I already proposed this over in the APAACS thread, but I wanted to move it to its own topic for two reasons:

1. So that it would be the focus of its own discussion topic rather than buried in a thread dedicated to why the photon shouldn't be improved.

2. To see if I could give the 'no photon improvements' camp collective aneurysms by introducing yet another photon improvement topic.

What do you guys think about this rough idea for a limited photon improvement:

Have an accuracy improvement that's tied to the number of photons fired. Say for example, if you only fire a salvo of two standard photons you can get a -1 on your die roll or something and you can't fire the remaining 2 tubes during the next 8 impulses. Technobabble might state that you're using the targeting systems from the two inactive tubes to help improve the accuracy of the fired tubes.

Additional limitations could be applied if needed, such as a range restriction, an additional power cost, or a reduction in damage.

This addresses Hugh's point, provides an improvement in a duel, but limits the effectiveness in fleet engagements and counteracts the typical concerns about making the photons crunch potential too high.

Just a thought.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 09:00 pm: Edit

Alan,

I wouldn't allow it, myself. Imagine a fleet of feds attacking a base; the chance to hit increases (depending on the range) by a good bit; the only limitation to the photon as it is is the poor accuracy factor. Take that away in ANY way, and its a problem. I think your on the right track in the sense that you've imposed a restriction to get an improvement...but I think any improvement to the photon will have to wait until X2 comes along.

By Alan Bloniarz (Madmax) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 09:42 am: Edit

Mike,

I don't do base assualts, so what I'm about to post might be completely wrong.

I think it would depend upon the base's rotation rate. If it can present a new shield during the 8 impulses it takes for the other two photons to come on line I seriously doubt the feds would use this ability in a base assault since the trade off in this case is crunch for accuracy, crunch probably being far more important in a base assault.

However, if this is a problem then we'd need to add some of the other restrictions I listed. Which ones would you recommend I try as a house rule? Perhaps limit the effective range to a narrow band, say 8-12 or thereabouts?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 10:18 am: Edit

You're right; crunch is important, and so is the rotation of the base. The thing is, since the photon doesn't degrade over distance, an increase in the number of hits sort of cancels out a greater volume of fire. Say you bump the odds from 1-2 to a 1-3. Now, when you fire, you'll likely hit with half your photons; figure one out of two. You only fire half your load, but then fire the other half eight impulses later. In 1 turn, you hit with half your photons. Now, with the old odds, even if you fired them all at once, you probably still won't hit with more than two; you may not even hit with that many. Besides, in a base assault, you have multiple ships firing and alternating their photons anyway. With a plus one (and lets pray there are no legendary weapons officers on any of those ships) you'll be ripping a bases to bits in crackerjack time.

I think the idea has merit for 2X, but I wouldn't go any further with the existing photons. I was a champion of improving the photon myself, Alan, but I've since done some hard data crunching and playtesting, and I've decided that any fix to the photon will make it too powerful. Using a 1-6 die roll means you're limited to chnages of 16% increments...that's pretty steep. If the photon was a 2D6 weapon, I might see a plus one at certain ranges, but as it is, any attempt to fix it will make it too powerful, IMHO.

Anyway, good post. Don't let anyone tell you that you can't post new ideas, either.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 01:45 pm: Edit

Alan, I think that improving the photon as a fleet based weapon might scare the dickens out of everyone. It is a pretty good weapon for fleets as it stands. I feel the only improvement needed would be at the duel level. I have proposed enhanced photons the APAACS and looked at Mike's improved photon and Lorens lights idea. The essence of the problem is exactly what Mike says because it is a 1-6 weapon and improvements are at a 16% ratio one can unbalance things easily. My last proposal where you take the standard photon and change the 5-8, 9-12 bracket for standards to 5-10, 11-12, is the weakest change suggestion yet and still may be unbalancing. However I will look at your idea and try to playtest it.

By Alan Bloniarz (Madmax) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 04:56 pm: Edit

Mike & Hugh,

You guys are absolutely right, you have to find a balance that doesn't make the improved photon firing mode 'better' than the existing firing modes.

Standards are pretty much worthless (unless your short on power) as it is. So, I propose the following adjustments:

You can fire 2 standards with a +1 to hit in the 8-12 range bracket and a -2 to warhead strength, and the remaining 2 tubes cannot be fired for 8 impulses.

Your trading both crunch and reduced overall damage for improved accuracy. It should be balanced even in fleet strength, which is the goal of this topic--to improve photon capability in the duel without letting things get out of hand in a fleet engagement.

By Jonathan Dean (Nightshade) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 09:30 pm: Edit

Rotation rate really doesn't matter. If a base is rotating at speed 4, a fleet can park on/near a shield boundary line and shift back and forth as needed, so the 8 impulse delay is immaterial. If I had the choice, I would definately use it against a base, probably narrow salvoed. An EW-assisted CA would have two rolls at 1-2 to score 16 damage at range 30. That is not bad.

If it is limited to just standards it is a problem, but perhaps not that bad. The reason is that outside of range 12, a base can insure any non-assisted Fed ship is still auto-miss (most ships would be limited to 6 ECCM, and the base should be able to generate 12 ECM). However, it makes scout assisted ships significantly more effective, and that can be dangerous to balance. I would guess it would be enough to break base battles, but to be honest I'm not 100% sure.

If it can be applied to standards and proxies, then it is broke, plain and simple. You would have non-assisted ships hitting with proxies on a 1-2 (even against a ECM shift of 2) which probably is plenty accurate enough to pound a base into mush from range 25 or 30.

By Alan Bloniarz (Madmax) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 09:51 am: Edit

Jonathan,

Were you responding to the original idea? The revision in my last post further restricts the effect to range 8-12 and reduces damage by 2 pts per warhead. Even the original post restricted this ability to standard load torps.

