The problem with allowing the double-loads to work past range-8 is it strengthen's the extreme-long-range sniping game which, while efficient, is some of the most boring gameplay available to SFB.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 08:44 pm: Edit

X1 photons reach out to 40. I don't think the double shot should for the same reasons John listed. I could see anywhere from range 12-20 with a preference for 16.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 08:57 pm: Edit

I'm concerned about anything outside overload range because.

Technically the double-shot is allowing over Range-8 overloads.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 09:46 pm: Edit

Bingo.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 11:16 pm: Edit

Well, I don't see it that way as you have to roll twice AND not with in a specified period of time. I've always advocated 8 or 16 impulses (8 seems to fit with the 8 impulse minimum delay over a turn break that all weapon have. This 8 impulses is probably the time need to reset, re-actuate or in the case of these photons transfer the weapon from the loading bay to the tube.)

A technobabble reason for mounting these on smaller ships is the 20 point crits migh present too much shock for smaller hulls. Whith this weapon the smaller ships can out put considerable damage with out the shock potential.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 11:20 pm: Edit

BTW, If big photons can reach 40 then medium ones should reach 30 (but certainly not 40).

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 11:22 pm: Edit

Is a bad idea.

Could there maybe something resembling a Federation ship in X2?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 01:24 am: Edit

No, I was thinking of going with a BSG style design.

Of course, there will be. What's so non-Fed about adding a second loading bay to a photon torpedo tube? It has a certain logic.

How would you propose making the Feds fresh and new as mandated by SVC regarding X2 in general?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 01:35 am: Edit

CFant, BTW, nothing is decided here. We're all just proposing ideas. Some wacked, some not so wacked.

SVC did not that he may not use anything we propose.

You seem threatened that we are going to ruin your game but I really don't think there's a real danger of that. Don't you belive in SVC?

If you don't like an idea that's cool. There's lots I don't care for either. But really, of course the Feds will still be Feds and so on.

But the stated goal IS to go very different some how.

Personally, I want people to open up X2 and go "Oh wow. What??? Oh, I see. Hmmmm. Jeeze, how am I going to play this out. Say, this is cool. Hmmm, How could I use this against that?"

I want to see veteran players start thinking again like when they first started playing the game. Up until now we've had the occasional new toy and ship to play with and enhance our tactics but very little in the way of radical new thinking. I sincerly hope X2 will provide that along with an interesting historical read. I want to see another ten years of CL Term Papers come from X2, X1R and X2R and the Xork war.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 01:44 am: Edit

To draw an Earth paralel.

A General or Admiral in 1944 would fight war with an establish way of thinking that suited the era.

That thinking paradigm would get him/her annihilated in a modern day war (1980-2000).

The GW is like WWII and X2 the modern era. Everything in the modern era is built from the lessons of WWII but nothing is the same.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 02:15 am: Edit

Loren, the Goal is not to very different, it is to have something new. New does not mean drastic.

Yes, I have faith in SVC.

Yes, I realize that nothing in here is final, which I am thankful for.

I simply state my opinion and try (unsuccessfully) to bring the ideas a little more back to something reasonable.

Direct fire weapons that do 20 or more damage in one turn, or even two, is not going to play well with anything otther than X1, and that is unreasonable.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 05:20 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Direct fire weapons that do 20 or more damage in one turn, or even two, is not going to play well with anything otther than X1, and that is unreasonable.

---

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 07:17 am: Edit

Its funny to watch CFant and MJC talk to each other.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 12:32 pm: Edit

Now Tos, be nice.

1) Loren, what's the justification for putting "pulse-fire" (is that an accurate term?) photons only on smaller ships? I understand the shock thing, but wouldn't it benefit larger ships as well? Why not just go that route for all ships? There needs to be something that distinguishes the pulse-fire from the heavier photons. I'm thinking a range limitation that larger ships would find unpalatable. Smaller ships will tend to "get in there" and knife fight so a range limitation might be in order. A scaled down version of this might also prove useful for X2-fighter/bombers (but I'll save that conversation for later).

To generate conversation: SC3+ ships get the heavier photons we've discussed earlier and SC4- ships get the "pulse-fire" photons. SC4- photons can OL only according to X1 limits, but can pulse fire at a limited range. SC3+ ships can heavy/critical OL, but can't pulse fire. Or can they?

2) Seeking ("slowton") mode for photons. What balances it? What's the advantage over DF? What's the risk compared to DF? What could shoot it down? How would it react to an ESG? Etc. I know I proposed one version, but I'm not the only one thinking here.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 01:16 pm: Edit

A few thoughts, for what they are worth.

