Archive through February 15, 2004
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 photons: Archive through February 15, 2004
By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 01:07 pm: Edit

Add to what Mike just said, I like range 5-8 prox torps and 5-8 prox overloads, all decided at time of fire.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 02:15 pm: Edit

Mike: There is no rquirement of using reserve power to arm crits. in that proposal. I think you miss read it. It say that you CAN use reserve to arm a crit.

I think the no hold is important to balancing the extreme power of the 20 point photon.

This will require the player to make good his attack run or play it safer and load 16 pointers, using reserve to bring it to critical if the approach is a success. The twenty point sledge hammer should be too easy to wield.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 02:33 pm: Edit

If we decide to eliminate the fast-load, or just restrict it to "can't fire a fast load the turn after firing a 17+ torpedo", then this would also give us more flexibility in terms of designing the other weapons, like disruptors.

We've been going in circles for over a year now.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 03:34 pm: Edit

Loren,

Okay, just checking...sounded like it might, and I know it was brought up before (though I can't recall when). I don't think, though, that if we give up fast loads we shouldn't be able to hold 20 point photons. If that's the improvement for X2, well, that's the improvement. Giving up fastloads is penalty enough.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 04:10 pm: Edit

It's just that I don't want to see the attack run made so simple. Making your run in with a full load of 20 pointers on hold makes the Fed too dangerous, IMO. And hence I use the term critical OL.

If they can be held they shouldn't use that term. But I like that term.

Note as well that 8 point standards can still be fast loaded. This puts the X2 in exactly paralell with the X1 max out put but moves some of the crunch to the first turn. Advantage=X2.

/EDIT/Mike, I did remove the no fire after crits retriction though the max FL is reduced. I run this through several mental scenarios and I think that the "No Holding Crits" is better balanced and better to balance against. In the end though it doesn't hamper the Feds all that much given the ships will have good power and reserves. If they didn't I would be in agreement with you 100%. Regular OL's can still be held and are no different from X1 (11-16).

Also, I agree that this route wuld make it a bit easier to design other weapons though I think the Disruptor proposals can stay the same (they just got more balanced).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 05:08 pm: Edit

I'd like us to put up several photon proposals without expenting to agree on one singular proposal.

It gives SVC more material to work from.

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 05:24 pm: Edit

I am beginning to see why this topic has stagnated. Critical overloads? Far too small of a gain. You will only see the photon used as the X1 version with the very occasional opportunity for your so-called critical overload. It is simply a poor tactical choice for a weapon system that is a power hog, warp power at that. I originally thought there might be some decent reasoning to the anemic response to larger photon warheads, too many "Just say no" comments and a bit of thinking cured me of that. If you want to see two turn arming cycles then you have to offer something that is worth the time, effort and warp power; not some excuse that 20 point warheads are sufficient. These X2 ships will be fighting ships that are effectively twice as durable as their GW predecessors were. There needs to be a way to inflict more damage per torpedo than what the GW and X1 photons have been able to. The times have changed. The opposing ships have better defenses, an X2 cruiser that gets hit by 96 points of photon damage is in a better situation than its GW counterpart getting hit by 64 points. Maybe it would be better to have X2-ships mount 50% more photons than trying to hash out any improvements over the X1 photon.

Personally, if the BPV of the Fed’s X2-ships works out the way that I have seen proposed; then you could almost double the firepower of the photon torpedo and still be balanced. My reasoning for this is if: a XFF has the BPV of a GW CA/CL, a XDD has the BPV of a GW BC/BCH, a XCL has the BPV of a GW BCH/DN and a XCA/XCC has the BPV of a GW DNH/BB, then the X2-ship will have about half the weapons of a GW-ship. Before you say “But what about phasers and drones?”, I don’t think they are going to contribute enough to the X2-ships offensive abilities to justify the lack of heavy weapon capability that is being kicked about currently. Most of the talk lately has me concerned that X2 will end up be with flying fortresses that can’t hurt each other; in other words the polar opposite of Supplement 2 and an equally failed concept.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 06:02 pm: Edit

Thankfully, all we're doing is playing with ideas.

We aren't exactly the X2 comitte. We're just kicking ideas around for the fun of it.

Why do you think X2 could end up overdefended?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 06:26 pm: Edit

Orman: The 24 point photon WILL lead to the Supp2 "Close and Hose" problem. A lot analysis has show that such a weapon will not play well against earlier generations. There is a threshold that when reached defeats the opponent faster than they can kick back. When you get past 20 point photons you get too deep into the meat of any ship including X2. The opponent cannot get his second equalizing shot in if their weapons are destroyed.

