| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 12:05 pm: Edit |
Jeff: I've considered similar ideas. In the non-X2 photon improvement thread there is a ton of ideas. One I had was to be able to set the photon as a sort of flash cube effect that would light every thing in the target hex with some amount of ECCM.
The problem came when dealing with 'what are other races to get?'. This new ability of the photon is countered how? And such questions as that. It almost can't happen unless you are filling a space where the Feds are lacking in the galactic scheme or the system is designed with enough "costs" to balance it (BPV can be part but not all for such a thing).
Tos: You suggested that a while ago and I forgot to mantion a though I had on that. I have a little trouble seeing the photon fire fully side ways but could see it firing at the edge of the FA arc and turning. As a result perhaps a modified FH arc could be given. It would be a Fed special arc. Basically all the hexes that are not in the FA arc AND touch the FH boundry line cannot be fired into.
Map example:
Ship in hex 2101 facing D
Hexes 2001 and 2201 are OK since these are in the FA arc.
Counting to the left: Hexes 2401, 2502, 2601 etc are on the FH boundry line and cannot be fired into by Photons.
An illustration could be given but the rule can be easilly followed on the map. It would promote longer range fire on the oblique but would not affect R1 where FA=FH anyway. The ranges it restricts to FA are R2 and R3. Beyond that the arc is expanded. Other FH weapons would not be restricted.
One reason for such a thing is to maintain some advantage for the traditional oblique attack races. This gives them a place to hide in the forward vector.
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 01:14 pm: Edit |
Loren, not to be disrespectful, but the answer is the same for new photon abilities as it is for anything else new that is introduced into the game....its called playtesting.
my suggestion would be to get a consensis together of what new photon gimics would constitute a X2 Photon and test it.
At some point we have to rely on the reports from the playtesters.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 01:56 pm: Edit |
None taken. I would just point out that increased damage is different and ships already have a system for countering/mitigating damage. My point is that other things are more difficlt to balance.
Oh man, we just did this a bit ago, huh? Sorry.
Jeff, by all means explore. Sorry, I see you are trying to expand on ideas and I keep stepping on it. Gads, I'm really sorry about that!
(zipping mouth)
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 05:55 pm: Edit |
My philosophy is that some weapons get more finesse, some get more powerful, some get a little of both.
The photon, because it is THE heavy-duty Df weapon of the SFU, I tend to want to push it further in that direction.
The Disruptor, I tend to want to go the finesse route (Exception: Disr Cannon)
I certainly wouldn't want a 16-point-max photon and a 20-point Disruptor Cannon.
Just wouldn't be right. 
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 08:06 pm: Edit |
I agree.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 08:30 pm: Edit |
Quote:I dunno. I can see arguments for 20 point photons...I can. But simply driving up the damage on everything is just soooooooo unappealing. I mean, really. If you make the photon 25% more powereful, what happens to the other weapons that have to keep pace? I'd like to find a way to increase damage capability with just increasing warhead size, if we could, otherwise X2 just becomes an exercise in "bigger is better", and having DNH's disguised as cruisers. That just doesn't feel like a good direction for X2, to me.
Quote:Lets try one more time, IMO the question comes down to ways to improve the photon that would be new or different from the "just increasing the damage" or messing with the "to Hit tables".
Quote:Quality improvement: enhanced damage against sheilds, and reduced damage to ship,
Quote:My philosophy is that some weapons get more finesse, some get more powerful, some get a little of both.
The photon, because it is THE heavy-duty Df weapon of the SFU, I tend to want to push it further in that direction.
The Disruptor, I tend to want to go the finesse route (Exception: Disr Cannon)
Quote:I certainly wouldn't want a 16-point-max photon and a 20-point Disruptor Cannon.
Just wouldn't be right.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 09:01 pm: Edit |
Quote:On the other hand, 24 point Photon is all about raw damage.
When these two races meet with X2 ships, what do we get?
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 09:37 pm: Edit |
Depends on what the Klingons have, don'tcha think?
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 09:41 pm: Edit |
Nope. At least not integrated UIM and DERFACS...that won't cut it. A 50% increase in damage is huge, especially for a weapon already known for its crunch. Get to range 0-1, and its all over, never mind what it'll do to less capable X1 or GW ships.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 09:48 pm: Edit |
Nupe.
