Archive through September 18, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 photons: Archive through September 18, 2003
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 11:11 pm: Edit

How did I know that was comming???

Alright, lets assume these load outs. After maximum volley from each and where your into the B/C column on the DAC (lets put both ships near crippled status) and the disruptor ship takes 16 more internals, what are the chances of the disruptor ship winning after that?

No counting drones here because both have equal ability to launch and defend via ADD, WW, or a couple shuttles. A SS would be a winning move by either so they cancel each other out. The Klingon could use H&R a bit better but H&R has little chance of doing much so I'll grant -2 from the 16 extra if you like.

So far actual weapons damage increases have been moderate. The Heavy Disruptor does only one more standard damage and the Ph-5 gets a better damage curve but only one more point of damage on average per bracket. Every proposal generally is moderate. The X2 ships have mostly been designed to take damage better and have a more flexable and stable weapons system. But a 24 point photon totally out classes all other proposals as far as power. Heck, for that matter the 20 point photon does too but with some limits (like no holding and no upgrading from fast load) it can be balanced. (I think it's possible that we may have to stick with 16 or 18 point OLs).
20 point photons require a basic loading of 5 + 5. At one point per turn it's the next logical step (IMO).
24 point photons will turn the Fed X2 ships into uber ships.

No thanks. Even if the 24 point photon gets published I might well not play it. I knew from the beginning it was too much but Idid give it a fair shake. Now, after trials, I'm sure it's too much.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 11:27 pm: Edit

Correction: What I know is that 24 point photons are to much for my proposal and designs. I can't speak to other designers proposals.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 11:47 pm: Edit

Look at the relative capasity of 6 X2 Disruptors Vs 4 X2 Photons.

Weapons and Damage table R0 R2 R4 R8
Six O/L UIM Disruptors 60 50 40 30
Four alternating 24 point Photons 48 40 32 24
Four Fastloaded 12s point Photons 48 40 32 24
Four Fastloaded 16 point Photons 6453.3342.66 32


Both ships have a pretty good ability to do a lot of damage against eachother...the fact that the Fed has CRUNCH POWER is offset by the fact that the Klingon is firing faster and for less ( due to the Disruptor Caps )...about the only thing in doubt is whether the combination of 16 point fastloads ( which are ever so slightly better than the Disruptor suite ) as a follow-up to the crunch power of the 24 pointers is putting the Fed is a consistantly better prosition than the Klingons...12 point Fastloads arn't the equal of all those disruptors so the Fed becomes far more dependant on using his crunch-power sucessfully.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 12:14 am: Edit

Why is four OL 24 point photons (96) missing from your compairison? Are you proposing that the Fed not be allowed this option? Or does it not support your stand? Or...??

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 12:37 am: Edit

Why are we so locked into fast-load photons?

In terms of game play, you get one double-size shot, then you have one-turn weapons (8 for standard, 9-12 warhead for overload). Sounds like a GW disruptor with more crunch to me.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 05:53 am: Edit

Quote:

Why is four OL 24 point photons (96) missing from your compairison? Are you proposing that the Fed not be allowed this option? Or does it not support your stand? Or...??


Because the Two Turn R15/R8 Disruptor Combo was also not placed on the list as it was too hard to express and too hard to make bleedingly obvious.


The correct method to make a comparison between heavy weapons would be a table of damage over all ranges as generated by both weapons over a seven turn period ( perhaps people should read the imput guide in CL thingo...I can't off hand remember if it was 18, 19 or 20 ).


And to be technically correct you shouldn't refere to it as 96 but rather as...TURN OF FIRE FOUR 24 POINT PHOTON R0-96/R2-80/R4-64/R8-48...otherwise one would be misleading.


The more I look into this the more I think that the 7 turns would be one 24 warhead on turn two followed by five fastloads...I guess what we do to the fastloads will be the final arbitor of whether or not people will choose to move the Fed back to a two turn arming cycle.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 06:03 am: Edit

Quote:

Why are we so locked into fast-load photons?


Well basically because the X2 ships shouldn't go backwards.

Even with 20 point two turners and 12 point fastloads the fastloads are going to be employed and employed often...same to for 24 point two turners.


