Your argument is sound and I appreciate it

Perhaps then the 8-impulse delay refit can still be considered. Either as a non-X refit or a partial-X refit, whichever is the more appropriate. If considered, I don't know what an additional refit cost would be though in BPV?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - 05:41 pm: Edit

David Schultz:

My personal opinion is that it is homogenizing the game. The particle cannon as is forces Seltorian (and Tholian Home/Old Galaxy forces) to have to plan and maneuver in ways somewhat differently than the run of the mill Alpha Octant/Omega Octant/Magellanic forces. It creates a somewhat different tactical paradigm form the "eight impulses and fire" (the majority of weapons) or "33 impulses and fire" (photons, hellbores, plasmatic pulsar devices, two-turn plasma bolts) or "65 impulses and fire" (plasma bolts if you go the full three arming cycles) that existed. You may as well ask that the Kzintis should be allowed a refit that in Y??? allows a type-C drone rack to launch its second drone in eight impulses rather than 12.

I am just not convinced there is that much of a problem with the weapon as it is, but it does not mean that you are not the proverbial "canary in the coal mine" on this. There seem to be some Seltorian players who are content with the weapon and playing the Seltorians, but I have no doubt that any player would seize on an improvement to their own favorite empire's capabilities. There have certainly, for example, been any number of Federation players calling for improvements to the photon torpedo's hit table.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - 07:51 pm: Edit

The PC, for me has great tactical value as a weapon you can fire but still presents a measure of deterrent.

The photon can be used the same way by reserving one and firing three. The enemy knows you have the potential for a 16 point blast unless he keeps his distance. (Another is to use the two-each-turn method.) Or course, any ship armed with heavy weapons can do this but the PC just has a different twist.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Thursday, September 18, 2014 - 06:11 pm: Edit

Being different is good. Being just worse is not. Obviously things are allowed to be worse if balanced somehow, but the PC's disadvantages stack in an unpleasant manner (you need 2 shots on the same shield to match your opponents, but the delay and bad turn mode (C on a frigate??) mean you won't get them and the hold cost means you pay extra for the attempt).

Added to that, the FA arcs for the PCs and WBs, together with the lack of any seeking weapons, mean that it acts like an uninspiring phaser boat outside those arcs.

My recommendation is to change the firing arcs. After all, these are fairly light weapons similar to disruptors. Instead of FA, make the boom PCs FX and FA+L / FA+R like the phasers, and the rear hull PCs FH. You might temper it by saying that a hull PC can't fire directly forward because it's blocked by the boom.

As an entirely different alternative, you might improve the turn modes of the ships a lot. Like A for a DD, B for a CA, C for a DN.

Not, of course that I'm suggesting any of these changes be official; they're for your own amusement.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, September 18, 2014 - 06:52 pm: Edit

Jim Davies:

While some ships have wide disruptor arcs, they are not as common as you make them appear by your analogy.

E3 (and variant), E4 (and variants), G6, F5 (and variants), D6 (and variants), D7 (and variants), D7W, C6, TGA, TGB, and LD5 all have FA only disruptors.

C8 (and variants), C9 (and variant), and C10 have six disruptors, but four are FA and only two are FX.

C5 has five disruptors, four are FA and one is FX.

B10 (and variants) and B11 (and variants) each have four FA+L/R and four FH+L/R, and two RH (base hulls only)

B8 has four FA, and four FH+L/R.

E5 has FX disruptors.

F5W (and variants), HF5, E7, D5 (and variants), D5W (and variants), and C7 (and variants) have FH+L/R

RKL has 1 FA+L and 1 FA+R and two FH.

F6 has two FA and two FX.

E6 has two FA and one FX.

WD5 has six FH+L/R (I am going to skip the rest of the Module R9 ships).

X-ships have the same arcs as the base hull, i.e., a DX (D7 variant) has FA disruptors.

PFs are all FA (no matter the empire operating them). I will ignore the Early Years and Local defense ships based on them.

The Lyrans are in a similar situation. Most disruptors are FA, but all trimaran ships have some FX.

The Kzintis got a lot of "180*" disurptors, mostly on their older ships (LF+L becomes FA+L), but their FFs are all still FA only, and their DN has FA throat disruptors, not FX disruptors and their CMs are FA only disruptors which carries over to their NCAs.