You get a Dead Fed...sometimes.
Consider a Klingon XCA against a 330 BPV Fed XCA.
The Klingon has drone racks, launches an ECM drone and puts up a spare possibly. 11 ECM is hard for 8 ECCM to burn through and Four 24 Point Photons at R8 is hard to shoot through a positive shift.
If the Fed is also flying an ECM drone the 3-11 ECM up could create a +1 to +3 shift but the DIsruptors with their built in UIM have a pretty good ability to hit ( particularly if one ship uses BTTY to change the exchange to something reasonable ).
Hitting with 1-4 for 6 damage from 6 Disruptors using some of the power in the Disruptor Caps the Klingon XCA can not only do 24 damage against a 40 box shield but do it whilst really moving. Plus the 15 points of perfect oblique Phaser damage for a total of 39...not bad against a 40 box shield. Plus your movement probably puts you a an exceeding advatagious position for next turn's attack run.
On the other hand the Fed hurls said 24 point Photons with 1-2 to hit at R8 and generates 32 points of Photon Damage and 16 points of Phaser-5 damage, in flicts a WHOPPING 48 points of damage against sheilds that have five 3 point BTTYs and a minimum of 40 boxes.
Even if a Klingon DXD took a Leg' W.O. and fought a 330 BPV Fed XCA the Klingon wouldn't be toast.
If both ships went on the offensive you might get Photons hitting at R8 on 1-4 ( for a collosal 64 points of damage and a further 24 points of phaser damage, but a Klingon XCA will ba able to handle 88 points of damage ( 40 box sheild and 15 BTTY ) far batter than almost any other vessel because 33 point of inernals with some of it mittigated by the ASIF isn't that bad a hit from a NIGHTMARE strike.
And dishing back 6 x 6/6 x 6 Disruptor damage and 10 by Ph-1s with a negative shift yeilds 28.33 points of damage, which totals 64.33 points of your own damage right back at the Fed against his 40 box shield and 15 points of BTTY.
A well flown X2 Klingon can and will beat a Fed X2 ship. A Poorly Flown X2 KLingon is not toast automatically on the first battle pass. Even an X1 Klingon is not toast.
Even a Klingon DNH is not toast when it has a lousey battle pass against a Federation X2 cruisers.
Don't just say PERIOD.
Justify.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 10:07 pm: Edit |
Quote:Nope. At least not integrated UIM and DERFACS...that won't cut it. A 50% increase in damage is huge, especially for a weapon already known for its crunch. Get to range 0-1, and its all over, never mind what it'll do to less capable X1 or GW ships.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 10:46 pm: Edit |
Mike,
That's the key, isn't it? Getting to range 0-1.
That's the way the Fed has always been: hit with all photons and you win.
It grinds the teeth of some people who are really into the toutnament game because you cannot statistically account for photon damage. There's too high a chance of getting something wildly off the average.
Otherwise you have to somehow get to that range 0-1. it isn't an assurred thing, not even for X2. And the fed has to take the backlash damage from being close when the photons hit (my mind blanked on the term).
Try getting to 0-1 on ship that doesn't want you to when you're still feeding the photons. If all else fails, X2 still has the same speed-limit.
If you aren't trying to close while finishing off your photons, you're extending the photon arming cycle by an extra turn and should get something for it.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:04 am: Edit |
John leads into some of the reason I wanted a 20 point crit with NO fire the next turn. Getting to close range with the 20 pointer will be difficult. You will be slower becasue it take a fair amount of power and since crits cannot be held you only have the rest of the turn to set up your shot. You could use reserve to finnish a crit but then that reserve doesn't go to shields. You could eject at the end of the turn and fast load the following turn but this is a big price to pay.
This is why the 20 point crit (no hold, no fire next turn)isn't too much. Setting up the actual tactical situation is very difficult. If you do pull it off then congratulations, the rest of the game should go well. But it's not over the way a set of 24 pointers would have it.
The 20 point crit is balanced IMO.