The X2 ships should have the ability to be X1 ships with more and the only things restricting them should me ecconomics and THE TREATY.
At some stage the TREATY will break down and at some stage(s) the TTRADE WARS will become full scale wars with full production.


This is why I say the Klingons will have at least 6 FA Disruptors ( at least after the treaty breaks down ) because they successfully had it in X1.
I also think the Feds should be able to replace ( when the phaser refit occours ) the 8Ph-5s with 12Ph-5s because that was how many capital phasers the Fed X1 cruiser had and the Klingon should be able to replace her 12Ph-1s with 12Ph-5s to keep parity.


Taking a step backwards can't occour due to Engineering...or else the ships will be X2 engines and X1 weapons platforms as soon as a real war breaks out.
That means out X2 Photons need to have all X1 abilities ( or at least most ) plus whatever makes them X2 beyond that and simply limit the numbers that may be mounted on a ship by treaty or ecconomics...which is why I think the X2 Klingon cruiser would have 4 Disruptors but be a weaker ship than the Fed XCA but that if there was the money to build 6 disruptor cruisers then the Klingons cruiser would hav had parity.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 08:25 am: Edit

Quote:

Not really...Holding will be less common and R8 shots will be more common, because the threat of getting over-run at closer range with the fasterloading Disruptors ( the fear that a D7's Ph-2s can really hurt your ship ) is less strong because the Fed can counter fire with Fastloads of his own.



Crap. Holdiing will be very common, given the chance to blast someone with that much damage. Load them, hold them, then chase down a target at max speed. No sensible player will give this option up.

Quote:

True but if I'm a Klingon and you go for the charge-down...I'll blast at some range on the way in...6 R4 O/L Disruptors will dishup 40 damage by themselves ( goodbye any shield not the #1 ) and 8R4 Ph-1s will dish up a further 40...even with FUll BTTYs you'll and on sheild #1 you'll still take a hit of 17 internals and if the Klingon turns away you'll get a couple of R32 Ph-1s aswell.
The Fed might be able to hurl all four at R1 but it'll probably have 3 to fire and be missiiong some phasers aswell.
Then What happens!?!
The two ships tractor each other at R1 and 5 Disruptors and 9Ph-1s duke it out with 3 X2 Photons and 5Ph-5s...at R1 I don't like the Fed's chances even with fastloads.



First, 8 P1's at range 4 won't be doing forty points of damage unless you somehow manage to roll nothing but ones and twos. You're more likely to do about half that. Second, when I get to range 1, and nail you with all my P5's and 96 points of photons, you won't have a very good next turn. You're likely to take a further 50 or so points of phaser damage, for nearly 150 points of damage in one shot. Bye-bye, XD7. Sure, I'll take some damage on the way in...that's part of it. But you'll be dead, and I won't...every time I get that close, and with the ability to hold 24 pointers and still maintain speed 30, I'm gonna do it.

Quote:

Look at the relative capasity of 6 X2 Disruptors Vs 4 X2 Photons.



That's the second time you've presented misleading data to illustrate your point. You have failed to show the damage generated by four 24 point photons. Why is that? Why would any Fed player who can fast load bother to cycle his full overloads?

Quote:

Well surprise surprise...you're saying that the 24 Point Photon is less valuable than fastloaded 12 pointers.



No, I'm not. As I just said, I'm pointing out that deliberately misrepresenting the damage capacity of 24 point photons by using them in a way that no player will (cycle fired two at a time) to prove your "point" is disingenuous.

There is no point in continuing this. I will not change my opinion on this, as I've seen the results. You will not, either, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'm done posting on this issue. Someone get on SFBonline and play it, and we'll go from there.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 09:36 am: Edit

Quote:

First, 8 P1's at range 4 won't be doing forty points of damage unless you somehow manage to roll nothing but ones and twos.


I guess I must have been thinking about the 10Ph-1s of a perfect oblque...so the damage would 32 points from 8R4 Ph-1s.


Quote:

But you'll be dead, and I won't...every time I get that close, and with the ability to hold 24 pointers and still maintain speed 30, I'm gonna do it.


