Die rolls?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 11:38 pm: Edit

Statistically speaking, the BTX ( without modules ) is dishing up 6 points of PH-4 damage, 2 points of Ph-1 damage and 0.66 points of Disruptor damage per turn...and has 6 BTTYs and can only control drones out to R35 ( a hold over from GW rules that was not improved with X1 ).

She might have 50 shield boxes backed up by those BTTYs and a lot of AWR power to go around but she'll be taking 12 damage every other turn and a further 4 points of phaser damage ( possibly every turn but probably only on the same turn as the Photons).

The FFX on the other hand with 16 warp, 1 AWR, 2 Impulse and three 3 point BTTYs is immune from the firepower of the BTX at that range.

The thing that will stop the BTX from being base busted at that range is; the stalemate rules and little else.


If it was good enough for X1 it's good enough for X2.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 11:41 pm: Edit

I am completely opposed to 12 standards.

I'm not fond of 10 pointers either.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 12:32 am: Edit

8 point standard x 2 = 16 OL

10 point standard x 2 = 20 CritOL.

20 points is big damage so the Crit rules/restrictions were added but the two follow the same line of max OL equals twice the standard.

I suppose it doesn't HAVE to be that way but that was my thinking.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 06:47 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I would rather have 12 point standard Photons that were limited to R30 and thus Proxy 6 point warheads were also limited to R30 with 8 point standards limited to whatever range the X2 Disruptor is limited to ( R50 anyone!?!) , than keeping the standard at 8 because Disruptors are such poor weapons in the R31-40 range braket.

---

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 09:11 am: Edit

Improved accuracy or improved damage. Either one is doable. Using both is just too much.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 11:21 am: Edit

Yup.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 12:29 pm: Edit

Agreed.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 02:27 pm: Edit

IMO giving the Fed XCC 10pt standards is the way to go. Make the maximum OVL, 20 and have done with it.

Keep the X1 range table as is. Any change to the hit chance and the Photon goes out the window of all previous precedent. Making it even harder to balance and benchmark.

IMO the Photon needs to be set first then the Disr. Since Disr have to deal with multiple strikes to get equal damage.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 03:31 pm: Edit

Ken, I agree with that with one stipulation. My 17-20 critOL rules.

I once made a minor change in adding a R9-R10 bracket where proxes got a one up to hit (making 1-5). This was a mistake. The photon table cannot be changed. An built in +1 anywhere is too much. Mike Raper proposed a 2d6 table so you could effectivly get a +1/2 and a more average roll out but I think it's better for the game to remain with the X1 table even though Mikes table isn't too unbalancing.

I like the Medium Photon for SC4 units.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 03:43 pm: Edit

By creating the double shot we are changing the odds while keeping the table the same. Damage with a OVL-16 is 50%=0, 50%=16. Damage with a double shot-8 is 25%=0, 50%=8, 25%=16. Much better IMO.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 03:51 pm: Edit

I only have one complaint with 10 point standards, and while it's a small point, it may bear thinking about. By using 10 points as the standard we're making the photon require fractional accounting. 2.5 points might not sound like much to deal with, but many players might think it feels sort of clunky. Consider a destroyer, which might have three photons. For standards, you end up with 7.5 points a turn, always with a half point left over. Does this bother anyone?

I agree with Tos, by the way; the more I think about the "shotgun" photon, the more I like it. A Fed XCA blasting away with 8 photons at 8 points each, at over load range only, solves alot the gripes people have with the photon. I'd be interested in exploring this option further.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 04:29 pm: Edit

Loading a 10 could be loaded by 2+3. You don't have to use fractional.

Shotgun photon in this way would have no OL option? Because I hate to see a XCA getting 8 OL's.

The medium Photon I proposed would have a base6 warhead (3 point proxies) with a max OL of 12. Slightly more damage output that the big photon but must be fired with some delay (so likely facing two shields).

Here is the thing I think will be accomplished with such a mix of weapons. Players are encuraged to take a SC3 AND a SC4 unit for the added flexability of having both types of photon available. Suddenly the XCA + XDD team becomes really dangerous AND fun.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 04:50 pm: Edit

If you load a photon with a warhead greater than 8 it cannot be fired in the same turn as another photon of any size.