Another possibility is to increase the 8 impulse delay for firing the other two tubes to 16 impulses.

I'd appreciate any help balancing this idea as a house rule -- so even if you never want to see it become official please post your thoughts on the best way to make this idea work.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 10:08 am: Edit

Alan,

My suggestion is that if you want to make the photon more accurate without making it either A) more complicated than it already is or B)drastically altering the game's play balance, you need to make a house rule that treats the photon as a 2d6 weapon instead of a 1d6 weapon. Say, instead of a 1-2 to hit, you have a 4 or less. A change of one this way won't be too drastic, and shouldn't over complicate things. Just use the standard photon table, double the number needed to hit, and make your adjustments from there.

Just my two cents.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 12:40 pm: Edit

One thing that has puzzled me over the years is why different polyhedral dice combinations have never been tried for the weapons and charts? there are many 4,6,8,10,12,20,and 30 sided dice are available. I guess SVC wanted to keep the d6 standard for simplicity and perhaps cost. Adding them to the mix could really increase flexibility but it is probably too late to consider it. Maybe some house, optional rules could be devised? Just a thought.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 01:16 pm: Edit

I'd think one reason, Hugh, is that to do that officially would require re-writing a huge portion of the entire game. The costs would be huge; playtest time, re-design and reprinting of the rules, and the cost of obselete inventory. I personally think the current system is just fine, but as a house rule, changing the die system would be workable without breaking the whole system.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 04:40 pm: Edit

One thing that could work is change the rolls to % only, that way minor tweaks could be considered. and that would entail only switching to d10. These would be house only ideas though.

By Jeff Williams (Jeff) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 03:39 am: Edit

Once again, nothing wrong with the photon as written for the last 20 years or so. It works just fine in both fleet engagements, duels, and base assaults. It has wonderful flexibility with 3 different firing modes, one of which is entirely variable with the power requirements. It can be held while overloaded indefinitely. It can be upgraded with reserve warp. It can trade accuracy for reduced damage, although only at medium to longe range.

Some people claim that it's silly that the Federation never improved it's core weapon. Not quite true, they did. See the X-rules. The took out the arming delay and even made the nasty buggers more accurate with advanced fire control.

As written, against contemporary opponents in all time periods, the photon torpedo works just fine. I've played against all levels of opponents in all time periods using all manners of technology while flying both with and against the photon torpedo. In equal BPV battles I manage to win as often as I lose on both sides of the tubes. It's just a matter of adjusting your tactics to fit the situation.

The last complaint I've heard is that it's just "boring". Well, so are phasers and disrupters, but people don't complain nearly as much.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 01:04 pm: Edit

Jeff, am I missing something? How do the X rules make the Photon more accurate?

I have to add to Jeffs statement though. You all might want to take notice that the new X rules remove the stability problems from the fast load photon. They now always fire fine even though fast loaded. I am forced to admit thats a pretty good improvement! And it is balanced by the fact that all of the other torps have the same upgrade.(I.E. the ones that had the same problem, that is.)

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 01:18 pm: Edit

Good question. I personally think the photon is fine, but I thought the x rules stated that the photon could be fast loaded, and that's all. Personally, I think removing the stability limitations is a bad move; they needed to be toned down, but removed altogether is a bit unbalancing.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 01:23 pm: Edit

Mike, we tested and retested all of the new x-rules for a few months....they work well together, trust me.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 02:11 pm: Edit

Mike, I think one of the balancing factors is that Phasers could no longer be overloaded. And the expaination in CL23 makes sence. The unstable thing turned the game into a die roll, win or loose thing. I think the new X rules are posted on the site, no?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 02:36 pm: Edit

No more overloading phasers? Aw, crap!

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 02:54 pm: Edit

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/X-shipCL23.pdf

By Jeff Williams (Jeff) on Friday, May 17, 2002 - 02:58 am: Edit

X-tech improved photon accuracy with the -1 shift to the chart for a positive EW shift. Which should be achievable in a large number of cases, although not always.

This means that standards will hit on 1-3 at range 12, every turn, for 8 points of damage each. 16 pts. of power averages out to 16 pts. of damage EVERY TURN. And if he comes inside that range, dump your reserve warp into overloads and nuke him at rolls of 1-4. And then quick load standards (or 12pt OLs) next turn and smack him again. While firing phasers from the second charge on the capacitors. All at a -1 shift.

Federation X-ships can be quite scary to deal with.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, May 17, 2002 - 08:15 am: Edit

I read the errata, and even though I'll miss my overloaded phasers, it sounds pretty good. One question, though.

If an x-ship has that positive ECCM shift, and gets a -1 on its to hit roll, doesn't that mean that a Klingon DX using UIM can't miss? The normal to hit with UIM is at worst a 1-5; this would make it impossible to miss. Is that the case? I don't really object to it; it helps balance the new fed rules. Just wondering if that's right.

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Friday, May 17, 2002 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Mike, yup. Scary isn't it, what X-ships can do.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, May 17, 2002 - 12:29 pm: Edit

I forgot about the positive ECCM shift deal. That works well for everything and helps with the lack of OV for phasers too. Thanks Robert. You have done us a sevice.

I still think lights are cool but maybe not worth the effort.

By Jeff Williams (Jeff) on Friday, May 17, 2002 - 11:39 pm: Edit

Well, the new X-rules put speed, maneuvering, and back into the deck for X-ships. Before it was just "close and hose". Other tactics were more viable for having your X-ship go home with most of the original paint job still intact. But most players in pick-up battles were more than happy to cripple their ship in exchange for killing yours. Now they're pretty much forced to maneuver at least SOME against GW ships.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, May 18, 2002 - 12:00 am: Edit

With douple capacitors and big warp, they can do just that, very well!