Archive through January 23, 2004
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 photons: Archive through January 23, 2004
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 09:43 pm: Edit

I think 18 pointers allow us to get rid of the restrictions, as it is only a 1/8th better than the X1 photon. Maybe 25% when you take off overload restrictions.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 09:55 pm: Edit

Even in Y205, the 24 point Photon is not automatically a completely loss...not if you're willing to have one XCA be outside the BPV of the others.

Personnally I don't see the XCAs as they are currently envisioned as being even close to the BPV of the ISC CCX.

Four Photons ( 20 point two turns arming ) isn't all that much better than four 12 point fastloads ( with a 16 point primary strike ability ) and 8Ph-5s are neck & neck with 12Ph-1s...maybe even a little weaker because an A4 or A10 hit will take away 12.5% of the phaser suite ( each ) instead of 8.33%!
If the Y205 ships use X1 drones as well, then the extra 8 sheild boxes on an XCA and extra 8 warp boxes and ASIF probably push the ship up from 240 to 275 which actually falls short of the 315 ISC CCX.


Now if the Fed XCA comes in at 330 and all the others come in at 280, I won't mind...I would think, cool some racial flavour...particularly if refits then allowed the other ships to catch up.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 09:59 pm: Edit

Definitely 20pts in Y205.

Mike brings us back to the point about photons being the benchmark (heavy DF) weapon for the game. I agree that messing with it will prove destabilizing. That's why I'm trying to develop a balancing compromise that takes notional X2-disruptors into account and at the same time gives you a new photon that's fun to play.

I see the logic behind the one-turn wait after H-OL, but I'd only put that restriction on follow-on overload shots. Fast standards and proxies should be allowed to fire the next turn, with a 16-impulse "cool-down" delay. Perhaps the rule could state that during that delay no arming energy can be allocated, which means that F-S/-P could only be fired after the delay by using batteries. That has implications for arming two-turn loads as well.

I definitely think you should be able to hold H-OL. The power requirements for that are restrictive and therefore balancing. Likewise with feedback damage. On that note should H-OL feedback extend to 2 hexes or stay at 0-1 hexes? I'm leaning back toward 0-1 hexes.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 10:00 pm: Edit

If the X2 Photon got free holding beyond the cost to hold the first 16 pointers then that would drive up the "third turn dive" battle speed.
Personnally I'ld rather say 24 pointers held for 3 ( even 3 warp to keep the battle speed low ) because it keeps the holding energy as a round number for folks that want one...holding 20 pointers for 2.5 each doesn't give you that.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 10:07 pm: Edit

I could go either way on R2 feedback damage.


Ships with Ph-5s...heck even ships with Ph-1s won't be frequenting R2 often and if a ship's gotta hit on 1-5 that bad then the attacker needs to build his attack run around 16 point warheads ( or less ).


What you pick-up on the swings, you loose on the roundabouts.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 10:46 pm: Edit

Not sure I follow you there, MJC. Still you might want to stick with 20pts for the time being. Don't worry about 24pts until much later.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 12:26 am: Edit

It's the restriction that brings back the two turn flavor with out stepping back from X1 abilities.

A Fed can fast load all day. But if he wants to hit you with 80 points of photon and 8-10 phaser-5's then send a couple drones down your throat, you ought to get a little repreve the next turn. He will, after all, still have phasers back up.

Yes, 18 points would lift the restriction but the restrictions add Fed flavor back in. And 18 is not enough to warrent the added flavor.

24 points ends the game in one set up. Gets back to the "Close and Hose" tactics of Supp.2. Playing against Feds will be no fun.

MJC: You say that other X2 ships can survive the 24 point alpha. Perhaps, but the Fed will survive theirs even better. The exchange will be game ending. Perhaps not with a blown ship but with a ship that no fun to play any more against a ship that could still take on a fresh battle with some reload time. IMO, 24 cuts too deep into the meat. The enemy will never get their balancing second shot in. Their weapons will be gone before they get a chance.

