I don't know when anyone ever talked about a XBCJ so where is the compairison between the XCC and the BCJ. Put six photons on the XCC and the discussion will be realivent. Might as well be compairing the XCC to the XDN.

Compair photon to photon for a realivant discussion of the merrits.

Though undeveloped the K-XD5 would be a CL not a DD. However, my Fed XDD will likely hold it's own pretty well against the K-XD5.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 12:07 pm: Edit

I think the point was that the BCJ, a GW era ship, can dish out more total photon damage at one time compared to the XCA armed with 20 point max overloads. Not a good comparison, IMHO, and this is why. For one thing, the BCJ is a stressed hull; it suffers shock to fire those extra two photons, and was expressly built to be a heavy photon platform. The XCA, on the other hand, is still a CA, not a suped-up combat ship. The second thing is that the BCJ has to use a majority of it's power to arm those six photons to full power. The XCA can do this much easier, giving it more power for EW, SSREO, movement, or what have you. Further, it can fire 15 (or 16, depending on which proposal you pick) point overloads every turn...not just every other turn. That's a pretty darn powerful package. I'm playtesting this stuff this weekend. We'll see how it goes. If it's not enough, we can always bump it up to 24 points.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 12:48 pm: Edit

That sort of what I was saying. The BCJ is a "One-OF" ship.(or few-of)

It was extra heavily loaded. Using the BCJ/XCC arguement I could argue 8 photons on the DNH.

Same arguement, why then does the CCX(X1) not have six photons or more capable photons? It's a more advanced ship...

The XCC/BCJ compairson doesn't hold water.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 03:00 pm: Edit

While this may not be the place for X-ship hull theory,

It seems to me that the the Fed CX IS a maxed out hull.

Phasers never stress a hull as much as heavy weapons do (exception being the P-4 and now our X2 version, the P-8), and the CX has a cubic-buttload of phasers. it is argulably as maxed as a BCH, just differently.

IMHO, it would take another advance in technology to make a ship that would be as head-and-shoulders above a CX as a BCH is above a CA.

It is entirely possible that 2X fills this niche.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 06:22 pm: Edit

Mnorman: Bolts hit probability is worse than photons at Range 0-2, same at 3-4, better at 5, same at 6-8, better at 9-10, same at 11-12, better at 13-20. (Not quite accurate as I've ignored prox torps). Overall I'd call this roughly competitive with the Photon.

Throw in the seeking mode and, well... I've been playing X1 plasma a little recently and it's just awesome - the high BPVs that they have are fully justified (yes, even the ISC CCX).

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 07:30 pm: Edit

Especially when the Sabot and ECM Torp are allowed as well.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 08:50 pm: Edit

The BCJ argument is a justified argument.

What reasons for X2 ships being better shall we have, new technologies?...new alloys!?!...new computer programmes???...new structural design theories!?!


Whatever we pick puts up a new question, how many of those answer allow us to mitigate some of the stress in a hull!?!


The four 24 pointers doesn't have to shock the X2 cruisers ( or even the X2 destroyer ) we just need to have a BPV that matches the fact that we have no shock.
At 300-410 BPV the XCA isn't the 180 ( or was it 196 ) BPV pocket dreadnought of the BCJ so some our our BPV can be justified in having no shock.


6 by 16 and 4 by 24 are both a possible 96 points of damage.


Now I've said it before so I'll say it again.
Your typical MY opponent would loose 36% of it's internal boxes if struck by four 16 point Photons and a Typical XCA would loose ( Assuming the A.S.I.F was up ) 39% of it's internal boxes if struck by six 24 point photons and just 3% if struck by four 24 point photons.


We can afford a pretty substantial increase to the Photon warhead if we are 1) keeping the same number of Photons and 2) Improving the Disruptor to some degree.


Furthermore the 24 points of warp you must find ( unless you arm as 4+8 inwhich case it's 32 points (remember that you can not arm as 8+4 )) makes the Photon armed ship the slowest vessels on the turn of attack in the X2 game...that's pretty similar to the effects of the BCJ.
48 Warp minus four lots of 6 means that just about anybody can reach you and 48 warp minus four lots of 8 is worse.


.


Does anybody know what a 24 point Photon is!?!

