Which current proposal? Everyone has their own.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 12:18 pm: Edit

Tos- my point exactly!

are we at the point where we can form a proposal yet?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 01:05 pm: Edit

Doesn't seem like it, does it? I say keep it simple...but that's just me.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 02:07 pm: Edit

KISS

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 04:16 pm: Edit

MJC, excellent point.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 04:36 pm: Edit

We don't seem to have a meeting of minds on the photon and that may not be bad. Remember we're not official or anything. We're just talkin'

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 04:46 pm: Edit

Minus the pulse/shotgun/"slowton" modes (need your help there), this is what I've distilled so far:

(XE4.6.X-Files) 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. General War) photon firing arcs. Advanced Photons play the same as X1-Photons using the X-Fix Errata in Captain's Log #23 but have more arming options. Other rules modifications are listed below.

(XE4.62) Advanced Photon Torpedo Loadouts

Loadout	Abbrev	Warhead	Arm	Cycle	Held?	Bonus?	SC	Range
Fast-Stnd	F-S	8	4	1 turn	Y	N	ALL	2-12
Fast-Prox	F-P	4	4	1 turn	Y	N	ALL	9-12
Standard	S	8	2+2	2 turn	Y	Y	ALL	2-40
Proximity	P	4	2+2	2 turn	Y	Y	ALL	9-40
Hvy-Stnd	H-S	10	2+3	2 turn	Y	N	>=3	2-40
Hvy-Prox	H-P	5	2+3	2 turn	Y	N	>=3	9-40
Fast-OL	F-OL	12	6	1 turn	Y	N	ALL	0-8
Overload	OL	8>=16	var	2 turn	Y	Y	ALL	0-8
Heavy-OL	H-OL	10>=20	var	2 turn	Y	N	>=3	0-8
Critical-OL	C-OL	20>=24	NOTE	3 turn	N	?	>=3	0-8

NOTE: C-OL arming power must at least exceed 20-point yield on second turn but can't be fired until third turn.

(XE4.63) Restrictions
WS-III allows up to Standard, Heavy, and Fast loading, but not Critical Overload. For C-OL, energy allocation during the scenario's turn #1 rolls over to turn #2.

(XE4.64) Die Roll Bonus
Advanced Photons fired as General War Photons (i.e. using two-turn loading and 8-16pt warheads) have a Photon Bonus which works like the X-Ship EW-shift bonus (XD6.34). Advanced Photons can not benefit from the Photon Bonus and the X-Ship EW-shift bonus simultaneously. If both bonuses are available, only the EW-shift bonus applies.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 05:39 pm: Edit

IIRC, there was some discussion about the 24 point war head option (for 2 turn arming cycles)...does making the 24 pointers a 3 turn arming cycle address the concerns?

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 07:00 pm: Edit

Partly. It's worth noting that any 24pt photon is considered an inflammatory and potentially DOA issue, however limiting it to a three-turn arming cycle helps soften the blow. FWIW I'm considering the 24pt'er to be an "optional" rule.

MJC, down boy!

Also I would recommend adding Shock rules to any SC3 unit that fires more than two 24pt photons in one impulse.

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 10:21 pm: Edit

I have been lurking in this topic and finally decided to post my opinion. As a long time Fed player my reaction to the various positions expressed on this subject has ranged from amused to disturbed. First, I think that the primary difficulty with this topic is that the nature of X2 ships and the BPV range that is proposed for these ships. Unless I am mistaken the assumed BPV for a XCA/XCC is in the same range as battleships, with smaller ships weighing in near the cost of heavy DNs and BCHs. At this price level I am dismayed that there is so much discussion about 20 or 24 point photons being too much. At a BPV of about 330 the B10 and the conjectural Fed BB have a forward heavy weapons compliment of eight torps. This translates into a maximum of 128 points of damage from heavy weapons during a period of two turns. If a XCA/XCC is equipped with only four torpedoes (24 point photons) produces a maximum of 144 points of damage, during a two turn period, 96 turn one and 48 turn two. If a XCA/XCC is equipped with four 20 point torpedoes produces a maximum of 128 points of damage, during a two turn period, 80 turn one and 48 turn two. For crunch power these two options are decidedly inferior to eight GW photons. Given the X1 fast-load ability would have to be part of the X2 photon, I don’t think that there will be any increased warhead strength that will be satisfactory when considering a follow up fast-load shot. Options to include a longer impulse delay or cool down between two turn overloads and next turn fast-loads don’t appeal to me because, frankly everyone of the proposals so far offer too much stick and not enough carrot. Another group of comments that disturbed me is the resistance to front loading photons (i.e. pay a larger portion of the arming cost on the first turn) and not allowing certain warhead strengths to be held after loading. I have occasionally the front-loading tactic from the GW era to the X1 era and consider it a fundamental aspect of the photon. Also, given the amount of energy need to load a torpedo to a war head strength greater than 16 requires energy even a X2 Fed is not going to have a less extra power compared to their opponents. Besides not every ship that mounts a photon is going to be a cruiser, the smaller ships are going to have a hard time arming photons, powering enough ECCM to actually be able to hit the target, and chase the target down. (I find that most targets don’t willingly come to me when I’m packing O/Ls and they usually have more ECM than I can generate ECCM).