X2 is not to be strictly vs. X2 it must play fair against other generations. X2 vs. X2 will be a more challenging game but will hardly be impenetrable fortresses. I haven't seen one X2 design like that at all. Additionally, there is only one class of really tough ship and that’s the XCA/XCC. In anyone’s proposal the other ships have parity with X1 units pretty well. They will fight differently but evenly. Only the XCA will out class other single units (short of the next classes up from cruiser.)

Commanders Supplement-2 took us where you say and failed.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 06:58 pm: Edit

Orman,

I'm sorry, and not trying to give offense...but what have you been looking at? I don't recall seeing a single posted X2 design that can simply swallow a full 64 points of photon damage, let alone 80 or 96. What are these uber-defenses you're talking about? Shield improvments have been extremely light, and most of the SIF proposals only protect against a few hits a turn, at most. How are these ships "flying fortresses that can't be hurt"?

To put it another way, a 50% increase in photon warhead damage would warrant, to stay equal with GW, a 50% increase in shield strength and a 50% increase in internals. That hasn't happened, and isn't likely to. What makes you so positive that the ships posted could double the power of the photon and still be balanced?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 12:31 am: Edit

Quote:

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.


Orions with Drones and Photons!!!

With an ECM drone and maybe a spare and Orion Stealth, & Power to ECM the Orion get to become boarderline impossible to hit even at effective ranges ( the Orion wont get closer than R5 but will use Phaser-1s).
Once the Fed Fires and misses...Bingo, the Orion switches to Doubled warp Engines and pours on the movement and the Overloaded Photons and Cruicifies the Fed.

Net result, Fed Admiralty will not opt for a system that can't fastload like the X1 ships.

Now retaining the option to slide a Photon-torpedo into the Phot-tube instead of a Quantum-Torpedo...now that at least gives the Federation Captain something to work with and big bust Vs fast fire is purely at his discression.


Quote:

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.


Well the 12 point Reliable Fastload is about as handy as the 16 point crash-overload ( old X1 rules) particularly when dealing with the 10 point crash overload.
The 12 point Fastload was a way of keeping up with 6 Disruptors without having die rolls that could really ruin the game ( for one player or the other ).
I'ld say 20 point Warheads were considered and just not opted for on in the veiw that; if people wanted a DNG then they should just play with a DNG and that X1 should have some new feel, not the X1 should have some kind of CRUNCH POWER BOUNDARY.


Quote:

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?


That's one goal.
Another is to reintroduce the racial flavour that the cookie-cutterism of X1; lost.


Quote:

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?


Hellbores could easily have a double Standard-damage overload setting to keep pace.
I'ld like to see Fusion beams have something special, say the only R10 overload in the game.
I guess ESGs could get bigger Caps, but they could also go in a number of direction...once the Photon and Disruoptor are Fixed to each other the other weapons will fall into place.


Quote:

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?


And what is the BPV of an XCA, XDD & 2 XFFs.
If it comes in at 900 BPV ( 330 + 200 + 2 x 130 ) then the Opposing Force ( Say a DNG, 2 CARa+ 2 NCAs and an FFB ) can hurl so many Photon right back at the X2 cruiser that even if they were all defended by a +1 shift, the XDD would get vapourised!
That is simply the nature of fleet battles.


Quote:

I'll trade fastloads for an increase in damage...


How mcuh of an increase in damage!?!
I wouldn't give up 12 point fastload even for a 25 point Photon.


Quote:

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.


There are several things you are missing.
1) a 20 point Photon will have a feedback damage of 6 points of damage each making R0-1 a 24 point Feedback zone...a Lot of Fed ships just won't want to go there.
2) a 24 Point Photon has a Feed back of 8 points of damage making a "kiss" at that range inflict 32 points of the damage on the Fed.
3) R2 Feedback damage will make the situation even worse.

Few ships will be able to get to R0, fewer still will want to.


Quote:

Why do you think X2 could end up overdefended?


Rapid Pulsed Phaser-6 on ships that replace 12Ph-1s with 8Ph-5, Full X-Aegis, S-Bridge-drone-knockdowns, ASIF, 48/40/40/40 shields, reverting back to 4 Disruptors ( if each is slightly better than X1 ), 48 warp engine boxes...all of these ideas are basically; "well those sound good, maybe you should put them in your proposal and figure out what your BPV is".

On the other hand, full Hellbore (even full hellbore damage of standards) damage being focused on a single shield or 24 point Photons get a full Blooded "No F'ing way".

Net result ships that can defend themselves well but have no offensive ability.