As you can see, your observation about disruptors is just not true. The vast majority of disruptors are limited to 120° arcs which requires the player to point the ship at the target to fire them. To get real value out of the few wider arc disruptors, you still need to point the ship in most cases or you will not do enough damage generally.

Now, late war NON-X Klingon fleets built around a C7 flagship with D5Ws, D5s, and F5Ws are definitely something different (the whole force, assuming no variants, has FH+L/R disruptors) and can employ very different tactics. (It is quite possible with those arcs to fire "over the shoulder" masses salvoes with half of the disruptors of the fleet at a pursuing force with a 60° turn making it easier for such a force to fight behind all of its shields to some extent.)

But your justification of the disruptors to allow particle cannons to have wider arcs is just flawed as most disruptors are, as noted, mounted to fire FA.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, September 18, 2014 - 07:25 pm: Edit

Loren Knight:

As I said, David Schultz could be the "proverbial canary in the coal mine."

We have already made a major alteration to the particle cannon (either shot can be the overload) and he is asking for another. I am not convinced that it is required, but it does not mean that I am right and he is wrong.

Still, I do observe that any empire would like an improvement in its weapons. Even the disruptor empires would like their disruptors to hit more often, or do more damage when they hit. Indeed, Module R10 introduced some pretty radical changes to plasma torpedoes (sabot, ECP), and even before Module R10 there were a number of changes to the original plasma torpedoes (bolts, two-turn plasma-Fs). So who is to say that maybe some other weapon in SFB needs some kind of upgrade, and maybe it is the particle cannon (again, I am not convinced of this).

As I have observed elsewhere, in "my opinion" people who play Hydran hellbore ships only are "lazy." They knock a shield down and then they do not have to use maneuver and speed changes to try to hit that shield again (that is my opinion, I know there are some quite good Hydran commanders out there who do maneuver their hellbore ships well to optimize their other weapons). I tend to shy away from the hellbore because of that (to me) inherent threat of becoming lazy and not having to use tactics.

Does not mean that if I am playing a historical scenario where I am given some hellbores that I will not attempt to exploit their capabilities to the fullest, just that I would not normally take such a ship, or place such a weapon in an option mount because to me it is a "lazy man's weapon."

Even so, I have no doubt that players who use hellbores would be ecstatic if we gave the weapon some additional little improvement.

But any finagling with how a weapon works risks destabilizing the game.

By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Friday, September 19, 2014 - 07:58 am: Edit

In regards to the 8-impulse delay, we know that it is available for X-tech ships. So it was a natural progression for the weapon system. As of right now, it is available only in X-tech ships. But would it be reasonable to have this as a refit available prior to the advent of X-tech? Would it unbalance the weapon in a GW-era ship? Would it be worth some playtesting? Reasonable questions.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, September 19, 2014 - 02:25 pm: Edit

David Schultz:

Would it be reasonable to allow a proximity fuzed photon torpedo to still score full damage if the to-hit number rolled was a one?

What is "reasonable" is one of those "eye of the beholder" things. You want this, so to you it seems perfectly reasonable.

I acknowledge that you might be right, but I am not sure the opponents would agree with what you consider to be reasonable, nor am I sure that homogenizing the game by making this change is a good idea. There is no real support in this topic for what you are asking for, nor is there an overwhelming hue and cry that it is evil and must be stopped.

There are two sides to the issue at the least, and I am not sure the silence of other players indicates assent (and others besides myself have weighed in in this topic that there does not seem to be a crying need to change the weapon).

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Friday, September 19, 2014 - 03:04 pm: Edit

I tried the 8 impulse delay between PC shots briefly. It does improve the Seltorians but very slightly. Selts are still weak in the fights they were weak in before. Selts make good support for fleets heavily comprised of other powers but don't fare well if the force is exclusively Seltorian except when facing unprepared Tholian enemies.

By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Friday, September 19, 2014 - 04:55 pm: Edit

SPP wrote:

"Would it be reasonable to allow a proximity fuzed photon torpedo to still score full damage if the to-hit number rolled was a one?"

This depends on the context in which we're discussing. As a GW refit? No. As an X2 system? Well we were just discussing something similar to what you mentioned on the FC forum (specifically your SSJ Enhanced Photon Proximity Fuse). I think that something similar to what you developed would be perfectly reasonable as far as an X2-tech photon torpedo (and some other DF weapons) as it does not mess with any existing to-hit charts/probabilities or damage.