I feel there are two possibilities to improve the photon for X2. I am assuming that a X2 ship has half as many photon tubes as a GW ship at the same approximate BPV.

1. This or something similar may have been proposed earlier: No overload function. Standards can be armed with a warhead strength of between 8 to 16 points with no myopic zone and a max one turn strength of 12. Prox loads can be from 4 to 8 points with 4 being max for one turn arming. This would favor long range firepower over pure crunch power.

2. More carrot for the two turn arming cycle: a 16 point standard with a maximum O/L warhead strength of 32 points and a 33 impulse restriction against firing again.

The above suggestions are separate and offered with the assumption that a X1 photon roughly equates to 1.5 GW photons and a X2 photon roughly equates to 2 GW photons. However, the best solution may be to simply increase the number of photons a X2 ship equips.

I hope that what I have to say sparks more progress.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 12:03 am: Edit

O.J.H.2.:

Yeah, I too am finding too much stick and not enough carrot.

The things to remember will be listed in the table below.

GW ships	X2 Ships Very Likly	X2 Ships Possible
8 FA 16 point Photons (+2 RA)	4 FA 20 point Photons ( Fastload 12 pointers )	4 FA 24 Point Photons ( 16 point Fastloads )
6 ECM/ECCM	8 ECM/ECCM	8ECM/ECCM
No Ability to capitalise on negative shift	Ability to capitalise on negative shift	dito
No ASIF	ASIF	ASIF
No Bridge as Special Sensor	S-Bridge	S-Bridge
No Aegis	Limited Aegis	Full Aegis
30 Power to MC ratio	48 Power to MC ratio	48 Power to MC ratio

The net result being that X2 cruisers should not go toe to toe with BBs and win but should be around the same BPV...(assuming they should be around the same BPV)...what they loose in direct firepower that gain in added abilities to protect the rest of the fleet, guide seeking weapons and manouvere with the fleet instead of forcing the fleet to adapt to it as a BB does.


I would say that at these BPVs an XCA still needs the ability to fire heavy weapons as though it were a dreadnought (Fed DNG!?!) which means to equate to Six 16 Point Photons you either need Four 24 point Photons or six 16 point Photons.
Second turn fire makes the DF Heavy weapon more powerful than the GW DN but since the BPV is that of a BB it's forgivable.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 12:10 am: Edit

I think the biggest draw back with the second turn of fire is forgotten by a lot of people.

If you do fire a second fastloaded barrage, you'll set the ability to fire two-uber-photons back by another turn ( on account of the fact; you can't fire that fastload this turn and use it as part of a two turn arming cycle next turn aswell ).


Follow up damage on the turn after fire is handy but not great.
The more important Crunch Power is; the less important follow up damage becomes...and I'm one of the few people here who thinks crunch power is over-rated.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 02:58 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Also I would recommend adding Shock rules to any SC3 unit that fires more than two 24pt photons in one impulse.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 08:29 am: Edit

Orman,

I can understand your concern, but you must remember that the BPV of these ships isn't just determined by the power/number of heavy weapons they have. It is also a reflection of their phaser power, available energy, EW abilities, damage resistance, speed, special abilities and defenses. An XCA with an SIF system can absorb much more damage than you would think; combined with better EW and the power to exploit it, AND improved shields, they'll be very resistant to damage. The phaser V is greatly superior to the P1, as well, giving the ship a very effective phaser suite for both offense and defense. The S-bridge system is something else to consider, as is the possible "any" system box that can be whatever you want it to be. A ship with all these abilities combined and packing 20 point photons is plenty to worry about. 24 or 32 points? Just say no, at least if you plan to use this other stuff, which I think most people do; simply making weapons more powerful is what Supplement 2 tried to do, and it was an abysmal failure.