Consider this: Face 24 point photons and phasers, holding G-Racks for defense, he then launchs a scatter pack. After all that, he launchs a heavy weapons drogue. What are you going to do? You've fired your alpha and came out about 1/2 to 2/3 what he caused. You would launch you own Heavy Weapons drogue but your shuttle bay is sacked. You've got a couple drones still on their way but the Fed still has a couple Ph-6's and two XG-Racks. What are you going to do?

It's the 24 point photon that puts it over the top.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 05:07 am: Edit

On the contry, the it's the drogue and the SP.


Let's say we have a Fed XDD which is a Fed DDX but with 6 extra warp engine boxes, 6 extra shield boxes and 6Ph-5s ( instead of the (Ph-1s of the DDX ) and a pair of GX racks in Y205...and then it has a BPV of 250 so it fights an X1 DX.

The Alpha Oblique from the XDD will be at R8, 14 points of phasers, 48 points from Photons and will strike a shield that has 36 shield boxes and might direct upto 15 points of BTTY into SSReo.
The Klingon on the other hand has 6 Disruptors and 9 bearing Ph-1s ( perfect oblique or there abouts ) and thus generates 30 points of Disruptor Damage and 19.5 points of Phaser damage againsty a 34 box shield that could have 9 point of BTTY used to protect it.

The drones pretty much cancel each other out.

The DX will take about 11 points of damage but the XDD will take 6.

I still don't see the massive CUTTING.


Note that the XDD must either leave or fight with fastloads on the next turn and with 4 x 12 pointers at say R4 (4/6) going against 5/6 x 6 x 8 and 5.5 x 4 Vs 7 x 4, the XDD is comming out behind in second turn fire in both Phaser and Heavy DF fire.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 05:18 am: Edit

Quote:

It's the restriction that brings back the two turn flavor with out stepping back from X1 abilities.



The Double Broadside penalty should not be the thing that creates the two turn arming of the Photon, but rather the ability to do focused damage should be.


18 pointers for the first attack run will be good because on the way in their is little to do but arm heavies...but once you're in the fight there should be a reason to pull out and arm the heavies as the real McCoy and that reason should be that it does it's damage in a significatly better way than staying put and arming fastloads.


Once you're within R4, the fastloads are able either consistantly pull down shields ( 40 boxe #2-6 shields on an XCA ) or do so with the aid of phasers. To leave and actually arm the two turners instead of sticking to overloads you need something and that thing is probably the ability to pull down a shield on your next attack run but generate an 18-36 internal alpha WITHOUT aid of Phasers.


Note I see the ASIF as doubling HULL boxes ( and the like ) and thus A3, A4, B3, B11, A10 & A11 hits can't be offset with the ASIF and when coupled with the 4 Photon 8 Ph-5 weapon suit of the Fed XCA it falls behind the 12Ph-1, 6 Disruptor Klingon XCA once damage starts to set in, so in fact the Fed XCA is less able to withstand the X2 strike than it's enemies.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 12:16 pm: Edit

The drogue and SP are already part of the game and WILL be available. The 24 point photon isn't.

It's not an end all example, the point is more general.

And regarding anything not X2. How will they stay out of range and avoid the close and hose.

MJC, were you playing back in the Supp.2 days? (honest question not an insult, promise).

By Mark Norman (Mnorman) on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 01:46 pm: Edit

Another point about drogues, and SPs.
Fed's can have them.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 03:43 pm: Edit

Quote:

On the contry, the it's the drogue and the SP.



No it isn't. Those are items that are easily defended against in Y205, and that are both dependent on ammunition. A pair of G-racks isn't anywhere near as influential as a photon that does 24 points.

All,

I started out lo these many months ago lobbying for 24 point photons. After playing 20 pointers, I changed my mind. The massive one turn crunch ability is just overwhelming, particularly against GW ships. A DNH can match the damage, but cannot follow up or re-arm without slowing signifigantly. An XCA armed with these could hit on impulse 32 of a turn with 96 points, then again with fastloads the next turn; and, depending on what "cool down" period you prefer, it could be within half a turn. So, within 1 turns time, the Fed can dish out a combined 144 points of damage. Probably won't, but it's possible, and a good player will go for this opportunity. The potential to completely demolish your opponent in such a short time is just too good to ignore, and one that no other ship can manage.