Would an 8-impulse PC refit be unreasonable? As you state, it is in the eye of the beholder. In this thread there has been some positive discussion on the validity of the idea as well as some 'as-is' commentary. There does seem to be a consensus, though not unanimous, that the PC could use 'something'. And yes, one could argue that any weapon system needs 'something'. Richard Wells above puts it well in that it does improve the Selts but very slightly. That would be my general proposal/aim to accomplish. I don't think it needs something that generally everyone would consider unreasonable i.e. increased damage, better to-hit probabilities etc. Rather something that makes it a reasonable, yet slight improvement thereby avoiding something that may potentially unbalance the weapon system.

Since the PC did get an 8-impulse delay as part of the X-tech I would submit that it was a logical progression of the system. I would also suggest that the ability to fire either shot as an OL (and increased caps) was the better/more important part of the X upgrade. If this suggestion were found reasonable then my suggestion/proposal would be that at some point prior to X-tech a refit be allowed for a certain BPV cost to the 8-impulse delay.

How much enthusiasm/support/consensus for the idea I cannot tell. I don't know how generally popular the Selts are at this stage. I don't know if this is an important enough proposal to be bothered with. But I felt it was worth bringing up.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Friday, September 19, 2014 - 07:28 pm: Edit

I agree with the proposal to drop the PC from 12 impulses to 8. Whether this is done as a refit (I favor a Y120 refit, to separate it from early years PCs), or a full-fledged retcon, is really a call I don't have an opinion on. But I do agree that the PC needs some help, since it is considered inferior to the Disruptor. I feel this inferiority in the heavy weapons have depressed the popularity of the race empire such that it is one of the least popular to play in the Alpha Octant.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Friday, September 19, 2014 - 08:13 pm: Edit

I doubt even switching the Seltorian back to disruptors like the earliest playtest concepts would make them interesting. The Seltorian would trail the Tholians who have much the same design but Web Casters have many more uses than Shield Crackers.

By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Saturday, September 20, 2014 - 11:17 am: Edit

That's all we need is another disruptor race! Too many as it is now.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, September 20, 2014 - 03:28 pm: Edit

Our local groups opinion is that the PC works well enough, some weapons are weaker, some are stronger. The PC works sufficiently well within that range.

Our big question remains; How does an S8.0 legal fleets WBs EVER generate enough punch to reliably take down the defenses of a Starbase? WBs work great against free standing web, but supported fixed web can be reinforced far faster than WBs can take it down.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, September 20, 2014 - 04:32 pm: Edit

A David Merritt:

Not enough data to formulate a response to your question. Even an Alpha Octant base protected by an "S8.0 legal fleet" is going to fend off an attack by opposing "S8.0 legal fleet." Relative total combat power matters, and if there are so many defending ships that you cannot really fire at the base you may as well leave even if there are no webs (like at a Lyran Starbase).

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, September 20, 2014 - 06:20 pm: Edit

My pardon, I did not mean more than NCL/NDD or two. As long as there is a way to power the web, WBs cannot do enough damage to drop the web around a base that has any significant web reinforcement. By the time a Web degrades enough to allow penetration of the inner layer, the SBs p-4s will have wrecked most fleets.

As to play tests, Daniel Knutson-Thompson was our lead when we played often enough to generate useful data. As far as I know, he was sending in reports at the time we played this out, although I do understand the need for multiple sources for non-biased results.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Saturday, September 20, 2014 - 06:58 pm: Edit

I am finding this to be a very interesting discussion I do not have the Seltorians but i have played the tournament ship. The 12 imp delay was not really a problem. The lousy to hit screwed me as i missed with all but one on a alpha strike. It did help to be able to be holding the over loads and still fire regular shots when he did not close to overload range.
You could fire a early long range shot at a launched shuttle ie scatter pack and be able to fire late in the turn. Also all those transporters is not that so the seltorians can board and capture as well as shield crackers?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, September 20, 2014 - 08:22 pm: Edit

A. David Merritt:

According to the R-section for the Battlewagon in Module R12, it's noted that a pair of BW counters are included "for use in scenarios where opposing Seltorian forces meet, and for large scale attacks on Tholian Will positions in the Tholian Home Galaxy".

