beam these things out and have them chase down the enemy.
If you can H&R someone he can H&R ytou back.
If you can get someone with a T-bomb, what the hell was he doing, he's go 8 impulses to out manouver being within R1 of it and it's only got an R1 dectection/blast radius.


Flashcubing all the shields might work against a Fed opponent but the Gorns will suffer terribly.


No matter how we organise cloak-by-arc we fall into the one of same traps, we either make it too uselss by making every sheilds permanently voided or we giove the Rom the ability to simply turn and knock down all the lock-ons making gorns useless.

Fire Whilst Mirky doesn't fall into that trap because it's a non arc weapon.

6 Cloak H&R boxes is mind numbing.
Which one belongs to which arc or wilt the cloak be able to centre-line you and then turn, putting it'self under cloak in an instant until the very last cloak box is killed!?!

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 08:08 pm: Edit

John, I'm not sure I like the Arced Cloak able to drop arcs anymore.

I am sure the drop arc+fire+HET is too powerful.

If current Rom DF weapons fire with the kind of penalty you suggested I wouldn't fire.

I would like to know if there's any tactical benefit to having a fully cloaked ship have 'denser' arcs where incomming weapons have more trouble doing damage. But then I think that what else could the Romulan be doing with the power he would be spending on a denser arced cloak?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 09:49 pm: Edit

Define what you mean when you say "denser."

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 10:11 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I would like to know if there's any tactical benefit to having a fully cloaked ship have 'denser' arcs where incomming weapons have more trouble doing damage. But then I think that what else could the Romulan be doing with the power he would be spending on a denser arced cloak?

---

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 12:31 pm: Edit

John, Mike's definition is a good start.

Mike, question: to put up a denser arc would cost more power over the reg. cost of the cloak. NOw could that power be used in other ways to defend against strong DF weapons. Don't forget the PPD of the ISC.

John? You like the ISC. Thoughts?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 02:41 pm: Edit

Roger,

I'm still back at trying to get a definition of what a "denser" cloak is.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 06:04 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Mike, question: to put up a denser arc would cost more power over the reg. cost of the cloak. NOw could that power be used in other ways to defend against strong DF weapons. Don't forget the PPD of the ISC.

---

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 08:26 pm: Edit

John, a denser cloak is where a particular arc of a fully cloaked ship is harder to penetrate than the other arcs. The result is a cloak field that is denser 'harder' to penetrate. Mike's application in the above post is an example how it might work.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 07:31 pm: Edit

Bizarre.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 08:56 pm: Edit

I think messing with the + something range modifier is the only way to deal with cloaked arc "thicker cloak" because the double range aspect is tied up with ( married to ) the loss of a lock-on in most peoples' minds.

Going with a times 1.5 plus 5 on four arcs and times 3 plus 5 on the other two arcs would in my opinion create too much confusion as to whether or not the lock on is lost on the four weaker arcs.
Particularaly if we go to; times 1 plus 5 on the three weak arcs and times 3 plus 5 on the strong three which would be easier to calculate and I supspect favoured by a those who favour a cloak by arc system (read; just about anyone bar me).


Doube range plus 7 and double range plus 1 with one weak sheild for each strong sheild is about the only way to deal with cloak by arc/dencer arc without creating difficulties for players.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 01:47 pm: Edit

The +5 is also related to other SFB phenomina. If you are unser conditions where you would get ECM fro no fire control, if your war engines are also shut down, all weapons are at +5 hexes efective range.

No arc of the cloak should do less than double +5

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 05:08 pm: Edit

Ok I've been pretty busy lately. Don't even have time to go over things right now.

Whats the general consensus on cloaks? (If any.)

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 11:55 pm: Edit

None Kenneth. Alot of wild proposals though, that's for sure.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 11:57 pm: Edit

While we're at it, why not a 'phased cloak'?


Ie: a cloak that actually phases the ship slightly out of sequence with this dimension, such that not only would it be invisible but impervious to harm while fully cloaked.

The USS Pegasus comes to mind.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Eagle) on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 08:23 am: Edit

The facial expression of SVC comes to MY mind...
Luckily I have never seen it in RL.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 12:21 pm: Edit

Thanks Geoff.

With everything leading up to the baby's birth. Then having her actually come home. I haven't had the time to do anything but a very quick skim on anything posted.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 03:50 pm: Edit

Where do we need to post it so that everybody knows SFB cannot use anything from Star Trek--ANYTHING--outside the background races and devices of Classic Trek?

And that violations (even perceived violations) would result in a lawsuit that the ADB does not have the resources to win?

Therefore anything that could remotely be linked to any Franchise show or movie is automatically a non-starter?

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 06:28 pm: Edit

Gosh John, whatever are you talking about?

It was hardly a serious proposal anyways, however cool I think it is.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 07:51 pm: Edit

We are trying to put a serious proposal together here. I don't have much use for stuff we obviously couldn't use in any serious X2 proposal.

If it were the first time I've seen this, it wouldn't be a big deal. I routinely post when proposals veer too close to established Franchise territory.

A pervious energized-armor porposal is an example of this.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 08:44 pm: Edit

Well, some things have real world paralells, energised armor being one. Energised Armor is nothing new to Sci Fi either so that the Franchise has used an old idea doesn't make it a automatic no fly.

A Phased Cloak might be pushing it though.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, March 23, 2003 - 01:56 pm: Edit

A phased cloak *would* be pushing it.

Paramount doesn't have to have a strong case to score practical win, just enough of one to theaten to bankrupt the ADB or make the inclusion of the concept fiscally unwise. Energized armor is used in both the Voyager finale and Enterprise, which gives them enough of a case to threaten the ADB's financial health. THAT'S why energized armor is a non-starter.

If Paramount and the ADB were capable of fighting as legal equals, I might have a less jaundiced view of the concept.

As proposed, it covers the saem ground as the ASIF anyway, so it only serves as a "f'r instance."