Quote:

I'm sorry, and not trying to give offense...but what have you been looking at? I don't recall seeing a single posted X2 design that can simply swallow a full 64 points of photon damage, let alone 80 or 96. What are these uber-defenses you're talking about? Shield improvments have been extremely light, and most of the SIF proposals only protect against a few hits a turn, at most. How are these ships "flying fortresses that can't be hurt"?


I've seen a lot of X2 proposals that have a lot of internal fortitude.

Consider an XCA ( my XCA ) which basically is Fed CX with 4 extra Hull and 4 extra Cargo boxes and 48 warp engine boxes and 48/40/40/40 shields and five 3 point BTTYs. It also gives up her 12Ph-1s for 8 Ph-5s.
And the ASIF on low power cost 6 points of power but doubles all the HULL boxes.

Now with the ability to absorb 40 points of damage on the #2 shield and another 40 boxes of hull hits ( 20 boxes doubled by the ASIF ), you're looking at a ship with which even 40 points of Phaser damage would survive a 64 point Photon hit quite well...just once!!!...and it would be missing a regular mizia 36+, worth of teeth.


Quote:

That hasn't happened, and isn't likely to. What makes you so positive that the ships posted could double the power of the photon and still be balanced?


Look at the MY Photon.
Four 16 point Warheads fire on at max a 30 box shield.

Then shield #1s jumped up to 40 max but MAX Photon Power went nowhere ( although fastloading does allow a theroretical 50% increase ).

If shield #1s jump to 48 boxes, it'll be (48/30) a 60% increase in shielding over MY shields...but where will the Photon go???
Perhaps a Full fastload of 16 points for no real increase and only a theoretical increase of 100% over MY ships ( and a 33% increase of X1 ships )!?!

I think that since X2 shields are likely to be 60% greater than MY/GW shields that therefore the Photon deserves something to keep pace...and I also think that that thing should be in the form of crunch power for the Photon.

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 12:46 am: Edit

Mike, Loren,
What I have been looking at is an increase in ship internals from the GW to X2. A GW cruiser has roughly 95 internals, a 30 point foreward shield and 3 to 5 points of battery. Getting hit by two 16 O/Ls will nearly drop the foreward shield. Four hits will down the shield and damage about 30% of the ship. This would leave the target hurt but not crippled. A X2 cruiser will have a 48 point foreward shield (a 60% increase), roughly by my estimate 125 internals (about a 30% increase) and 15 points of battery power (a 300% to 500% increase). Two 24 point photons may drop a foreward shield, if battery power to SSReo in not used. If battery to SSReo is used as much as 25%-30% of the shield will remain. Four 24 point photons will down a X2 cruiser's foreward shield and damage about 33% of the ship's internals with out battery SSReo. Again with battery SSReo this could be as little as 20% of the ship's internals. But wait, I haven't even included ASIF and I have assumed a neutral EW balance. I did say almost double and based on what I just stated it would be too much but just barely. You could probably still take the warhead strength to 28 and still be below the out put of an equivalent BPV GW force. The fact is with ASIF, improved power (albeit slight) means more power for ECM. The trend from the early GW to late GW, shields increased power increased, reserve power increased; the photon did not improve. X1 began and the shields increased power increased, reserve power increased; the photon gets a rate of fire increase instead of a crunch increase. Enter X2 and shields will increase, power will increase, reserve power will increase, and there are new defensive toys.

John,

The reason I think that X2 is going to be over defened is in part because of what I stated above and due to what I percieve as an under estimate of the role of EW and ASIF. In retrospect I may be exagerating the situation a little, however I do think that the discussion so far has glossed over the total effect of the proposed X2 defensive systems.

To all,

I may sound over the top but, what I want is something that is balanced, provides a reasonable incentive to use a two turn arming cycle.

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 12:54 am: Edit

I am a relativly slow typist, MJC posted before I could.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 02:22 am: Edit

Orman: Like I said before of the proposals that have a large hull like you address there is only one such hull class.

In mine there is the premere unit that is a cruiser like no other. However this is a rare hull like the DN was. The XCM is the workhorse cruiser of my proposal and is not bigger than a CB internal wise. It does gain some fortitude from the ASIF but ends up about as durable as a BCH. It's BPV is about that too. X2 is hardly all about one class of ship.

In determining the value of the 20 point photon the balance is found with what the other unit can return with. A bigger photon will require bigger disruptors, bigger hellbores and bigger plasma and on and on. The 20 point photon is far more balanced than the 24 or bigger. TO me an 80 point hammer is pleant of reason to take two turn to load particularly if I want to maintain the peace, the primary goal of the Federation.

