Andrew Harding from Sep 11 – 11:41 “Does it keep the Heavy Weapon penalty when shooting at drones?”

DGK from Original Post “MWPT are no more capable of hitting fighters or other small targets than standard photons. They simply allowed a ship to target more of them at one time.”

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 07:24 am: Edit

Andrew, your right, a single photon can cripple a fighter and a MWPT won’t. But two MWPT can cripple three fighters and you get more chances to hit, thus reducing the chance of a catastrophic failure to hit anything. You’re right though, they will be a lot more effective against boosted fighters.

The BPV cost was my best guess due to a lack of play testing. The point value could be changed to .5 BPV if that’s what play testing suggests. I didn’t feel that MWPT should be free, but it shouldn’t be very expensive either. As for tracking special ammo, I wanted some way to limit the number of MWPTs in a scenario. I don’t think it should become a general use/availability item. As a Commander’s option you could only have so many of them. I don’t expect it to be an auto purchase because it’s not that good an item, but it does add some tactical flexibility to the photon armed ships so, I hope, it will see some use. Also, I feel that if you make it a general availability item, there would need to be a refit of the BPV of all Fed ships. That’s a huge no no. I wanted a way to account for the cost of adding them to Fed ships without any change at all to SSDs.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 08:22 am: Edit

---

Quote:

What's my point? Isn't the Photon supposed to be the Wonder Weapon? Look at all the goodies everybody else has for their weapons. Just what’s so good about the Photon?

---

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 05:44 pm: Edit

Having played SFB for 19 years I'm quite familiar with the Fed DDs ability to trash anybody silly enough to walk right up to his #1 shield. I'm also familiar with all of the Photons other benefits. The best thing about the Photon, to me, has always been its versatility compared to other weapons. But 19 years of new weapons being added to the game has added several other weapons with equal versatility. Drones in particular are probably the most versatile system in the game, being far more versatile than Photons.

I probably didn't make my point very well in the above post. MJC asked why Photons? I was trying to express my idea that this would add to the versatility of a weapon that is supposed to be versatile by comparison to other weapons. But it really isn't all that versatile or superior. Now, my MWPT idea won't make it superior or significantly more versatile, but I hope it adds a little to the Wonder Weapon myth that even after 19 years, I don't believe in my self.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 08:04 pm: Edit

Quote: "AEGIS? All the munitions fire at once. Why would you even bother tying the Photon's into AEGIS. You might fire a phaser as a follow up by AEGIS but that shouldn't affect the range of a Photon. I think limiting it to range 8 is enough of a penalty. Photons are all ready a 50/50 crap shoot at that range."


A humble comment: If the MWPT is tied with the AEGIS system that would be a reason why it can target the small fighters with out the penalty. Also it would limit the MWPT to AEGIS equiped ships (which would be a good thing).

SPP: Dee Eye Ess Are You Pee Tee Ohhhhhh Are.

Hi all!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, September 13, 2002 - 03:40 am: Edit

D.G.K.:

1) I didn't say; "tie it into Aegis."

I meant.
Aegis is meant to hit fighters and drones but only works out to R6.
Maybe the small target difficulties also means that this weapon cahn only hit out to R6.

2) The Photon is a great weapon for the flooing resons.

DIAL UP DAMAGE You can pay for the damage you're generating on the turn before you fire.
6+2, 5+3 and 4+2 are all pretty cool damage producers and yet still grant LOTS of availible power ( and in some cases:- speed ) to the vessel during her attack run.

UNIVERSALLY LONG RANGE All General era Phot-torps on ships are R30.

OUTPUT AND THROUGH PUT Proximity Fuse Phot-trops have great out-put and pretty good through put ( an R30 Proxi strike has a through put of 1.0 ).

CHRUNCH POWER...you fire these things and their each marginally less effective than a disruptor and they bring down sheilds because they combine two turns worth of fire onto one sheild.

THEY CAN BE HELD. They can be held, even the overloads can be held, this give you the ability to move as though you were arming standards ( 2 points per tube and you don't need warp to hold them ) if you move to a three turn cycle allowing for some very fast attack runs ( an unmodified CA can hold full overloads ( spend battery power ) and move at speed 26 for the entire turn).

DIRECT FIRE. As a direct fire weapon, they are much harder for a defender to deal with.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, September 13, 2002 - 11:20 am: Edit

I'm going to ignore everybody’s defense of why Photons are so good because I never intended for that subject to come back up. It is irreverent. I've heard it all before and it is all true to some extent, but personally I'd rather have disruptors. It just doesn’t matter in relation to what I’m discussing, the MWPT concept.

Only one ship in the game has Aegis and photons (to my knowledge) so exactly how much good would this weapon be and what would be the point of designing and building it if only the Fed NAC could use it? And the NAC only has two photon tubes. Now, if all Fed escorts had Photons, your suggestion of making MWPT limited by Aegis might make sense. (Note: Orions with Aegis and Option Mounts are not being considered as part of this argument, they are not normal war ships and the Feds would be the designer of the weapon.)

I came up with the idea of the MWPT so standard war ships could engage fighters and tried very hard to make sure that it would not allow those same war ships an unfair advantage over fighters. I also intended it to be useable against other war ships. But it doesn't greatly improve the photons capabilities against other war ships or PFs.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, September 13, 2002 - 11:36 am: Edit

Oh, and I never intended the MWPT to be able to attack fighters or other small targets without suffering the Heavy Weapon vs. Small Target EW penalty. That's why the original post said that MWPT are no more capable of hitting fighters or other small targets. The MWPT is only intended to allow more units to be attacked by a single ship. By allowing a ship to attack multiple units from each torpedo tube, you help reduce the risk of missing by increasing the number of to-hit chances.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Friday, September 13, 2002 - 11:37 am: Edit

It would definaely be a useful GW enhancement. However, I'd go with:

standard photon power
shoots 2 mini-photons
mini-photons must fire on same impulse and can only target size class 5 units and smaller
can be fired at the same or different targets
+x BPV per tube for the ability/upgrade

My issue with the current proposal is that, were I a Fed ship without excess power, I might go for these vs ships. The max damage per tube is the same as a 6-power overload yet you have a much higher chance of SOME damage. I'd prefer to keep any such "upgrade" as a defensive enhancement and not a balm for those who hate PDS (Photon Dice Syndrome).