The only way to arm and then hold 24 pointers is to arm them with 6+6 power...that pretty much gives away to the enemy what you're intention is...also paying 12 power to hold is what the enemy pays just to have all the Disruptors armed to Standards.
If we limit the X2 Photon at WS-III to the same arming as a Tourney Photon then the 24 pointers won't come to pass unless the Fed deliberately spends 2 turns arming that way and at that stage one has to ask the Question, why hasn't the Klingon Crucified you by then!?!


Quote:

That's the second time you've presented misleading data to illustrate your point. You have failed to show the damage generated by four 24 point photons.


When people look at 96 damage their brains roll out of their dropped open mouths.
The damage would be correct, not 96, but rather 96 & Nil, 96 & Nil and 96 & Nil; over two turns.
People just look at those huge numbers and say, well it can't be beat so it's too powerful.
They don't care that the 6 Disruptors of the Klingon is doing:-
60, 60, 60, 60, 60 and 60!
Assumming R0 for both sets of numbers.


Quote:

Why would any Fed player who can fast load bother to cycle his full overloads?


See you've made my point.
24 pointers are not the main game, they are just the prelude to it.
The main game will be fastloads!
But four fastloaded Photons ( upto 15 point warheads which are the equal of ) are weaker than 6 O/L Disruptors particularly once UIM is intergrated directly into the weapon.

Fastloads will be the real concern.
24 pointers ( or whatever the two turner will be ) will just be a nice little opener and maybe something for making the enemy regret trying to take a powder!


Quote:

No, I'm not. As I just said, I'm pointing out that deliberately misrepresenting the damage capacity of 24 point photons by using them in a way that no player will (cycle fired two at a time) to prove your "point" is disingenuous.


If you want to make a seven turn cycle of pairs of 24 Point Photons Vs trios of Disruptors at important ranges then go ahead, I'm not stopping you.


Quote:

You will not, either,


Please don't tell me what I will or will not do.

To be honest my mind is not entirely made up...I can see the possibility that the Disruptor might need some kind of perlude mode to offset the fact that 24 pointers are indeed weapons with that kind of special effect already built into them...or perhaps that the 24 pointers is in need of weakening...but I haven't seen any evidance of that yet.


On a side not I would like to see X2 Photons have a slight Advantage of X2 Disruptors because in the X1 period the Disruptors had quite a bit of extra advanatge over the Photons.
Range 0 2 4 8 15
CX Photon Fastloads 48 40 32 24 8 (proxi)
DX Disruptors 60 50 40 30 12

In addition the Fed is paying 24 power in overload range and 16 power in standard fastload range whilst the Klingon is paying 24 and 12 respectively, putting the Klingon at even further advantage...if we have a prelude based extra damage of 24 pointers and equality in the fastloads grants a rectification to this situation then I'll be happy with that ( and happy with the BPV difference between the ships that generates ).

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 10:09 am: Edit

I'm willing to try them out on SFBOL tonight or Thursday if anyone else will paticipate.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 12:25 pm: Edit

Quote:

The damage would be correct, not 96, but rather 96 & Nil, 96 & Nil and 96 & Nil; over two turns.



Straight comparison between 4 x 24 point photons and 6 Heavy Disruptors (base six)
No, it would be 96 & 48 and GAME OVER.

And there in is the problem because the Klingon would be 72 & 36 and GAME OVER.

96 points of one turn crunch is the only reason to have a 24 point photon. If you are alternating 2 photons per turn then 12 point fast-loads will do the same thing. Therefore, the only point to 24 point war heads is the ONE TURN CRUNCH and 96 is too much. 80 is unmatched (except by the DC) but can be balanced.

The only way the Fed should be allowed to land 96 points from photons in two turns should be to land 4 hits twice. Even at 20 points the Fed will still be able to land better in two turns by biding a third (the first of three). This could get him 0+80+48 = 128. Assume the first turn is at range, naturally, so the Klingon gets 30 (five hits out of six) + 72 + 72 = 174. I balanced this by three shields hit to two shields hit by the Fed and placing two of the Disruptors in the Rear Arc.

If the Fed gets 0+96+48 the Klingon will be at 30+72+12 on three shields while the Fed fires on one shield (the second turn has the Klingon so pounded that the Impulse one shot is likely on the same shield facing, but maybe not. Still...)