There is now way all the proposals mixed together would be balanced. No one expects every thing to make it. Maybe nothing will. Each proposal needs consideration on it's own merrit.

SVC has stated for us to carry on as we might save him a lot of time or produce nothing at all.

It would be a sight more helpful if you offered some proposals of how you see X2 working. There are people that will help you with SSD making and there is a nice "Table" feature on this board where you can present weapons charts in a clear form.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 05:46 am: Edit

Quote:

A bigger photon will require bigger disruptors, bigger hellbores and bigger plasma and on and on.


Maybe so for the hellbore although I wouldn't mind giving hellbores the ability to do full damage in direct fire mode instead...it depends on exactly how powerful the Photons and Disruptors are.
As to Plasma, a speed 48 sabot and maybe five extra hexes of glory zone should be enough to keep the Plasma boys competative without actually resorting to larger warheads.

As to Disruptors. The way I see it, Four 24 point Photons is bearly keeping up with six X1 Disruptors so the solution is right there...keep 6 Disruptors on the Klingon XCA and give it a few little tweaks like a Built in UIM/Defracs and/or Disruptor Caps and/or a 6 impulse double broadside penalty.
One two turn armed Photon suite for an XCA will fire at range 8 for 48 points of damage. But two turns of six Disruptors firing UIM at R8 ( and with Disruptor Caps this is more than possible ) as overloads will generate 60 points of damage putting the Klingon streets ahead. Even as one R15 shot and one R8, it'll be ( 4/6 x 6 x 3 + 5/6 x 6 x 6 ) 42 points of damage ( not bad considering it'ld cost 36 points of power over two turns instead of 48warp).

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 08:04 am: Edit

Quote:

Few ships will be able to get to R0, fewer still will want to.



Now that comment more than any other convinces me that others on this board are right...you really don't play this game, do you? Fed players consistently try for that range. It's a key strategy for them, one that guarentees a huge amount of damage. So what if I take some fedback damage? My own reserve power can handle most if not all of it. You, on the other hand, just got nailed with a crippling blow. 24 point photons and not go for range 0? Please.

Quote:

Hellbores could easily have a double Standard-damage overload setting to keep pace.
I'ld like to see Fusion beams have something special, say the only R10 overload in the game.



That's what I thought. The only answer is "make things bigger". Double-damage hellbores? R10 overloads (an idea straight out of supplement 2 I thought we all agreed was a non-starter?)

Quote:

I've seen a lot of X2 proposals that have a lot of internal fortitude.



Where? I haven't seen one yet. Most of the ones done are posted on John's page, and none are so large that they can shrug off double-sized photons (the thrust of Orman's post).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 12:06 pm: Edit

Orman,

True, we haven't spent much time on EW but that also means we aren't changing it much.

There's a year of archives here.

The ASIF proposals won't be needed if we hold the line on weapon damages.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 01:26 pm: Edit

I would hope that the ASIF wouldn't get left behind. It's one of those cool new things that would help make X2 opperate different.

I would hate to see X2 turn out as an R module with nothing new save ship designs. That might be the safe route but basically uninteresting.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 01:33 pm: Edit

It might be helpful to review historical trends in SFB.

Early years ships have less effective weapons and and Electronic Warfare abilities.

middle years see gradual improvement.

General war sees significant improvement in both damage generation and defense abilities...but in general pairity.

The X2 era hasn't yet been defined, thats partly whats being discussed here.

We could provide Steve with several proposals (as was posted earlier) one of the approaches could be a low / middle / high series with the whole spectrum of big defense/balanced defense&offense/Big offense.

My personal view is that by giving the ships a massive increase in offensive ability will result in whoever lands the first alpha strike wins...not very exciting IMO.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 06:35 pm: Edit

Quote:

Fed players consistently try for that range. It's a key strategy for them, one that guarentees a huge amount of damage.


By trying for R0 they "know" they'll get R2...sure lots take R1 when they can get it...but the 16 point feedback damage is less important than it is for the 20 or 24 pointers.
Just like in the Middle years, R0-1 was bad for Feds because the Klingon Forrest of Ph-2s would dish up so much more damage that the gain in Photons was reduced by a bit...Sure attacks with an MY Fed CA take a little longer if you go down to R4 on that Klingon D7 but atleast the Ph-2 damage isn't going to ruin you just as much as your 1-5 Photons are going to ruin him at R2.

Against X2 Klingons, going to R1 over R2 will yeild 16 extra points of damage ( on 24 point Photons ) and 16 points of extra feedback damage (assuming no R2 feedback).
There's nothing productive in going there and the enemy Ph-1 forrest does get better.


Quote:

R10 overloads (an idea straight out of supplement 2 I thought we all agreed was a non-starter?)


R10 overloads are workable if only one weapon gets it AND that weapon is the most lousey Heavy Weapon around! Lots of R10 heavy weapons are a non starter...one might not be.


Quote:

Where? I haven't seen one yet. Most of the ones done are posted on John's page, and none are so large that they can shrug off double-sized photons (the thrust of Orman's post).


Most of them are somewhat larger than their X1 counterparts. I haven't yet seen any that were smaller.

Shrug off is a rather imprecise term.
Can they survive a single "massive" hit and keep fighting; yes...will that single massive hit cost them a few weapons and maybe a fair ammount of power ( AWR, IMP, some Warp ); yes.


Quote:

I would hope that the ASIF wouldn't get left behind. It's one of those cool new things that would help make X2 opperate different.

I would hate to see X2 turn out as an R module with nothing new save ship designs. That might be the safe route but basically uninteresting.


Dito and Dito!


Quote:

My personal view is that by giving the ships a massive increase in offensive ability will result in whoever lands the first alpha strike wins...not very exciting IMO.


My personal veiw is that X1 Feds were too much like X1 Klingons but with lousey turn modes.
I feel that the restoration of big punch to MY levels would be a good thing for racial flavour.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 07:00 pm: Edit

Why this insistance on MY levels? Ever look at EY levels? Talk about pathetic. The Fed CA had two photons, with no overload or proximity option. That is, a max damage of 16 over two turns. Then we get MY/GW ships with much larger and more powerful photons. Then, X1, which starts to slide back down again. Seems to me that MY was where the photon may have maxed out, and new firing options (like fast loads) became the only way to make it better.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 07:36 pm: Edit

Quote:

Why this insistance on MY levels?


It's the most flavoursome era.


Quote:

Then we get MY/GW ships with much larger and more powerful photons. Then, X1, which starts to slide back down again. Seems to me that MY was where the photon may have maxed out, and new firing options (like fast loads) became the only way to make it better.


It wasn't so long ago that people said, "no one will ever build a ship as big as the TITANIC ever again" and then supertankers came along, so they said, "no one will ever build a passanger vessel as big as the TITANIC" and in my lifetime, that too became untrue.

Can anyone really say something is maxed out!?!

Considering how far behind in crunch power the X1 Feds are against the X1 Klingons I would like to see a pure crunch solution to the Photon rather than upped Fastloads, intergated targeting recall and a dozon other things.


Perhaps the Feds should have six X1 Photons and leave it at that.


The Klingon ability to Hold Disruptors is massively devistating.
A Fed Builds full overloads at 4+4. He pays 16 points of power to arm them on the turn of attack.
A Klingon spends 24 power to Arm and a further 12 to hold putting it 4 points a head.
Even at a Good Federation range ( R4 ) 4 x 4/6 x 16 yeilds 42.66 points of damage whilst 6 x 5/6 x 8 yeilds 40...but the Klingon probably has 4 points of SSReo so the Federation vessel is really inflicting 38.66 points of damage.

The Fed really do need more crunch power!

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 08:06 pm: Edit

MJC, saying that the Feds need more crunch based on a weapon that is neither excepted or a number that is agreed upon is ludicrous.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 08:27 pm: Edit

I was talking about X1 Klingons and Feds.


It's reasonable to assume that if the weapons systems of X1 can not be surpassed then the X2 ships will have X1 weapons barring some massive ecconomic crisis.
Yes some races will have weaker than X1 performances at the start of the X2 period but most will touch up those weapons with planned refits as their ecconomies pick up meaning we should plan for X2 ships to either have better than X1 weapons or X1 weapons.

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 10:34 pm: Edit

Loren,

I could completly ignore any X2 proposals and still make a case that four 24 point warheads are balanced based on the knowledge that power, internals and shields will recieve at least a small increase. It is almost incompretable that an X2-ship will not have at least an small increase. A X1 ship with a 40 point foreward shield, approximatly 115 interanls and 15 points of battery will only lose roughly 35% of its iternals to 96 points of damage.

I might just put my own proposal up, though it will probably be two to three weeks before my schedule will allow any serious effort.

Mike,

When I first read the range 0-1 comment, my jaw nearly hit the floor, such tactics are something I did when I stated playing the game 15 years ago. As time progressed I learned range 2 is good but unlikely to be acheived against a competent advisary often enough to be an effective tactic. I found that more often I would be taking the range 3-4 shot and maybe later taking a point blank shot as a coup d'grace. Unless, of course my opponent was kind enough to charge at me with a down shield, empty weapons and no way to generate any relevent ECM.

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