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, September 13, 2002 - 10:09 pm: Edit

Daniel,

I understand that your proposal wasn't meant to be a discussion on the various pros and cons of the photon torpedo. But, in fairness, you did specifically ask the question "just what's so good about the photon." I just wanted to give my opinions on that topic, as I used to be a huge proponent of improving the photon to keep pace with plasmas and disruptors. But, I've since changed my mind, and don't think they need it.

Your proposal sounds interesting, especially as an option for escorts. I'd have to play it, of course, to make an informed decision on it. The decision to require different targets for each warhead is a good one, as it prevents mizia attacks with a heavy weapon. A question, though. What if you only have 2 targets? What happens to the third warhead? Do you just loose it?

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, September 14, 2002 - 03:52 pm: Edit

Mike, if you only have two targes, you loose the extra.

And don't worry about the pros and cons of Photons. I'm not upset, but I don't want to open that can of worms again. I don't think they need any improvements in their to hit capability either. That's one of the reasons that I thought my MWPT idea should be restricted in range. That way a fleet can't use it for mass attacks at range 30 in order to limit what Andy calls PDS.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, September 14, 2002 - 03:54 pm: Edit

Quick question for the more experienced Fed players. How many Fed Escort ships are armed with Photons? I thought that it was just the NAC.

By Paul Stovell (Pauls) on Saturday, September 14, 2002 - 04:04 pm: Edit

The DE and DEA has 2 too IIRC

By George M. Ebersole (George) on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 03:12 am: Edit

Pardons are asked for if this has already been suggested (I don't read every single flippin' topic every single day ); but how about an emphasis on Omega for J3?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 10:26 am: Edit

Omega stuff goes into Omega modules. So, if there is to be an emphasis on omega stuff, it would be in Omega five or six or seven or eight, not in J3.

By George M. Ebersole (George) on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 04:55 pm: Edit

Hm. No chance of calling it O-J3 then

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 05:10 pm: Edit

Right, none at all.

By George M. Ebersole (George) on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 11:03 pm: Edit

J3 material; Scrambleing device.

By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 10:32 pm: Edit

The following is a list of what I think are obvious variants for J3.

Lyran:

Take the CVM center module and splice it into the following hulls for these obvious variants.

1) CW PFT plus CVM center section yeilds a Division control ship with 12 fighters and six PF.

2) The Lyran CSV heavy fighter carrier gets a CVM center section which yeilds an ACS on a CW hull carring 12 fighters and siz heavy fighters

3) A Lyran CVL gets a CVM's center section and the Lyrans get a CW hulled CVD with 24 fighters.

All three of these variants would need a "Support pack" rather than the standard "Power Pack" for systems missing when the CVM center section displaced the normal center sections.

4) The Lyrans could also get a DDV with 12 fighters using the CVL's out fighter bays. Possibly as a training carrier created from a salvaged CVL outer hulls and a surplus DD center section.

5) A Lyran CWV with a CVM type center section with either six or eight fighters.

Gorn Obvious J3 variants:

1) ACS -- A Gorn CSV with the "Carrier bubble" from the CVD and HD emergency carriers.

2) Division Control Ship -- A Gorn HD hulled PFT with a "Carrier Bubble."

3) Emergency CV -- A Gorn CL gets and emergency carrier bubble.

4) CL hulled CVD -- A Gorn CV gets a "Carrier Bubble"

5) DNCV -- A Gorn Dreadnought-Cruiser from CL-22 with a Gorn CV front end.

6) DNHV -- A Gorn Dreadnought-Heavy Destroyer mentioned in CL-22 with an HV front end.

7) BDCV -- a Gorn Battle Destroyer-Cruiser mentioned in CL-22 with a DWV front end.

Federation:

1) HVF -- A replacement Fed CVF carrying A-20F rather than F-18s. No SSD changes needed.

2) DCL -- The last Star-Cat DNL gets converted to a carrier with a BCS sized type strike group of six F-14s and six A-20Fs. This happens after the General War, either during the ISC or Andromedan war, when the BC's were replaced by CX in new production.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 05:13 pm: Edit

Escort version of Pegasus.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 05:46 pm: Edit

Do we REALLY need more carriers?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 06:08 pm: Edit

I find myself nodding to Cfants post. How many ways does it take to get the fighters into combat. The only places I can think of off the top of my head would be...

X-Fighter carriers (and there is no non-hydran X-fighters unless X2 returns to them (maybe during Xork invasion))

Bomber Carriers (and we all know that will NEVER happen. Shame though, it might have been cool to simulate the Dolittle raid. But then not every battle needs re-doing in SFB.)

By Ed Grondin (Ensignedg) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 06:33 pm: Edit

Perhaps J3 could be to Carriers what R9 will be to primary reinforcements.

It could include interesting items like the National Guard Carriers (obviously carrying older/weaker or planetary defense fighters).

It could include rejected fighter designs. Or rejected escorts.

X/X2 Carriers could be cool if done right.

By Ed Grondin (Ensignedg) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 06:34 pm: Edit

And as a side note... I am usually good with acronyms or short hand but I cannot figure out IIRC can someone please define

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 06:41 pm: Edit

If I Recall Correctly.