The 10 point standard I believe is OK but warrents more study.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:27 am: Edit |
Quote:Otherwise you have to somehow get to that range 0-1. it isn't an assurred thing, not even for X2. And the fed has to take the backlash damage from being close when the photons hit (my mind blanked on the term).
Quote:This is why the 20 point crit (no hold, no fire next turn)isn't too much. Setting up the actual tactical situation is very difficult. If you do pull it off then congratulations, the rest of the game should go well. But it's not over the way a set of 24 pointers would have it.
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 01:16 am: Edit |
Uhhh guy's?
were arguing in circles again. If you go back in the archives some of these same points (and the numbers!) had been offered before...and we didnt get a consensis then.
How about an another alternative (maybe this will trip some ones trigger!)
what if we assume all functions of the X1 photon carry thru to the X2, (to hit tables, damage, 8 point war heads, 16 point over loads, fast loads etc.
lets just concentrate on making X2 qualitatively BETTER than x1...
since none of the earlier ideas were popular...how about a radical departure?
lets say we have a target...call it a D7 in hex 2215 heading direction 'D' speed 4. next move will be impulse 8 (i'm going by memory here so if I'm wrong, please correctme!) to hex #2216, then impulse 16, moves to hex 2217, impulse 24 moves to hex 2218 and ends the turn on impulse 32 moving to hex 2219.
nor side slips, tac warp manuvers, turns or HET.
nor is he using erratic manuvers or wild weasle.
say an X2 cruiser is 10 hexes away facing the target (err) Klingon D6.
Under existing rules, each firing opportunity, is resolved separately in the sequence of play, be it direct fire phase or seeking weapons phase or whatever.
The germ of this idea is if the X2 ship can score a hit during impulses #1 to 7, and the target does not change its course or adopt eratic manuvers...the fire control computers onboard being superior to earlier generations, can plot a more accurate ballistic course of the target under these precise conditions than earlier generation ships were capable of.
the net result is for the immediate impulse after a sucessful hit, any direct fire heavy weapon gains a nominal"+1" to hit die role modifier for successfully hitting the same target.
please note, if any of the conditions listed above are not present, (such as turns, sideslip, HET or erratic manuvers, the bonus is not available.)
Also note, that this solution would work for any race with a heavy direct fire weapon, such as disrupters, bolted plasmas or helbores.
it would not work for phasers or drones or fighters.
Comments?
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 01:21 am: Edit |
I think a lot of people overestimate the real power of the Photon, particularly crunch power but also fastloads.
Consider a Fed CX and Klingon DX.
The approach each other over the first turn, so the Klingon pays for Overloads and jams 24 points into his Disruptors and the Fed jams 24 points of warp power into his Photons.
Next turn the DX holds those overloads for 12 points of power whilst the Fed finishes 16 point photons with another 8 points of warp power.
They reach R5 of eachother and using Me too Fire, the Klingon announces that he will fire and the Federation player declares that he will fire also because he doesn't want to loose any weapons before he's had a chance to fire them.
At R5, half the Photons miss inflicting 32 points of damage plus 3.5 points of damage are generated by 9Ph-1s which comes to a total of 63.5 points of damage.
However, the return fire of ( let's say it wasn't a perfect oblique ) 8 Ph-1s and 6 O/L UIM DIruptors inflicts 28 points of phaser damage and 30 points of Disruptor damage for a total of 58 points.
How can this be, that the Klingon inflicted just 5.5 points of damage less than the terifying crunch weapon of the Fed CX!?!
But wait, there's more, if the Klingon had had a perfect oblique ( and because it didn't need to pay warp for the disruptors that's possible ) then there would be an extra 7 points of damage kicked in by the DX putting it 1.5 points ahead.
Then what will happen?
Assuming the ships remain undamaged and bring new shields up, the next turn fire could happen at R4 or maybe less.
The Klingon fire another set of Overloads costing 24 points of power & 10Ph-1 shots for and Fed fire full fastloads for 24 points of warp plus another 9Ph-1 shots...6 x 5/6 x 8 + 3.833 x 10 Vs 4 x 4/6 x 12 + 9 x 3.833 => 78.33 Klingon Vs 66.5 Fed.
Fastload Photons are not the devils own flatuance to playability and nor are crunch power weapons...not with Klingons this good.
