---

Quote:

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.

---

---

Quote:

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.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 07:31 am: Edit

On 96 points of damage...
Is there a ship that can inflict 96 points of Photon Damage and can also take 96 points of damage without being trashed.

I nominate the Fed DN+.

Let's compare the sheild #1+7 of the Fed XCA and the Fed DN+.

System	DN+	XCA
Sheild #1	45	48
Sheild #2/6	38	40
Impromptu SSReo	5	15
Photons	6 x 16	4 x 24
Phasers	12Ph-1s	8Ph-5s
Drones	1 G-rack	2 GX-Racks
Probe	1	1
Hull	28	20
Warp	45	48
BTTY Boxes	5	5
Other Power	10	10
Control	8	8
Lab	10	8
Shuttle	8	4
Trac	3	2
Tran	4	3
CARGO	0	4
ANY	0	2
ASIF Low	0	20
ASIF Full	0	+34
Total Regular	191	192
Total Low ASIF	191	212
Total Full ASIF	191	246

Now from where I stand that Fed XCA ( and therefore all X2 cruisers ) can withstand the effects of four 24 point Photons about as well as a Fed DN+ can withstand the effects of six 16 point Photons.

Note total measured via sheild one and all BTTY power going to improptu SSReo.
Numbers in red are not taken into the calculation but rather are shown for reference.

Note also I am not saying that the XCA should be and play like a DN, indeed the smaller number of weapons makes it very suseptable to Mizia, but rather I am merely saying that an XCA is NOT like a GW or MY CA in the number of internal boxes it has but rather has considerably more...especially once you start to factor in the ASIF effects.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 11:45 am: Edit

MJC: My position is that 4 x 20 point photons is balanced against 6 x H-Disr. when two HD are RA. and when the ship is the XCC in both cases.

The XCM's I have in mind are smaller yet will have a discrepancy. The Fed XCM maintains the four 20 point Photons while the Klingon loses two HDs (for a total of four H-Disr. FH).

Going to 24 point photons totally imbalances the design.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 02:29 pm: Edit

Why is it that the Photon has gotten more Electrons than every other heavy weapon put together?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 05:16 pm: Edit

Probably because it, like the Fed CA is the axis mundii of SFB.

Everything else wil be measured against the photon.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 05:23 pm: Edit

There are two sides with strong arguments here. Playtest both versions. Playtest both with and without 6xHD. Playtest with ASIF and without. I'm still not clear on some things: How many points are the X2BTTY? How many points on X2APR/AWR? Is my HEB idea DOA or is anyone interested (if anyone remembers it)?

Tos, the game was created around the Fed CA (and thus the Photon). X2 should do the same. The Klingon D7 was the CA's original foe and so the Disruptor is the natural counterbalance.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 06:07 pm: Edit

Brodie,

The answers to those questions depend on who's proposals you look at. With mine, (and I think most others) batteries are unchanged from X1. I think I'm the only one with 2 point per box APR/AWR's, though...the rest are just one.

I'm not arguing the photon thing anymore...it's a waste of time. I will simply say I think 24 points are too much. X1 gave the DX six disruptors, and no damage improvement or number increase to the photon. X2, as proposed by many, keeps the disruptor essentially the same, save integrating UIM and DERFACS. Jumping up the photon an extra 50% is too much based on this, particularly if it retains the ability to fast load. Being forced to create extra rules to prevent a Fed player from fully overloading his photons on turn one so that he can't crush an opponent, to me, simply illustrates that yes, Virginia, they're too damm powerful. No other weapon that I know of has this restriction at WSIII. That alone should indicate they might just be too much. 'Nuff said. I'm not bothering with this anymore.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 06:22 pm: Edit

IMO we should playtest the lesser upgrades to the Photon. If playtesting indicates that it isn't enough we can up the yield easier.

But either approach is acceptable. Lets just get some PTing done so we can have some straight forward data to work from.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 09:39 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Why is it that the Photon has gotten more Electrons than every other heavy weapon put together?

---

---

Quote:

Being forced to create extra rules to prevent a Fed player from fully overloading his photons on turn one so that he can't crush an opponent, to me, simply illustrates that yes, Virginia, they're too damm powerful.

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 10:24 pm: Edit

Hey!

I thought I had a great hellbore proposal.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 10:37 pm: Edit

Mike, I'm with you on the 2pt-AWR but I think the BTTY should be 4pts. I'm sticking with 24pt Photons but don't see a problem with playtesting them at 20pts as Kenneth suggests.

I understand you're saying that the need to add a new rule suggests it's too powerful (and that you don't want to argue it anymore) so I won't belabor the point with you. As far as the WS-III rule thing, this is the first weapon (correct me if I'm wrong) that wasn't built with a heavy overload that is now being upgraded to a H-OL capability for X2. In other words, we're adding a capability (i.e. "hit harder") and we need to balance it.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, September 19, 2003 - 08:45 pm: Edit

I wouldn't go for double AWRs...an extra couple of saucer warp will give the ships an escape capasity that sup'ed up AWRs won't.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, September 19, 2003 - 10:28 pm: Edit

My main objection to A2PR/A2WR is we are trying to prevent the egggshell with sledgehammer of the old 2X. Taking 2 power out for a single point of damage seems to run counter to what we are trying to do.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, September 19, 2003 - 10:38 pm: Edit

It doesn't as long as it doesn't affect the power curve too badly.

Properly defended from penetrating damage, the ship's power shouldn't degrade too rapidly.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, September 19, 2003 - 10:50 pm: Edit

APR disapear rather quickly after the AFT HULL is gone.

I would say dropping from double AWR to nill AWR in a hurry isn't much a big deal because the ship still has plenty of WARP ENGINE boxes but it has a big risk...


If I Starcastles, can I Double my Warp Engine OutPut?

Even if you just starcastle and double one engine ( to use the other for Tacs and HETs ) is still huge change to the game and there would be a massive push from some players to allow this...particularly in the Late X2 period ( hey that explains what we'll do with those few pages left over for rules in X2R ).


Personnally I'ld rather not make the push to allow warp to generate double from a particular single soarce...as that will stop the push to spread it to all soarces.


Now 1.5 power from any WARP soarce is a different matter but since we are wanting to avoid the eggsheels with sledge hammer problems I think we should avoid that system unless playtesting proves otherwise.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, September 19, 2003 - 11:35 pm: Edit

I think it's just double-power APR/AWR with no similar ability for warp drive.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, September 20, 2003 - 12:46 am: Edit

How much power do these ships need? I mean, my XCC has two 24 point Warp engines, six impulse and four saucer warp. I only put two AWR and the only reason was to have some present. That's 58 power. Even with 3 point batteries that's WAY plenty. Doubling the AWR provides no measurable benefit and is over kill, IMO.

Races with out Boom or Saucers would have the center warp engines but would have more AWR. Still, we are talking six total power from AWRs. Would I like to see those be eliminated with just three hits? No, especially when the Boom/Saucer counter parts have six hits to destroy theirs.

I figure the best way to improve AWR would be to reduce the repair cost, simply stating the new system is modular and can be repaired easier. Warp Engines repaired as AWR would cost the same as before.

Perhaps these replacement parts could be supplied outside of normal repairs. Any AWR present on an X2 ship can be repaired using the following procedure outside of normal repair procedures. A damaged AWR can be switched out and brought back on line. This can occur during the turn after it is damaged. I require the use of 2 repair points each but does not count as a system under CDR. That means if the ship has a DAM CON of 6, only four are available for CDR on that turn. Every ship with AWR comes with one replacement module for each AWR box. One additional AWR Replacement Module per AWR box can be purchased under commanders options for 2 BPV each.

Modular AWRs can be repaired with normal CDR procedures and this process would not use up an AWR Module and would count against the limit on systems repaired with CDR. EDR could also be used and would not use up a spare AWR Module.

A Legendary Engineer or Science Officer could use their own procedures or replace an AWR Module without the requirement of repair points. It still requires a full turn to switch the modules.

Consider this an actual proposal for Modular AWR (MAWR).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, September 20, 2003 - 12:47 am: Edit

Darn, I didn't realise this was the Photon topic with all the talk about AWRs. Oooops.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, September 21, 2003 - 05:29 pm: Edit

To sum up my X2-Photon:

Title
Advanced Photon Torpedo

General
SSD: APHOT
No change in fire arc or table.
Take the X-Fix Photon rules and allow Heavy Overload up to 24pts.
For the time being playtest up to 20pts.

Yields
Standard/Fast Load (S/F-L: 8pts)
Proximity/Fast-Proximity Load (PL/F-PL: 4pts)
Standard Overload (S-OL: 8>=16pts@2 turns)
Fast Overload (F-OL: 8>=12pts@1 turn)
Heavy Overload (H-OL: 16>=24pts@2turns)

Restrictions
WS-III allows up to S-/F-OL
Turn#1 H-OL Allocation rolls over 32 impulses
H-OL shot requires 32-impulse "cool-down" period
H-OL feedback extends to 2 hexes

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 09:59 pm: Edit

I've come to the conclusion that the 20pt X2-photons work better than the 24pt'ers (though I still maintain that 24pt'ers could be developed as "war photons" against the Xorks). I like the 8/12/16/20 paradigm. I'm working on a compromise between the 16 and 20pt overloads (otherwise why have both), posted below.

A lot of people contributed ideas to this post (knowingly or otherwise). All I did was consolidate these ideas into what I think is a good compromise. My X2-Photon repost:

(XE4.6.RBN) ADVANCED PHOTON TORPEDOES

(XE4.61) General
Only X2 units use Advanced Photon Torpedoes. They appear on the SSD as APHOT and use standard (i.e. pre-X) photon firing arcs. Advanced Photons play the same as X1-Photons using the X-Fix Errata in Captain's Log #23 but can heavy overload up to 20 points. Other rules modifications are listed below.

(XE4.62) Advanced Photon Torpedo Loadouts

Load	Abbr	Yield	Cycle
Standard	S	8	2 turn
Fast-Standard	F-S	8	1 turn
Proximity	P	4	2 turn
Fast-Proximity	F-P	4	1 turn
Overload	OL	8>=16	2 turn
Fast-OL	F-OL	8>=12	1 turn
Heavy-OL	H-OL	8>=20	2 turn

(XE4.63) Restrictions
WS-III allows up to Standard and Fast OL. Turn #1 H-OL allocation rolls over 32 impulses. H-OL shot requires 32-impulse "cool-down" period and H-OL feedback extends to 2 hexes.

(XE4.64) Bonus
Advanced Photons fired using two-turn loading (8-16pt loads) have an automatic X-Ship bonus under (XD6.34) whether there is an EW shift or not. Advanced Photons can not benefit from the two-turn bonus and the X-Ship EW-shift bonus. Proximity-fuzed torpedoes can not benefit from the two-turn bonus.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 10:16 am: Edit

I have been waiting for someone to respond to RBN's "compromise" but it looks like the wait has been in vain...(so sad!!!)

Has any one tested these idea's out yet?

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 03:23 pm: Edit

I was wondering that myself, but I didn't want to push the issue. By the way, I wrote (XE4.64) incorrectly. The two-turn automatic bonus does not apply to proximity nor heavy overload photons.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 04:02 pm: Edit

We have two things: the 32-impulse cooldown and the 2-hex feedback.

The 2-hex feedback is a problem. Without a change to the photon chart (also unwise), the Fed player trades 25% of his photon damage coming back at him if he wants an accuracy better than 1-4.

I think 32 is too long a cooldown. We've kicked around cooldown times between 12 to 20 impulses. I'd take 32 impulses if we went to 24-point photons, but that's too much for Y205. (I like the idea of going to 24 in response to the Xorks, but it still may be too much)

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 04:19 pm: Edit

I have no objection to a 32 impulse cool down if you can begin arming in that time. That basically just turns the "heavy overload" back into the two turn photon.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 05:44 pm: Edit

What are the arguments against two turn arming cycle for Photons?

I have been looking thru the archive and see many negative comments against the Alpha strike overloaded Photons followed by a fast loaded photon salvo (truely devastating IMO), but not a lot of support for fast loading photons...