It's the sumation of two turns worth of 12 fastloaded Photons.
There's no increase in "output", just an increase in crunchiness.


If we compair the X2 Photon with the X2 Disruptor.

Q) What does four two turn 24 point photons give us the Fed X1 cruiser?
A) Crunchiness.

Q) What does six Disruptors with Disruptor Caps and a 6 impulse double broadside penalty give us give us over the Klingon X1 cruiser?
A) A limited double broadside capasity, having the speed to be there when the weapons have rearmed and the capasity to hit slowly ( or perhaps more slowly ) moving ships on the same shield...but certainly it gives you the ability to cruicify the impromptu SSReo capasities or rear shield boxes of the off turn enemy.

Q) Do these two capasities have an equal capsitity.
A) It'ld be pretty close...some kind of Intergrated UIM and Defracs is probably all it would take to keep the Disruptor's parity.


I think we're going to have to live with the fact that the Klingons are going to have cheaper ships than the Feds in the start of the X2 period and only gain parity by the time of the Xork invasion.


Note the heavy disruptor is an increase in Output.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 11:37 am: Edit

A cross-post from the playtest thread regarding 24 point photons.

---

Quote:

Doesn't matter. 24 is too much when you can immediately follow up with another 16. Look at it this way. A Fed XCA that has four 24 point photons with a 16 point fastload option can dish out a possible 160 points (4x24=96,+ 4x16=64) damage in two turns. That's more than a Fed battleship (8x16=128). With no penalty imposed, that's a huge amount of damage. Do we really want a cruiser of any generation to have that kind of power?

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 08:21 pm: Edit

You are compairing non-refitted Fed and Klingon ships and the Klingion is designed to get more expensive refits on the basis that it was cheaper to build originally because the ecconomy was so damaged by the general war.

6 Intergrated UIM disruptors with a six impulse delay and Caps coupled with 12Ph-5s will be much better suited to four 24 point Photons and 12Ph-5s.

Plus the longer term effects of the Shield shunting or the short term effects of Caps-to-SSReo will greatly offset some of the chrunch power advantage of the Photon but not so much the shield stripping effects of the Disruptor.


Aditionally the tables I've posted about relative damage between varrios disruptors and varrious Photon Firing modes does tend to indicate that 16 point fastloads is going to much more a of a problem than the 24 point two turn verios.

I'ld rather see 12 point fastloads and 24 point standards on an X2 Fed than a 20 point standards and 15 point fastload, especially since that Photon would have advantagious chances at two non-tradition firing ranges on account of the changed range brackets, sopecifically R3 and R5!
It'll retain a Fed'ish flavour.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 09:16 am: Edit

Here are the poll results. We had ten respondents, and occasional multiple choices for answers, particularly on Question 6 (What improvements would you like to see to the 2X photon, if any?). The overall picture points toward a desire for several key features to the 2X photons:

1. Flexibility
2. Crunch…but not too much.
3. Retain two-turn arming flavor
4. Simplicity of use

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 09:47 am: Edit

Mike, good poll. Thanks.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 10:35 am: Edit

I would like to throw some numbers around, with both the Photons and the Disruptor at longer ranges.

I'll use the four standard and Fastloads and proxies of both; 8, 10 & 12 warheads and compair with intergrated UIM and Defracs Disruptors of both the four and six disruptor varriety.

Weapon	R9-12	R13-15	R16-22	R23-30	R31-40
Phot 8F	10.66	5.33	0	0	0
Phot 8	5.33	2.16	2.16	2.16	2.16
Phot 8FP	10.66	8	0	0	0
Phot 8P	5.33	4	4	4	4
Phot 10F	13.33	6.66	0	0	0
Phot 10	6.66	3.33	3.33	3.33	3.33
Phot 10FP	13.33	10	0	0	0
Phot 10P	6.66	5	5	5	5
Phot 12F	16	8	0	0	0
Phot 12	8	4	4	4	4
Phot 12FP	16	12	0	0	0
Phot 12P	8	6	6	6	6
Disr x4	8	8	5.33	4	1.33
Disr x6	12	12	8	6	2

As one could have guessed the best fit for the Four Disruptor Klingon is the 8 pointers and the Six Disruptor Klingon is the 12 Pointers.

Maybe the 10 pointers are good middle ground or maybe the Fed should Three torps and Refit to Four or maybe the Feds should start with a combat Edge in the Trade wars period that gets lost when the Xork invasions ships start getting feilded.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 12:35 pm: Edit

I like Option 3 with a cool down period.

I propose this for the cool down period.

Warheads of 17 to 18 require 16 impulses to flush out the tubes or radiation that will expload a photon if fired before the time is up.

Warheads of 19 to 20: Same as above but there is a 32 impulse cool/flush out.

BTW: Does every one like the term "Critical Overload" for warheads above 16? Shall we adopt the term?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 01:19 pm: Edit

Works for me. Either that or "hot loads". Want to write up the table, Loren?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 01:46 pm: Edit

Ya, I have it already but I'll have to do it after work (needs a minor adjustment).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 02:02 pm: Edit

I'd go for Option 2 myself.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 08:46 pm: Edit

I like option two too.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 03:39 pm: Edit

Option 1 for me.

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 10:45 am: Edit

1) With a 10 point warhead as a standard, could you still fire it at range 0-1 as if it were an overload?

2) If no to 1, could you still arm as a photon as 9 or 10-point overload instead of as a standard so you could use it at ranges 0 & 1? If yes, could you change its designation as a standard or overload during EA?

4) If no to 1, would a single-turn 10 be a standard, an overload, or captain's choice?

5) You can currenty convert an 8 point standard to an overload with reserve power. If you added reserve power to an 8 or 9 on an X2 ship so that it became a 9 or 10, would the result be a standard torp, an overloaded torp, or the captain's choice?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 10:54 am: Edit

Can't speak for everyone, but my intent would be:

1): No

2&3): No

4): No

5): Standard

The basic premise of the "dial a standard" is that you can have standards from anywhere from 8-10 points. Anything armed as such would be a standard...anything over would be an overload. That's what I was thinking, anyway. I think we'd have alot of problems allowing 10 points to be either standard or overload, and should probably avoid going there. All IMHO, of course.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 02:33 pm: Edit

Steven E. Ehrbar:

Those are very good question and I'm glad you raised them. I put some thought to them and find I agree fully with Mikes post. It's a trade off for the basically more powerful Photon (i.e. OLs go over 16).

The questions you pose would be a problem if:

A) X2 ships had GW or even X1 levels of power. But they have plenty of power to off set the problem by a good margin.

And

B) If the photon didn't have a greater warhead capacity. My version has a 20 point max OL so there is plenty of head room. Some people want even more headroom for 24 point warheads.

Very good spotting as those were unaddressed questions.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 01:59 am: Edit

I disagree and have made this clear before, the 9-10 or 9-12 Photons should be able to be fired as overloads with the selectionb at the instant of fire.

X2 will be the highest end of the spectrum so we might aswell have the fullest flexibility that we can.


Disruptor caps will give the Klingons the ability to choose standards or Overloads at a moment's notice, giving the Fed the ability to fire in the overload range bracket without pumping in that extra 1.5 points of reserve warp ( or 2.5 for 12 pointers ) isn't much of game breaker particularly with the huges ammounyts of reserve warp floating around in X2.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 06:49 am: Edit

There's a difference though. A disruptor user has to put in the four points of power required to fire it as an overload. Caps or no, that's the same way a disruptor has always worked. What Steven is asking is can a player arm a 10 point photon as either a standard or an overload. That isn't particularly fair, as there is no difference in power cost. Overloads should require more power than a standard, and I can't see any reason to justify how one 10 point photon is a standard, and another 10 point photon is overloaded. It doesn't make sense.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 10:56 am: Edit

And as a 10 point STANDARD it is far more flexable and powerful exept it can't fir at R0-1. It gives you that warhead with unlimited range (to 40) and a more powerful proximity warhead. It should have some limitation with the great new benefit and that is you can't fire it at R0-1. However, all you need to do is add one point of power to OL it. In this way it makes it a little harder to suddenly OL 8 point standards but you are flying an X2 ship. Be aware. You get a lot but not everything.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 11:01 am: Edit

I look at the nine or eight point standard as sort of an underloaded standard...a way to still get a full-size warhead without spending all the power you'd have to to get a 10 pointer. Not much, but late in a game after you've started taking a beating, even a few points can be very handy.