Also with only 4 Heavy DF weapons instead of 6 the Fed handles internal damahge worse than the Klingon.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 01:33 am: Edit |
Quote:Also note, that this solution would work for any race with a heavy direct fire weapon, such as disrupters, bolted plasmas or helbores.
it would not work for phasers or drones or fighters.
Comments?
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 01:36 am: Edit |
8) It'll make a mess of bases...does base rotation count!?!
9) It'll unfairly bust Monitors, and Axillaries.
10) It'll unfairly attack overgunned ships like the Fed DDa+ whilst leaving undergunned ships like the CLa+ relatively unharmed.
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 11:50 am: Edit |
MJC-
yes to the points you made. the object is to make X2 superior to older generations of ships.
1. using HET has long been an option, with a potential (if used too often in a game) for breakdown. also, given the high cost in energy, a player couldnt afford to do multiple HET's in the same turn, as there are better things to spend the energy on.
2. why is this a problem?!? high speed would preclude much of the "close and hose" problems of the earlier product. (supplement 2).
3. not sure. my first thought is 'why not'...but it could lead to abuse or even a Fed advantage that other races might not be able to manage. that is why I asked for comments.
4. Actually, it should make use of EM standard practice at all times except when the target ship is preparing to fire...
5. There already is a perversion towards favored firing times...it has traditionally been 1/4 turn before the end of the turn.
6. Sideslips have long been part of the game. Good captains know how to make the best use of their ships and ships handling characteristics. this is a generic comment be cause players already know better than to get hit by photons if they could avoid it!
7. Mizia damage before and after will be the same...the amount of damage points generated by a given weapon stays the same...the +1 represents (on average) 16.66% increase in the chance of a hit (assuming a 1d6 to hit table) which would increase total damage inflicted if it resulted in higher incidence of successful hits. point is the mizia effect is constant...the object is to improve X2 in comparison to older designs.
Side issue: should there be a cap on the to hit bounus to prevent cumulative bonus's from stacking up? personnally, I feel that if a captain of the target ship knows that the enemy has a valid firing solution, and then intentionally maintains his course and speed, he should get hit with repeated volleys! as already mentioned, he has numerous options available including tactical warp, emergency decelleration, side slip etc. that would prevent that from happening.
8. Ok, MJC, you got me with that one!
I hadn't considered bases at all.
Hmmm....from game balance, bonus' against bases shouldn't ever "stack"...rotations would count (even though logically, there shouldnt be any measurable difference between a stationary base and one rotating on its axis.
9. Monitors tend to be assigned to planets...if within the 5 hex range restrictions for firing on monitors or bases, they effectively are immune from this proposal.
suppose the proposal were amended to say such a targeting protocol can only be used at range 10+? that way bases, monitors, or ships in orbit around planets within 5 hexes cant be targeted this way?
Auxilleries caught in deep space away from bases or planets by an X2 is already in deep doo doo. this is just adding the cherry on top of the sunday!
10. Sorry, I'm not seeing your point?!? IMO the overgunned ships like the fed DDa+ would have an advantage compared to the CLa+ in as far as having double the number of Photons (4 vs 2). that means 4 firing opportunities while the CLa+ could only hit with 2 photons...Unless...are you referring to the power curves? a DDa+ reloading photons is practically stalled due to the inability to power all the tubes, phasers and other energy demands while the CLa+ comparatively has sufficient power levels for most of the demands and can have a decent speed while doing so...?!?
I would view your #10 point as advantages / disadvantage of the DDa+ and the CLa+ designs as 'quirks' of the two ships cited rather than as a draw back of the proposal. ie the design quirks already exist and are nt changed by the proposal.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:00 pm: Edit |
I had this thought.
Mikes recent posting had the Photon scaled back a bit (no 17+ OL) and this along with the determination that X1 (with its particular abilities) is a pure combat unit got me thinking that Fed designers might make the new photon under different thinking.
We all basically agree that X2 shouldn't be so combat oriented. OK. The X1 photon was designed to fight in the kind of battles that really saw fast actions and so the fast load was built in.