That said, I do sort of like the notion of the super-standard photon that can be any warhead size from 1-16 with no hold penalty or myopic zone. Talk about a flexible new toy. Would such a thing have no feedback, as well?

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 04:44 pm: Edit

MJC, remember I'm not recommending that the 24pt/3-turn photon be installed in SC4 and smaller units. They'd get the shotgun/pulse photons.

Also realistically X2-cruisers won't go toe-to-toe with a battleships because there aren't any battleships in the X2 era (at least not at first). You're discussing fighting notional ships and that's not realistic.

Perhaps you're looking to the future when the Xorks show up, but that's not realistic as the Galactic Powers don't yet know about the Xorks. You could argue that they're planning for a potential follow-on invasion by more advanced Andros but even then it's pure speculation on the part of the GP strategists.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 05:43 pm: Edit

RBN,

The X2 vs BB matchup has to be considered under the SVC requirement that X2 play nice with Standard technology.

I would also venture to guess that the Klinks might have a BB or two around in Y205.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 07:02 pm: Edit

I figured they'd just scrap them because they're so expensive to operate and use the parts to build new more efficient starships.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 07:14 pm: Edit

RBN: The comparison is made because it's the only type of ship that has an OFFICIAL BPV that high. We can pit XCC's against such a unit to help pinpoint the X2 BPV as well as pinning it against multiple GW units.

To only compare it to multiple units might introduce flaws since any non-X2 force would be fighting with force dynamics.

Fortunatly for us there is both. This make for a good tool set for design. This is one reason we should not venture into BPV higher that 300-320...unless someone has Steves BPV formula.

To note: The X2 Cruisers will likely put out damage like a DNH, take hits like a DN and maneuver like a cruiser. Should be a fair match for a BB.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 08:29 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I figured they'd just scrap them because they're so expensive to operate and use the parts to build new more efficient starships.

---

---

Quote:

To note: The X2 Cruisers will likely put out damage like a DNH, take hits like a DN and maneuver like a cruiser. Should be a fair match for a BB.

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 09:01 pm: Edit

The XCA will have the maneuver advantage, the BB, even with a ASIF, will have the durability advantage.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 09:05 pm: Edit

Ugh. Uber-cruisers. Just say no.

To put it another way; battleships, with one exception, are conjectural for a reason. Do we really want a module full of mini-BB's, regardless of the generation?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 09:09 pm: Edit

Do we have a choice?

CX's are 250-315 as it is.

Can we expect to pack a lot of neat new stuff into a XCA without going to 300-350?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 09:34 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

To put it another way; battleships, with one exception, are conjectural for a reason. Do we really want a module full of mini-BB's, regardless of the generation?

---

---

Quote:

Can we expect to pack a lot of neat new stuff into a XCA without going to 300-350?

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 10:57 pm: Edit

Mike, I'm surprised to see you post that. You've proposed several designs that fit that bill.

X2 will have an uber-cruiser simply because it needs to be better than the X1 cruiser (with is already semi-uber). Like John said, I don't see we have a choice.

Although...

Just because they exist doesn't mean they have to be prolific. We discussed long ago that the big X2 cruiser would fit into the fleet like early GW Dreadnaughts. I have always proposed that the main line cruiser for the X2 era be a Medium Cruiser. This is the common X2 unit introduced just after the XCC. XCL and XDD would come next in the largest numbers. XFF (in my proposal) show up like pop corn being built all over the place and filling support roles every where.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 11:38 pm: Edit

There is zero reason to need a 320-350 uber crusier except for the coorner you folks have painted yourselves into.

X2 is still possiibly the next generation of standard warships.

Back to the FF,DD,CL,CA. Getting rid of short life hulls llike DWs and CWs.

Make them about the same BPV of X1 cruisers but more multirole rather than combat oriented.