I don't recall whether the R12 campaign update in Captain's Log formally accounted for this or not. But if so, perhaps those siege engines might help tip the scale against Neo-Tholian starbases, as they did against the Tholian spheres themselves - particularly if one is allowed to bring two to the same party. (Not least since, as I was getting at in an earlier post, each BW makes for a uniquely dangerous commando ship, even before adding in additional Marines through the use of Commander's Options.)

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, September 20, 2014 - 08:39 pm: Edit

Gary;

Perhaps, but for the "rapid fall of the Tholian Will before they could marshal their resources" history to work, they better have a heck of a lot of them.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, September 20, 2014 - 08:44 pm: Edit

A David Merritt:

There is an interesting discussion in CL47, where the original cargo variants of the Hive and Nest Ships were given SSDs. It talks about how they were originally used (to help marshal the resources of numerous subject planets for use at the various spheres), what the early rebels used them for (as gigantic suicide freighters), and how they eventually hit upon the idea of making the Battlewagon conversions.

Actually, the Seltorian preview for F&E in CL45 hints at the existence of an Assaultwagon, or AW, which presumably would have done for the Nest Ship what the BW does for the Hive Ship. If it turns out that such units historically existed, perhaps AWs might have helped the rebels to take down smaller Tholian Will bases (such as battle stations), leaving the larger BWs free for use against larger targets like starbases, Spheres, and possibly the ancestral home world of Tholia Prime itself (if that planet was still inhabited by the time of the Revolt).

By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Wednesday, December 17, 2014 - 02:28 pm: Edit

I'll toss this out there for consideration:

Allowing the PC to combine both an OL shot and a standard shot in one single shot (and the only one for the turn) could be something to consider. This would produce either 9 or 12 points of damage depending on the range. Normally an OL shot would cost 3 points and a subsequent standard shot 1 point for a total of 4 points over the turn. This would put the one-shot mode around the OL Disruptor/Ion Cannon level. It perhaps could be a function that is 'possible' but not something that is generally 'doable' all the time due to energy requirements. Possible suggestions to limit this function could be:

* Combining the two should cost 5 points (a full capacitor) and perhaps even 1 point of reserve power at the moment of firing for a total of 6 points. This would allow it to fire in this 'mode' perhaps initially but less likely as the game progresses. Perhaps making a viable alpha strike initially but expensive to try to pull off as the game turns add up. And it would be limited by the number of batteries available and charged.

* Perhaps require a one-turn cool down after fired in this mode. Say something like a full 32 impulses from the point of firing.

This could/would be in addition to the tweaks discussed above i.e. 8-impulse delay and no hold caps or it could be in place of such refits.

Thoughts?

By Mike Bennett (Mike) on Wednesday, December 17, 2014 - 07:31 pm: Edit

Would this be a lead-up to X-technology?

By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Thursday, December 18, 2014 - 10:49 am: Edit

I would suggest it as such. For X-tech, since both shots can be overloaded, allow the single-combined shot mode to combine both overloads for either 12 points or 16 points of damage depending on range. I don't have X1R but I'm assuming that for X tech each OL shot costs 3 points. So for X tech perhaps a single-combined shot costs the full capacitor of 7 and 1 battery. As in the above GW era proposal the point of battery power being applied at the instant of firing. Perhaps maintain the 32-impulse cool down period following a single-combined shot for X-tech as well.

By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Friday, December 19, 2014 - 12:00 pm: Edit

We're going to institute these changes i.e. no hold caps, 8-impulse delay and single combined shot (one standard combined with one overload. 32-impulse delay for cooling. Cost of 5 points [full capacitor] plus 1 battery at the instant of firing). Only way to know how it will work will be to play test it in actual games.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Saturday, January 31, 2015 - 07:36 am: Edit

I have posted a Seltorian Battle Group 550, and I look forward to the tactics I will use in the scenario when revealed.
The particle cannon, it alone among all ships can fire its heavy weapon twice a turn.
The capacitor holds 2 points at WS-1, 3 points at WS-2, and 5 points at WS-3.
The shield cracker(web breaker)at WS-2 and WS-3 holds 2 points(no cost).
Lots of transporters and shuttles.
A different plan of maneuver to many of the other forces (Alpha/Omega) will be called for.
The bugs are fine.