We could say the first shot of the turn has no range limit and the second shot has a range 8 limit.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 05:34 pm: Edit

Mike R-

I have been waiting for some one to comment on the fractional accounting part of the proposal(I had made myself a bet that it would be someone else that brought it up, but thats okay, I had the odds set at 50/50!)

I would like to suggest that since there are already several examples of systems that require fractional accounting (such as move costs of greater than or less than 1, transporters costing 0.2, and phaser 3's that cost 0.5 energy points), the fractional accounting "problem" is already part of the game.

It would, IMO, only be a problem if ADB wanted to market the game to that group of people in the market who #1 are not proficient with math, or #2 those people with short attention spans who would be unable to remember the difference in Photon arming costs...

It has been my experience in gaming conventions (and admittedly, its been 8 years since I have attended one) those people who play Star Fleet Battles tend to be either intelligent, well educated (and by this I mean college educated) or both.

This might qualify as a perceived problem that realy isn't (a problem, I mean!)

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 05:37 pm: Edit

Destroyer always have a fractional point left over. .5 LS .5+.5 Shields 1 AFC= 2.5 HK.

Since MOST DDs have a MC of .5 that means a fractional point is easily subsumed into movement. Making the photons 2.5 each shouldn't be a problem.

2.5HK+7.5photon+15move=25 power Even with batteries it will force DD to eventually slow down enough that the range can be forced to R8 for GW units.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 05:38 pm: Edit

What is the Shotgun Photon?

I thought we were talking about double shotted?

IMO double shot is 2 normal photons...fired from the same tube with or without a time delay.

Shotgun Photon sounds like a smaller warhead (as in buckshot or pellets...)

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 06:21 pm: Edit

Theoretically we could do both.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 06:34 pm: Edit

Fed X2 destroyers would have 4 torpedos, justt like they always have. Fed X2 FFs should have 3 I think, as tthey will be at least the size of DWs from the GW.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 07:56 pm: Edit

The Fed DW has three photons.

I would suggest that the Fed XDD have three tubes and six loading bays (on the SSD it would look like six photons).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 07:58 pm: Edit

As you all probably know my proposal for the XFF is one that wouldn't even carry photons as the FF's become specialized support ships not combat units.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 09:38 pm: Edit

Well, 3 photons is for the XFF, 4 photons foor the XDD/XCA/XCC. 6 photons for anything made later.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 09:47 pm: Edit

What?? So, I arm a twelve point standard and all of the sudden if I fire it past range 30, it becomes an eight point standard?
No you knucklehead...it becomes an R30 limited warhead the instant you arm it as a 12 point warhead, not when you fire it...if you want an R40 Shot, you'll just have to arm it as an 8 point Photon.

So the photon no longer has consistent damage over range (probably the most crucial trait it has) and the standard now outranges the proximity photon?
It does have consistant damage over range to the same degree that the Photon had consistant damage over range...In the MY period you overload and you stop getting damage at R9+...under my proposed heavy standard rule you stop getting the ability to strike at R31 and up...it's a follow on of the same application of limitation.
The proxies then get limited to the same limitations as the standard they were based off.

And all because the disruptor sucks at long range?
Like I said making X2 Defracs go all the way out to R40 would be one other solution.

In case you missed it, this paradigm already exists. The disruptor blows at long range...always has. Making up weird rules like this just to make them better isn't going to help.
Except in base assaults, R31-40 can't be maintained so it won't matter and in base assaults other factors will come in to make the disparity less influencial ( special sensors on turn of Photon Firing for one ).

So if the Photon beats the Disruptor 3 or 3.75 or 4.5 to 1 at those extreme ranges...I don't mind.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 10:05 pm: Edit

RBN- "...do both"

Is this a veiled attempt to resusitate the mini photon idea?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 10:13 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

IMO the Photon needs to be set first then the Disr. Since Disr have to deal with multiple strikes to get equal damage.

---

---

Quote:

By creating the double shot we are changing the odds while keeping the table the same. Damage with a OVL-16 is 50%=0, 50%=16. Damage with a double shot-8 is 25%=0, 50%=8, 25%=16. Much better IMO.

---

---

Quote:

This might qualify as a perceived problem that realy isn't (a problem, I mean!)

---

---

Quote:

Fed X2 destroyers would have 4 torpedos, justt like they always have. Fed X2 FFs should have 3 I think, as tthey will be at least the size of DWs from the GW.

---