I would urge anyone who is seriously interested in 24 point photons to sit down and try them out.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 06:15 pm: Edit

Do X1 ships have the same problems? A Fed can fire 4x16 and follow up the next turn with 4x12.

Against GW ships, this is a massive amount of damage. Can 2 D5Ws handle a single Fed CX?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 06:44 pm: Edit

If they do then X2 is in trouble!

Seriously though, X1 is powerful but not as power-unit-full as X2.

X2 would actually be able to load huge photons and move. X1 has to spend a higher percentage of its power to pull of the double blast.

Regarding 2xD5W. They should do fine since they out BPV the CX. However, any GW ship facing a X1 ship will have to use all it's resources. One is multi-ship dynamics. Either make the CX spread out it's fire or out maneuver the CX (easier with two to one).

I think 2xD5K can handle a CX just fine as long as they done try to close to soon.

X1 and X2 have to be appraoched like lions approach big game. Don't try to opperate your squadron as one ship.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 09:02 pm: Edit

I did a calculation way back in this thread ( but I'm not going to look for it...I might prove to myself that I was thinking of something else) and basically found that a full alpha from a CX followed up but a Fastload Aplha of 12 pointers would eat 40% of the internals of another CX, where as an XCA would kill about 50% using 24 pointers and 16 point Fastloads, but that once the ASIF was active that would drop to about 30%

So all in all the XCAs are in proportion to CXs if they have the 24 pointers and 16 point fastloads and ASIF capsity.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 09:08 pm: Edit

Quote:

The drogue and SP are already part of the game and WILL be available. The 24 point photon isn't.


If the Fed XCA has a 330 BPV and the Klingon XD7 has a 280 BPV cost and the battle set at 350 BPV total:- how many Drogues can the XD7 have and how many can the XCA have?
How many PFs can the XD7 have on it's mechlinks?


The fact that drogues can be in the battle is neither her nor there because the opponent can buy a drogue too.

What matters is getting the BPV right for the 24 pointers not crucifying the idea because it MIGHT be too powerful according to people who've never actually playtested the idea.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 09:20 pm: Edit

I don't see a call for dropping photons to 18 unless we're changing its power efficiency (i.e allowing the photon to get 3 damage per point of power)

This could be too powerful.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 09:41 pm: Edit

Paying for 18 pointers with just 3 points of power ( 3 (power) x 2 (turns) x 3 (Rate) ) would in effect be giving the ship another 3 ( Vs 4.5 x 2 x 2 ) points of SSReo to the ship per pair of tubes per turn.

Which when one considered damage differential would be the same as having 21 point warheads...minus a little for having more power cost for regular 21 point warheads and it's an effective warhead of 20 points.
18 pointers at a lower arming cost are perty powerful things.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 09:52 pm: Edit

OK. Bad idea.

next.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 10:17 pm: Edit

Inside the outline of a Fed CX is 115 boxes.

Let's take two identical ship fighting each other in two different fights that work the same way for both a Fed CX and an XCA.

The CX moves against a CX to be at R1 in an oblique of another CX and fires on impulse 32, on impulse 2 it tacs to face directly at the other ship, which also tacs to face the CX and fires as soon as the double broadside penalty is over.

The CX has 115 boxes iside the outline and the XCA has 8Ph-5s ( instead of four Ph-1s ) 2 ANY boxes, four extra rear hull boxes, 4 extra cargo boxes, 8 extra warp engine boxes, 2 extra saucer warp boxes and 8 shield boxes extra on every shield for a total of 131.
Additionally with XCA using ASIF on low power all Hull boxes are doubles ( 20 hull boxes in total ) and on full power, that is increase by COntrol, Lab Cargo and shuttle ( for another 22 ) so it can effectively have 173 boxes.