The few things everyone agrees on seem to be that photons should still more or less act like photons; that is, a DF heavy weapon. We also all seem to agree that overload range should be restricted to 8. Other than that, we don't really agree on anything.

There have been proposals for every conceivable "minor" change to the photon put up at one time or other, including if I remember correctly:

• mini photons, similar to those in P6 giving the fed a "cheaper" option to use in running battles or when power just ain't there.
• Fast load limit raised to 16 points.
• Increased number of X1 photons on X2 ships; i.e., an XCA with 6 instead of 4.
• A normal X1 photon based on 2D6 instead of 1 for EW resistance.
• "Big" photons...20, 24, 32 point overoalds; take your pick.
• Seeking photons.
• "Quantum" photons.
• No changes at all.

• DF only
• No overload exceeding range 8
• 2 turn arming gets a better result in some fashion.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 01:23 pm: Edit

Sounds fine to me.

16 point fastloads and 20 point two turners seems like enough. You already get a +1 bonus if shooting with more ECCM. That seems plenty.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 01:49 pm: Edit

...and here's where the debate comes in.

I tend to think 16-point fastloads tempts the Fed to much to act like a disruptor boat.

My first thought it to keep fastloads at 12 and give the photon some other minor advantage.

Perhaps a third turn of arming that goes up to 24? (sorry to give 24-pointers any more legitimacy but I did the big damage 2 weeks ago by mentioning the idea at all. Little additional harm done now and I still harbor some small liking for them...)

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 03:09 pm: Edit

Well, as long as we are discussing 2 or more "types" of photons for different size class ships...why not go "whole hog" and just make a 2nd class of vanilla photons?

all earlier generations of photons stay as published, and X2 photons get a *NEW* (fill in the blank)PHOTON (Call it heavy, improved, enhanced or whatever floats your boat>)

Said new photon uses same range tables, rules and all abilities and characteristics of earlier generations except power cost and damage potential.

Say the X2 ships photons cost 2.5 energy points per turn, 2 turn arming war head damage potential 10 points, over loads cost 5 points per turn for 2 turns and have a yeild of 20 points of damage potential.

As further justification, say the technology that allows the photons to be powered at 2.5 (or 5 points) per turn allows the photons to be fired as the earlier type...so if you ont your X2 ship to have 2 point per turn cost torps and an 8 point war head you can...same thing with 16 point overloads.

This way the damage point potential stays on the same curve as the traditional torps, no 24 point war heads for people to worry about until its "Xork Time" and no new extensive rules sections need to be written.

It also puts the X2 ships in a distinctly different class than X1, GW or MY ships without having complicated and detailed record keeping duties.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 03:14 pm: Edit

For what its worth, I am intrigued by Jon Trauger's idea for a 3 turn arming cycle for photons and a 24 point war head on photons. If the Feds ever make cloaking devices standard on their star ships we just might be able to do something about the Romulans!

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 04:14 pm: Edit

I'm ok with a 2 turn, 10 point standard waarhead. I even like it. Same goes for 2 turn 20 point warhead as theoverload.

I would like to see the 0-1 range restriction on standards removed.

So, the Fed could arm

4 10 point standard warheads over 2 turns.
4 20 point overload warheads over 2 turns.
4 8 point standard warheads over 1 turn.
4 12 point overload warheads over 1 turn.
4 24 point overload warheads over 3 turns.


I like this. Is very much like the regular old Photon Torpedo, but give it great flexibility and a little bit better damage at range with the standards at the price of 2 turns to arm.

Keep the range of 40 from X1, and keep the D6 and keep the To-Hit, perhaps improve that by 1 at some ranges.

Overall, simple, neat, new and improved, but still very Fed.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 04:23 pm: Edit

I don't object to any of this, but I do have one caveat. No starting a game with 24 point photons loaded, not even as WSIII (unless the scenario specifies differently).

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 04:29 pm: Edit

well, three turn arming weapons are done with two turns of arming at the beginning of the scenario I think. So, 16 power into the tubes would get you all 4 24 point warheads...

That woould be a quick duel I imagine....sheesh.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 04:32 pm: Edit

I would also recomend that 3 turn, 24 point warhead cannot be held. Matter of fact, three turn any point warhead cannot be held.

Still, all Feds get the 2 points of ooverload energy per tube to use as they like. So, all of them could start with 14 pointers.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 05:20 pm: Edit

A photon that's not full strength on turn 1 just encourages the Fed to dance until it is full strength. That it can't be held will matter little to a ship with 15+ reserve warp. With 4x24 point warheads the Fed won't need a follow-up volley. Of all the races in the SFU that need a crunch upgrade, the Feds ain't it.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 05:31 pm: Edit

Well, if a 24 point warhead is allowed, then overall power on the ship would need to be reduced.