HOWEVER, that sort of fighting isn't expected to take place. No, the Feds actaully would want to avoid long battles and mount a weapon with high deterant value. So what if the new photon was designed to have the big warhead and NO FASTLOAD. Some have said that the admirals would go for not having an X1 capability but it's not an elimination it's an exchange. A Fed with 80 points of photon is a Fed that isn't getting over run. Fast load could be a purely X1 system developed for a time passed.
So I suggest this:
X2 PHOTON
New standard is variable 8-10 points. Minimum power requiremnt per turn is 2 points. Standard 8 points (only!) can be fast loaded. All standards are held for 1 energy. Fast Load 8's can be held and upgraded.
11-16 point warheads are OL as per GW counterparts. Held for same energy.
17-20 points are Critical Over Loads. These cannot be held over a turn break. They can be made critical by reserve power.
Note: This rule would lift the restriction of no next turn firing. Since a standard 8 would be all one could get the actual damage output is the same as X1 (16OL+12 = 20COL+8).
Come time for the Xorks a Fast OL option could be returned to the design.
This would seem to fit Fed thinking a return them to two turn loading without leaving them entirely helpless inbetween turns. Feds retain the biggest club in the game as well. Chart stays the same as X1.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:27 pm: Edit |
Sigh. Okay, in response to the 24 point argument, one last time.
X1 saw the photon gain the ability to fastload; no warhead strength was added. At the same time, the X-ship had a general improvment in sheilds by about 25% over their GW counterpart; that is, a cruiser with a 24 point shield saw a CX with a 32 point one. But, as I said, the photon did not increase warhead strength. By MJC's logic, they should have seen an increase to 20 point overloads. They didn't. I think this was deliberate, and I believe there were good reasons why. For one, the photon is the benchmark weapon in the game...what you do to it will drastically affect what happens to everything else. For another, I believe that the designers are convinced that 16 point warheads are quite crunchy enough.
Now, for X2, we're looking at fairly mild increases to shields; say 10 percent or so. Increasing the photon to a warhead of 24 points is a 50% increase...a huge improvement. Is it necessary? If the goal, as stated so ably by others in various threads, is to encourage longer range combat with X2, why in the world would you do this? It does not encourage long range combat...quite the contrary, it encourages the Fed player to run up and hit with everything he can. Yes, that's a Fed thing to do. But weren't we getting away from that as the primary (and sometimes only) tactic for a Fed player?
But, lets say we do. What will we do with everything else? How will we make ESG's, hellbores, fusions and plasmas compensate for this sort of damage increase without just falling into the old "bigger is better" trap that the Supplement 2 designers did? Is this the only answer we have? To make everything bigger and more powerful? Do we want X2 cruisers and destroyers to be able to obliterate GW cruisers ((yes, they can do it...no exaggeration. 96 points is plenty to wipe out most any CL) or cripple DN's in one blow?
MJC seems to feel that it's nigh on impossible for the Fed to get to range 0-1...I say it isn't. I've done it many times, and I'm sure others have, as well. But even so, that is a simple fixation on duels. What about squadrons, where a Fed XCA, XDD and XFF are all gunning for one target? At range 8, they can wipe out any ship they like. Is that what we want? Man, I don't. I was under the impression that we wanted X2 to be better, but not necessarily bigger. This fixation on 24 point photons runs counter to that idea.
I would enterain the possiblity of the 10 point standard with 20 point overloads, but with some restrictions:
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:42 pm: Edit |
Mike R:
I need more information!
what constitutes "something else" in your mind?
are any of the quality suggestings headed in the direction you want to go in?
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:43 pm: Edit |
Mike, like I just proposed?
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:58 pm: Edit |
I'll trade fastloads for an increase in damage...
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 01:01 pm: Edit |
Loren,
Close, but no restrictions as to holding, and no requiring the "critical" overload to be armed with reserve power. Just make it exactly like the normal photon, but based on 10 points, not 8.
Jeff, I'm open to suggestions. Some of the quality suggestions work for me; some don't. I like the notion of not having to decide on proxies during arming, but being able to when you fire. I can live with 180-degree arcs, too. And, I sort of like the "dial a standard" notion, too, provided anything above a certain number will remain an overload, and must be bound by the restraints overloaded weapons have.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |