Three turns?

While there are many tactical instances where arming over three turns is better than arming over two, I think the option should still be available to come to a halt and arm everything in two turns.

Maybe a tactical mistake, but the option should still be there to arm everything in two.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 11:49 pm: Edit

One of the big question hanging around the Photon Overload question is where or not the Klingon Cruisers shall still be running around with 6 or go back to 4!?!

Otherwise you are comapiring pairs of Fastloaded 12 point Photons with trios of Overloaded UIM Disruptor.

2 x 3/6 x 12 = 12
3 x 5/6 x 6 = 15

It's only when UIM is taken out that three disruptors quals 4 fastloads 3 x 4/6 x 6 = 12.

Personnaly 6 Disruptors takes a how lot of A3 hits before it starts loosing enough teeth to stop biting and the flexibility of the Disruptors not needed in pre-plan if you're going to overload or not on the previous turn makes 6 Disruptor ( even without integrated UIM ) a pretty deadly weapons array even with the Feds toting 12 point Fastloads.

That's why I think the Photon should jump up to two turn arming 24 point warheads...6 intergrated UIM O/L Disruptors have a bigger bite than the fastloads...and Disruptor Caps and 6 impulse double droadside penalty make getting a double broadside not as impossible as it once might have been.


If the Klingons go back to 4 Disruptors, it should only be as a cost saving measure during the tradewars...and they should jump back up to 6 when the trade wars end.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 07:47 pm: Edit

A different path...

While all the hub bub goes on continually about damage and arming why not have a little side discussion on expanding the role of the photon?

Since the photon is really like a super high-speed energy drone, there can be different types of warheads. Already known are Standard, Proximity & Overload with a base damage of 8.

The X2 Photon consists of 2 parts:
a. the launcher
can launch std, prox, and
overloaded versions
b. the torpedo's base damage and arming requirements:
Mk I 8 2+2
Mk II 4 1+1
Mk III 12 3+3
Mk IV 16 4+4

[now base damage and arming is still being debated so I'm not beholded to these above stats but they are there for a starting point.]

A ship armed w/ photons will have at least 2 or 3 types in storage

c. Other warhead types:
1. "better to-hit/weaker damage"
-something between a prox. and a std.
2. "worse to-hit/higher damage"
-something between a std. and an ovld.
3. "ECM/ECCM warhead"
-trade warhead for ECM/ECCM
4. "blinds sensors/scanners with a
little damage"
5. "Target Halo"
-if one torp hits impulse one all
other torps hit -1 to hit bonus on
impulse 2
6. "you name it, it'll do it"

There would be ammo limits on certain warhead types or 'fast-loading' limitations. Think of the possibilities!

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 11:24 pm: Edit

If we do too much different, then it's no longer a "photon torpedo".

But some of these might work:

1. better to hit/weaker damage:

On a standard torpedo, change the damage to 6, and it hits on 1-3 at range 9-12 or 1-2 at range 13+

2. Worse to hit/stronger damage:
No, because the photon already has the dial-an-overload setting with the standard to-hit numbers.

3. ECM/ECCM warhead:
Meaning the torpedo can do 8 damage with no shift, or can to 6 damage with 2 ECCM? Sounds like #1.

4. Blinds sensors/scanners with a little damage.
Are you talking about blinding a scout channel, or blinding the sensors (and forcing lock-on re-rolls)?

5. Target Halo: Hit on impulse 1, get a -1 on impulse 2.
Nice, but trades a "crunch" feel for a "wavelock" feel.

Photon torpedos are good for one thing, blowing enemy ships up.
My opinion has been to remove the fast-load capability of the photon and bring it back into being a 2 turn weapon. But, I seem to be the only one with that opinion. So, we have double strength disruptor cannons for Kzintis and two-shots-a-turn particle disruptors for the Klingons. And the Lyrans might get capacitors for theirs that don't require hold costs.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 02:11 am: Edit

Quite frankly we don't need three types of Disruptors...2 is more than enough in my opinion.


I think the Klingon X2 ships will start off being a little weaker than the Federation and refit to be closer or perhaps even slightly better ( is an E-rack plus 2 B-racks better than 2 G-racks!?! ).

I actually think they'll even be pretty close in the smaller ships.
Consider a Fed XDD with LS/RS/FH pairs of Ph-5s, 2 G-racks and three 24 point Photons going up against a Klingon XD5 with four Disruptors ( Caps, 6 Impulse double broadside, Intergrated UIM Defracs ) four G-racks and the same Phaser suite as the D5X.

Sure the ability to Jackpot with 72 damage might be terrorfying for the Klingon, but the Klingons got the Fed beat hands down.


A Federation XFF with two 24 point Photons might seem a little extreme and her 2 bearing Ph-5s will be good at range and her 2 G-racks might be handy:- she's looking at inflicting 31 points of damage at R8 ( with no shift) on the turn of attack.

But the Klingon will dish up about 10 points of damage at R8 with her intergrated UIM Overloaded Disruptors ( with no shift ) and two G-racks might also be handy, but the ability to fire in a perfect oblique some 8 bearing Ph-1s allows the thing to be looking at inflicting 17.33 points of damage from the phasers each and every turn for a DF damage total at R8 of 27 points...it'll inflict 23 points of damage every turn in a non perfect R or L arc oblique and 18 every turn if it makes a non perfect FA arc oblique.

The XF5 can seriously keep up with the Fed XFF even though the Fed seems to have a so called terror weapon.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 07:54 am: Edit

MJC,

Until someone actually posts some SSD's of ships with these abilities, you can't really argue types or numbers of weapons as a way to say that this or that disruptor is unnecessary. I haven't seen any X2 frigate designs yet, nor are we all sold on the notion of klingons being a P1 only race. Compare weapon to weapon...not unseen SSD to unseen SSD.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 08:37 am: Edit

Or have you already created all the SSDs that you seem to be making up as you go along?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 12:57 pm: Edit

Mike: "I haven't seen any X2 frigate designs yet,"

Sure you have, just not posted on this BBS yet. Silly...

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 04:54 pm: Edit

I'm sure PHd and the Unofficial SFB site both have X2-anything you'd ever want.

Sure most of it's crap...

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 12:33 am: Edit

M.R.:


You've seen the weapons array that I feel the XDD should have...you emailed a copy of it to me.
Sure since I can't have 1.5 warp power the engines will change to have 6 extra boxes of the DDX and the shields should go to 40 alround to be like the 32 all round of the DDX but thet's not really much of a change.

---

Quote:

I haven't seen any X2 frigate designs yet, nor are we all sold on the notion of klingons being a P1 only race.

---

---

Quote:

Compare weapon to weapon...not unseen SSD to unseen SSD.

---

---

Quote:

Or have you already created all the SSDs that you seem to be making up as you go along?

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 10:03 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Weren't you the one who was just a few days ago in the disruptor thread saying to me that we can't caompair Disruptor cannon to Disruptors because the Kiznti drones change the balance in the Kzinti favour!?1

---

---

Quote:

You've seen the weapons array that I feel the XDD should have...you emailed a copy of it to me.

---

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 01:24 am: Edit

So basically, for the photon, we have four options:

1) Increase OL range to 10-12

2) Fast Load

3) Increase warhead from 8 to 10-12 (double that for OL)

4) Increase accuracy / expand the brackets.

Am I correct in saying the general consensus is somewhere near "Pick Two" of these, and that the arguements are which two to pick?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 01:43 am: Edit

I went with something that incorporates lesser versions of the last three. I have a new R9-10 proximity bracket but the to hit is too high (1-5). Coupled with the X2 EW advantage it is a guarenteed hit. That's too powerful so out it goes. I may just give it a 1-4 to hit or eliminate it all together.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 02:40 pm: Edit

Jeff, please define your 'photon torpedo'?

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 03:49 pm: Edit

Um, the heavy weapon used by the Feds...?

For the ship on Vorlon's page, I picked Range 10 OL and increased accuracy, and decided not to use FastLoads or increased warhead.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 06:47 pm: Edit

I think this is the simplest way:

Heavy-OL 16>=24 (two turns), Standard-OL 8>=16 (two turns), Fast-OL 8>=12 (one turn), no change in brackets, die rolls, or max range, either 16 or 32 impulse "cool-down" delay after Heavy OL, no shock on firing Heavy OL

One alternative (which reduces simplicity) is to allow fire within "cool-down" delay after H-OL but require shock roll.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 10:03 pm: Edit

RBN: So, over X1 you are only adding a 24 point Heavy Over Load.

I'm one who believes 24 points OL is too much. It out classes everything. The heavy disruptor over two turns of OL-Shots will only generate 18 points max. With the Photons to-hit dificulties I thing 20 should be max. Four points doesn't seem like much and it isn't on the first vollie. On the penetrating vollie it is a world of difference.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 10:45 pm: Edit

On the other hand, the 6 Disruptor Klingon XCA would be looking at R8 fire with oveloads and intergrated UIM, 30 points of damage in a single turn...and the 4 Photon Fed XCA with 24 point overloads will be hurling around 48 points of damage every second turn.

60 beats 48 in most people's thinking...what we do with the Disruptors will have big influence on what seems reasonable for the Photon.