This analysis is based only one torp to torp. Results vary a bit with phasers added but only to end the game quicker.

With an 80 point crunch, the Fed waves a plenty big stick, but is more likely to dance. This is my goal in design. No to generate endless two or three turn games but 6 to 10 turn games were players really think and maneuver. From the example MJC sets I think he is imagining this sort of game too but with numbers that big the games do progress that deep into the example.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 09:49 pm: Edit

I really don't like all this talk of 96 points of damage...what's it from, an R1 shot? ( Did anyone notice the 24 points of feedback damage !?!)...maye an R0 narrow volley.


Sure these could happen, but the Fed probably isn't going to be able to acheive them all the time.

If we keep photons a little weaker ( which since X1 they are ) than the Disruptors then we can keep the Photon's chrunch power balanced by the Klingons scratch power.

The Klingon can use it's Disruiptor caps so it can maintain a much higher speed ( and her Ph-1s and Disruptors only call for her to visit R8 ) so the chances that the Fed actually gets to a range were there is a good chance of hitting is slim so the Fed will likely fire at the range that the Klingon is going to reach ( and look to fastoverloads ) and thus miss with half of his shots and thus inflict damage that is pretty similar to the Klingon.

48 points at R8 isn't as so much more killing especially to a ship with 40 sheild boxes than the 30 generated by six disruptors....especially because over the next few turns this will drop down to 24 per turn ( 12 point fastloads ) whilst the Klingon would still be sitting at 30 per turn.


On the subject of Fixed Vs Floating maps.
I think we're going to have to skip out on a single Fixed map as a place for X2 ships to Duel with other X2 ships and instead use a 2 x 2 fixed map to develop balanced play...the battle speeds and indeed the battle speeds whilst holding full overloads will be much higher than ever seen before so we'll need more room to do the playtesting in.
The good news is we probably won't need something that big for X1 Vs X2 or GW Vs X2.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 11:47 pm: Edit

I wondered when someone was going to mention feedback.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 12:09 am: Edit

Feedback for photons with warheads greater than 16 extends two hexes.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 12:11 am: Edit

In a GW vs. GW duel, if the Fed hits with all 4 torpedos plus range 0-2 phasers, it's game over. If he hits with 4, but is at range 8, the phasers don't score that much, but the opponent is still crippled.

I think we should keep that dynamic, despite the improved shields and ASIF of the other cruisers. Four full OL photon hits = crippled cruiser. Anything else and you don't hve a Fed.

Unfortunately, fast loads will dominate the tactics after the initial pass. If you can fire every turn, prox torps become fearsome long range weapons.

That's why my two disruptor proposals (double the crunch for the Kzintis or double the arming rate for the Klingons) needed to be made.

Now, from a game standpoint, X2 fast-load photons look and feel an awful lot like GW disruptors. Little different to-hit numbers, little different damage, but a player who has flown GW Klingons will probably not have to do too much to learn how to fly an X2 Fed.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 03:28 am: Edit

Quote:

Feedback for photons with warheads greater than 16 extends two hexes.


That very same idea struck me too.


Quote:

In a GW vs. GW duel, if the Fed hits with all 4 torpedos plus range 0-2 phasers, it's game over. If he hits with 4, but is at range 8, the phasers don't score that much, but the opponent is still crippled.

I think we should keep that dynamic, despite the improved shields and ASIF of the other cruisers. Four full OL photon hits = crippled cruiser. Anything else and you don't hve a Fed.


Yeah...I think so too.
With 117 to 151 internals ( thanks to the ASIF ) and a 48 box #1 sheild ( and 40 on all other boxes ), the huge 96 damage of the jackpot won't actually be too bad from that dynamic..throw in 6R5 Ph-5s for 25 more damage and subtract out 15 points of BTTY and you're left with 58 internals which is one point of damage short of crippling an XCA that isn't powering it's ASIF.
Get a bit closer and it's a cripple...switch on the ASIF and it's probably not.


Quote:

Now, from a game standpoint, X2 fast-load photons look and feel an awful lot like GW disruptors. Little different to-hit numbers, little different damage, but a player who has flown GW Klingons will probably not have to do too much to learn how to fly an X2 Fed.