The CX fires on impulse 32 for four 16 pointers and 9R1 Ph-1s (64+48 funnily enough) and inflicts a total of 112 points of damage against a 32 box shield. Then it tacs and fires on impulse 8 for 48 photon damage and 12R1 Ph-1s 64 damage for another grand total of 112 against a 40 box shield.
TOTAL INTERNAL DAMAGE:- 152!
Percentage of CX:- 132%

The XCA moves to R1 on impulse 32 and lets fly with four 24 pointers and 6R1 Ph-5s ( 96+45 damage ) for a total of 141 through a 40 box shield and then TACs, on impulse 16 it fires against 16 point fastloads and 8R1 Ph-5s ( 64+60 ) for a total of 124 against a 48 box shield.
TOTAL INTERNAL DAMAGE:- 172!
Percentage of XCA:- 131%
Percentage XCA ASIF low:- 113%
Percentage XCA ASIF full:- 99%


Quite simplyeven with the 24 point Photons and the 16 point fastloads, the CX's 16 point photons and 12 point Fastloads are far better at gutting an equal ship than the XCA.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 06:49 am: Edit

There is so much wrong with that example, I barely know where to start. I've debated this eight ways to Sunday; I'm not anymore.

About Cfants idea. Had a thought. What about leaving the photon exactly as it is in X1, but with a different kind of "critical overload" feature. On the last arming turn, you can critical overload a fully overloaded photon up to 18 points, but on a point for point basis. This critical overload cannot be held longer than 32 impulses; after that, it must be fired or ejected. You could do this with reserve power, or allocated power. It must come on the firing turn.

Example:

Fed XCA has four photons armed On turn one, he arms them each with 4 points; on turn 2, each with 4 more to bring them up to sixteen. He is closing rapidly with his opponent, and wants the extra "oomph" of critical overloads. So, on impulse 5 of this turn, he applies an additional six points of power from his reserves; 2 points each for photons A & B, bringing them up to 18 points, and 1 point each for C & D, bringing them up to 17. He must now fire these by impulse 5 of the following turn, or eject them. Note that he still has to apply holding energy to do so, even if he can only hold them for a short part of the next turn, though the hold cost remains the same as with normal overloads. There is a short "cool down" period needed of four impulses; so, if these were fired on impulse 32, he could fire the tubes with fast loads on impulse 12 of the next turn.

The idea here is to show that, after 16 points, it starts to get much more expensive to arm a photon. The efficiency starts to drop rapidly, but you can still do it if you want that extra bit of damage. This option does a little bit more damage at a substantial cost, but also makes the user have to plan a bit about when to arm them with that last bit of power. It also continues to emphasize reserve power, but doesn't take away the chance to rearm and fire the next turn...it just delays it a short bit.

Just a thought, and a different way to go. Maybe the same idea, but with a 20 point cap and 1/2 point per point would work better?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 08:08 am: Edit

The term critical overload gives me an idea. This isn't something I have thought through from a balance perspective but what if we assume an X2 photon is exactly like an X1 photon, but, you could critical overload it on the impulse of fire (and only the impulse of fire) from reserve warp up to the full 16 pointer. If too powerful this could be coupled with critical overload feedback.

Like the others I gave up on coming to a concensus on the photon months ago. In fact I've long since stopped reading this topic. I suggest we focus on the X2 disruptor (used by many races) and then adjust the photon to match.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 09:01 am: Edit

Tos:-

Are you saying 16 point fastloads but the drawback is "must come from reserve warp" I think perhaps the disruptor should be the single turn arming weapon.

6 Disruptors at R8 with built in UIM is 30 damage per turn.

Four 16 point fastloads at R8 is 32 damage.


Can you show me where I can find racial flavour???


Actually I can see racial flavour ( ECM influence and Jackpot off hand ) but it doesn't exactly restore the two turn arming that most of use feel is important to the Feds.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:27 am: Edit

Mike: Interesting.

Tos: Interesting too.

It's been a long time since some truely new idea hit this thread.

Tos: Do you have a new Disruptor idea? I thought those had be basically settled.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:36 am: Edit

I, probably most, haven't thought about the disruptor in 6 months since the last post in that thread. What was decided? I don't know. I'll go post over there and see if someone can summarize it. If we reach a disruptor concensus I think it will be much easier to balance the photon.

I'll reawaken the Dirsuptor thread, no reason to talk about it here.

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