Heck...over two turns, an R15 shoty and an R8 overload is going to consume 36 points of power ( 12+24 ) for the 6 Disruptor Klingon cruiser and inflict 42 Damage ( 5/6 x 6 x 6 + 4/6 x 3 x 6 ) points and probably have Disruptor Caps making this kind of fire less likely and a twin Overloads more likely whereas the Photons are throwing out 48 damage and paying 48 power ( 24+24 or 16+32 or somewhere in between ) all of it warp, for the privelage....six extra damage for 12 extra power ( probably 6+6 but could be 4+8 ) doesn't seem like the Photon's all that crash hot.
Indent Sure the Disruptors have to hit the same shield to get "effective crunch power" ( but even hitting different shields one gets "scratch power" ) but with that massive ability to do those Disruptor shots close together ( 6 impulse double broadside penalty ) and the ability to move around your opponent ( smaller energy cost ( unless going for the double overload in which case ( 24+24 isn't all that different to 24+24Warp ) and the Disruptor Caps affect on speed:- the Klingon is in with a real chance of making the Fed 24 Photon Photons look kinda clumsey.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 11:10 pm: Edit

Remember too that although the Dynamic seems to have changed, it's actually pretty close to being the same.

At the Effective Range of her Phasers ( R5 ) an MY era Fed CA is going to dish up about 32 points of damage with her fully overloaded photons and an enemy cruiser's shield #1 can take 30 points of damage.
At the effective range of the Phasers ( R8 ) an X2 Fed XCA could hurl, four 24 point photons for 48 damage, which is exactly what we'ld expect the shield on an enemy X2 cruiser to be.

With slightly more internal boxes on an X2 vessel tahn X1 and the effect of the ASIF, the X2 ship should sit with an MY Dynamic even with the so called ENORMOUS 24 point Photons.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 11:32 pm: Edit

Right Loren, I'm pretty much going with X1 w/ 24pt H-OL. I also like the simplicity of the 8x1, 8x2, 8x3 paradigm. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on the 20/24 point thing. Has anyone tried playtesting these critters?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 11:35 pm: Edit

Mike's done a little.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 11:37 pm: Edit

Yes, in a couple of matches. I found the 20 point photons to be too much, at least with the ships we used. Four of them, followed less than a turn later by 12 point fast loads, was too much damage for any ship to take. That's the main reason I object to 24 point photons without a 32 impulse firing delay. If you want the punch, you have to pay.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 11:40 pm: Edit

Makes sense. Okay:

H-OL 16>=24 (two turns), S-OL 8>=16 (two turns), F-OL 8>=12 (one turn), no change in brackets, die rolls, or max range, 32 impulse "cool-down" delay after H-OL, no shock on firing H-OL

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 12:19 am: Edit

Consider a Klingon XCA and Fed XCA being a DX and CX ( respectively ) with an extra ph-1 on the boom and all the Ph-1s on the CX replaced with Ph-5s, 8 extra shield boxes all round and 8 extra warp engine boxes.

The Two GX-racks cancel each other out.

With 6 intergrated UIM Disruptors the Klingon XCA can hurl ( 6 x 4/6 x 3 + 8 x 1 ) 12 points of damage in a non perfect oblique against the Fed and will pay (12+8) 20 points of power for the privelage.
The Fed is pumping 24 points of warp power into her Photons in an attempt to build 24 point photons and so can only fire 6 bearing Ph-5s for 12 damage...which cost the Fed XCA some 33 points of power (24+9).
Since the Klingon has 13 point of power availibl, we'll pretent that the battle was well planned by the Klingon and he put up 12 points of SSReo, so the Klingon inflicts 20 points of damage on the Fed and the Fed inflicts none on ethe Klingon.

And the second turn of the example, the ships reach R8.
The Klingon Fires 6 O/L/ UIM Disruptors for 30 points of damage and performs a perfect oblique for 10Ph-1 shots inflicting a further 21.66 points of damage.
The Fed Fires Four R8 24 point Photons for 48 damage and a further 6Ph-5s for 21 damage.
Assuming the Klingon so well organised his fire that his fire was on the same shield as the previous shield fire then, the Klingon will have inflicted a total of 71.66 points of damage and the Fed will have inflicted a total of 69 points of damage.

Subtracting out 40 sheild boxes and 15 BTTY, the Fed XCA is looking a 14 roll hit on the DAC whilst the Fed will be looking at a 16.66 roll hit on the DAC.


That seems pretty fair to me.


If we go to the next turn.
An set of four 12 point Fastloads at R8 ( again ) and 6 bearing ( must be on the other flank ) Ph-5s will generat up 45 points of damage whilst the 6 Disruptors and 8 bearing ( non-perfect olbique on other flank ) Ph-1s will generate 47.33 points of damage.

It seems quite balanced to me!


It's trying to get four Disruptors to have parity with Four 24 point Photons that holds the problem.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 12:23 am: Edit

Other penalties, like a 16 impulse double broadise penalty ( and no Proxi Overlads for fastloads that follow "heavy" Photons and the inate power consumption problems ( coupled with no holding ) of 16 point Fastloads may even make 16 point fastloads as follow-up fire...survivable...maybe.