That's probably an X1R comment...that ever since Fastloaded Photons came about the Feds have had what they always wanted ion the GW and MY years...the flexibility of the single turn arming of the Disruptor with the crunch power of the Photon.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 08:38 am: Edit

Heavy-OL feedback extended to range 2? No problem.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 09:45 am: Edit

“In a GW vs. GW duel, if the Fed hits with all 4 torpedoes plus range 0-2 phasers, it's game over. If he hits with 4, but is at range 8, the phasers don't score that much, but the opponent is still crippled. I think we should keep that dynamic, despite the improved shields and ASIF of the other cruisers. Four full OL photon hits = crippled cruiser. Anything else and you don't have a Fed. “

I on the other hand want nothing more than to reduce the impact of dice on the Feds. This can be done by reducing the relative (not actual) effectiveness of the photon or by changing the to-hit odds of the photon to normalize its odds of a jackpot. Its turn 1 that worries me the most. A 24 point weapon that takes 3 to hold (or an equivalent amount of 16/2) leaves an 8:1 damage to power ratio for turn 1. Put another way the Fed can do 96 damage for 12 power. That’s way too much.

A balanced but still flavorful Fed would retain the 8:1 for 16 point warheads (reducing max damage turn 1 to 64) but be allowed to fastload to 16 the following turn. Allowing the Fed a –1 to hit makes this problem completely untenable. Remove the –1 from everyone and I’ll be more open. Remove the ability to hold torps larger than 16 and I’ll be more open. That would change things to 8 hold + 16 new (probably bats) = 24 power on turn 1 making it a 4:1 damage ratio. For comparison the disruptor maxes out at 2.5:1.

“Unfortunately, fast loads will dominate the tactics after the initial pass. If you can fire every turn, prox torps become fearsome long range weapons… Now, from a game standpoint, X2 fast-load photons look and feel an awful lot like GW disruptors. Little different to-hit numbers, little different damage, but a player who has flown GW Klingons will probably not have to do too much to learn how to fly an X2 Fed.”

Fastloads aren’t causing the problem, they are self-regulating. The problem is held torps. I would rather allow full 16 point fastloads then 96 turn 1 damage.

“That's why my two disruptor proposals (double the crunch for the Kzintis or double the arming rate for the Klingons) needed to be made. “

So because you want to upgrade the photon every disruptor race needs a similar upgrade? Seems like we ought to thing a bit more before pushing the first domino.

The problem with most of these photon proposals is that the game will likely be over the first time the Fed fires.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 10:01 am: Edit

Tos,

Agreed. One possible solution might be to leave the photons the same, but increase the number on the ship. Say, 5 on an XCA. That's a fastload limit of 60 per turn, or a full load of 80 over two turns. And, with more onboard, you even out the jackpot feel a bit.

Anyone look at the enhanced proximity fuze rules from SSJ1? Might make a nice ability, too.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 11:44 am: Edit

Mike,

My e-mail has gone completely flaky, with extremely slow send/receive times. Did you receive my response to your e-mail on this topic?

-- Jessica

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 12:35 pm: Edit

Yes, I did! Thanks!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 07:59 pm: Edit

Quote:

Its turn 1 that worries me the most. A 24 point weapon that takes 3 to hold (or an equivalent amount of 16/2) leaves an 8:1 damage to power ratio for turn 1.


Actually I think we are not talking about turn one and holding.

If we formalise the Tourney Arming rule such that no more than 4 points of warp power may be applied to the Photons then turn one may have 9 points of power added to it t build a 24 point photon but such a photon is unstable and therefore connot be held.
If the player chooses to not take advatage of previous power then the player could build a 6+6 Photon on turn 2.
If the player chooses to not take advatage of previous power ( granted by the WS ) then the player may hold the photons ( for 3 points of power if 24 pointers ) but at this stage it would be turn 3 even when starting at WS-III.

Unless the staring range was massive...the Fed will already have damage to hgis #1 or #2/6 sheilds already.


Quote:

Put another way the Fed can do 96 damage for 12 power. That’s way too much.


If one chooses to narrow volley or fire at R1 perhaps.
If one fires at R4 ( because R2 has feedback ) then the damage is only 64...and this only on turn three or latter.

64 Damage against a 40 ( or perhaps 48 ) box shield with 15 BTTY is 9 points of internal damage...which is a marked amount less than the 28-ish points of damage done by a Fed CA's Photon at R2 against the 22 box shield of a D7.


The thing to remember is that four 24 point phootns is only a 50% increase over four 16 point Photons whilst 45 box shields are a 50% increase over 30 box shields ( and we are probably looking at 48 box sheilds )...so the ratio's remain pretty consistant...what effect the ASIF has on internal damage is another matter.


Quote:

So because you want to upgrade the photon every disruptor race needs a similar upgrade? Seems like we ought to thing a bit more before pushing the first domino.

The problem with most of these photon proposals is that the game will likely be over the first time the Fed fires.


I still don't think that's even remotely true.

Look at the shield seven of these XCAs.
If an XCA is a CX with 4 phasers removed, 8 warp engines boxes added, 2 scauser engines addded, 4 Aft Hull boxes added, 4 Cargo Boxes added and ( heaven forbid ) 2 ANY boxes added, and running an ASIF ( possibly)...you're looking at ships that arn't crippled until ( 129/2 ) 65 points of internal damage if the ship wasn't running its ASIF and (173/2) 85 if it was running a full ASIF.
Add in another 55-63 for BTTY and Sheild and the volleies that must be generated for the sum of Phasers and Photons are getting rediculous.
Even requiring a 120 point volley to cripple the weakest target that's still a Jackpot plus 6Ph-5s at ( 120-96=24 ( 24/6 )) R5...If you centrelined at R5 and rolled standard spread your 84 points of damage would fall well short.
A Standard spread at R4 would whilst centrelining would generate 104 which still falls short of being an into cripple.

Sure these ships would take all four Phaser hits, the drone hit and the Torp hit of an attack that infflicted more than 36 points of damage, but they wouldn't actually be crippled even when a Jackpot is involved.


The thing we are forgetting is that these second generation X ships have a lot going for them in reguards to defensive capasity.

You have an increase in warp power over an MY-GW ship of (48/30) 60% and an increase in sheilds of 60%...throughing in an increase in heavies of 50% won't be too much of problem.


Like Spiderman says;" With great power comes great responcibility."

Well so too, with a 1 in 16 chance of THE JACKPOT @ R8 comes a 1 in 16 chance of totally missing with the lot.
Messing around with that so you've got a 1 in 64 chance of Jack Pot and a 1 in 64 chance of totally missing is just taking away the Fed FEEL and perveting the game more towards narrow volleies!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 08:16 pm: Edit

Quote:

Heavy-OL feedback extended to range 2? No problem.



I think there may not be a problem but there will probably be a rule....on which shield is feedback damage inflicted when the ship is on a sheild boundary.

We'll probably need to actually write up a rule to say that it's which ever shield the struck ship could fire on if it could fire.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 11:34 pm: Edit

That rule is already in place. It would be the same shield that the opposing ship would hit if it fired upon the photon/feedback ship.

I think that critical OL photon causing feed back out to R2 is a fine idea. That totally balances out the discrepancy between HD's and 20 point OLs. 24 still being too much, over the top, out of synce with other advances, and do right destabiling.

Cycling two 24 point photons is the same thing as two turns of four 12 point fast loads. With narrow salvoes the die rolls are exactly the same. The power cost is also the same, but allowing a 24 point photon you allow the 96 point crunch. That is too large. There is no way I'm going to see it differently here. G.O.D. himself would be hard pressed to convince me.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 12:01 am: Edit

Tos said:

Quote:

I on the other hand want nothing more than to reduce the impact of dice on the Feds.



I disagree completely. Rolling the dice after you set up your shot is what makes the feds, Feds.

Feds are known for two things, hitting the jackpot, and missing with everything at range 8.

4x24 points against a fresh X2 shield/ASIF would do about the same as 4x16 points to a fresh GW shield.

The dynamic changes, though, when you add fast loads. To compensate, Roms would have bigger plasma with sabots, Klingons would fire disruptors twice a turn, etc.

This is scary. I'm agreeing with MJC and disagreeing with Tos and Loren. Is that one of the seven signs?

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation