Lurker decloaking...

I have to admit, I'm not totally convinced that a 24-point warhead on a two-turn arming photon would be too much for X2 IF the accuracy of the weapon is not improved. The photon has always been very much an all or nothing type of weapon. You blow the guys doors off or you get fed your own hat. If the warp power of X2 ships is not markedly improved over X1, arming 4 such monsters may really slow down the ship. Perhaps other races get improvements in terms of accuracy in X2, but the Feds go hole hog for firepower and sacrifice any improved to-hit numbers.

I've also noticed mention of ships needing to be able to survive a photon strike with enough weapons to "even-up" the damage on the following turn. I've always seen it the other way around. The photon needs to be fired in close to be effective, which means a Fed needs to wade through more accurate weapons fire at longer ranges to get an good shot. To me, it is the photon ship that needs to be able to do enough damage when it does shoot to make up for all the hits it takes in the process of getting in range.

Finally, I'll point out the obvious. A GW DNH can fire 96 points of photons in a single volley. I'd be interested to see how the range 1 alpha of GW DNH and XCC stack up after taking the various phaser mprovements into account. If we are talking a ship with a 300+ point BPV, I don't think the firepower of a 260 pt ship is too much to ask for.

You guys may have gotten me interested enough to submit my own design for an X2 Fed.

... reengaging cloak.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 12:16 am: Edit

*FLASHCUBE*

Show us your SSD!

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 07:30 am: Edit

---

Quote:

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.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 07:51 am: Edit

Jeremy,

We'd love to see it! A few points, though, on the 24 point discussion:

1. Most of those that favor a 24 point warhead also want to keep the 12 point fastload option. That is one of the major rubs I have with it.
2. One of our goals, and the one most relevent to your post, I think, was that we wanted to make X2 better, but not really bigger, so that we had a different flavor and could keep the BPV down below 300 points. I know that you mention not seeing a problem with 300+ point cruisers haveing DN firepower...but most of us don't want to go that high, at least not initially. The reasons for this were several:
3. • We wanted to introduce new systems and gadgets for X2. Since these will carry a BPV price tag, adding them will drive up an already pretty high cost. So, most of us are sticking with fairly minor improvements in power and weapons for now.
   • We also wanted room to have Y215 Xork invasion refits. So, we're starting somewhat low, with ships based on more GP designs than being made expressly for combat, like X1 was. So, in some ways, the first X2 ships may be less combat capable than X1.
   • We had a general problem with having 300-350 point cruisers. Most felt that was too high of a BPV to start with, and would make X2 a module of combat monster ships; we didn't really want that.
4. A 24 point warhead, if based on a 12 point standard, will provide 6 point proximities. That's a huge improvement, and makes the X2 Fed squadron the ultimate base-busting force. To sit at range 40, outside effective counter-fire range, with all the EW you like, and still be able to deliver significant damage is a bit too much.
5. The photon is such a benchmark weapon that making them that large could unbalance the game. Consider X1. The CX and DX are the same BPV, and the photon has no increased warhead strength. The DX, though, had a 50% increase in the number of disruptors it mounts. What will we have to do with disruptors, then, to match a major increase in photon power? And then what do we do with all the other heavy weapons in the game? No single standard DF heavy weapon from the basic game can dish out more than 20 points, and only the TRH can do that. The closest is the suicide-overload fusion, which does a max of 19 and then blows up. Exceeding that number is taking things to a whole different level.
6. We also wanted to find ways to encourage X2 to fight at longer ranges, but without extending overload range past range 8. That, we felt, was a key problem with supplement 2. So, we're trying to find other ways of doing it. There are lots of ideas on the table right now, and I'm sure you can come up with something we haven't considered. Give it a try! We'd love to hear it.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 08:05 am: Edit

---

Quote:

One of the stated goals most of us had for X2 was to encourage combat at longer ranges than previous generations saw.

---

---

Quote:

If you truly believe players won't try for it, I think you are decieving yourself. As for the general difficulty of doing it at all, all I can tell you is it has worked for me, and others I've played with and against.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 08:23 am: Edit

On X1 Photons and Disruptors being balanced. I think not...I would say that six DIsruptors might be equal to Four Fastloaded Photons IF there was no such thing as UIM, but there is so the Disruptors still have the edge on account of the fact that they can loose 6 before they are toothless instead of 4...

Ever noticed that the DX is 10 BPV more than the CX and has the same drone racks and one fewer Ph-1!?!

I'ld be willing to say that the extra damage Photons get with 24 point warheads only brings them close to X1 Disruptors...well maybe X2 Disruptors. Disruptors have got a lot of advantages:-
Doesn't require warp.
Less affected by EW.
More of them means more durable.
UIM (which might be built in X2).
X2 might provide Disruptor Caps, to increase the battle speed of the X2 Klingons which is the polar opposite of using warp power to arm weapons.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 08:46 am: Edit

---

Quote:

If that were true then the R10 overload or R12 overload would not have been keep out on the first examination.

I think you have confused the fact that 8Ph-5s out perform 12Ph-1s at longer ranges and the tactics created by that with an actual edict to fight at longer ranges.

---

---

Quote:

As to hits on Non X2 ships...the Klingon DX can take a hit of even 96 points of damage fairly well at 80-83% of the BPV and Three D5bks might have one of their number busted but the other two will fire some good damage...12 O/L UIM Disruptor shots even if the Fed XCA has a+1 shift to protect itself thanks to it's 8 EW will inlict 48 points of damage ( more at closer ranges ) which is a mighty blow for a ship with probable 48/40/40/40 shields at best.

---

---

Quote:

Ever noticed that the DX is 10 BPV more than the CX and has the same drone racks and one fewer Ph-1!?!

I'ld be willing to say that the extra damage Photons get with 24 point warheads only brings them close to X1 Disruptors...well maybe X2 Disruptors.

---

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 09:25 am: Edit

Mike Raper sent me an e-mail asking my opinion on this whole photon affair, thus sparking my second post in these threads in as many days. Following is my reply to Mike:

-----------------------------------

There are some other questions that would need to be answered first.

1. Are X2 ships going to be more of a "back to basics" thing, as I recommended, or "tricked-out combat monsters," and what will the shielding look like on them?
2. Has the Type-V Phaser met with general approval from the masses as the standard offensive phaser of the X2 era...and if so, will it be a more-or-less equal distribution thing, or will the "Western" empires lag on their fire controls again and retain a fair number of Type-I Phasers in the mix.
3. What is happening with other heavy weapons (most importantly: disruptor bolts, plasma torpedoes and drones)?
4. When you say "24 point photons," do you mean 24-point overloads (and thus, presumably, 12-point standards and 6-point proximity torps), or 24-point standards? I'm pretty sure you mean the former, just want to make certain.

Without the above info (none of which has, as far as I'm aware, been firmly determined), I can't formulate much of an objective opinion; any of the above makes a significant difference in the end. If the shielding improvements are modest, if the Type-I phaser is still used in quantity in the "West," if the ships are balanced peacetime affairs, then I don't see a need for much, if any, improvement in the various heavy weapons; certainly no more than a 10-point standard photon torp, at any rate.

If, on the other hand, shielding is improved by more than 33%, if the Western races fit out all their new D-hulls and Leopard-IIs with Type-V phasers throughout, if the ships look like they are sacrificing peacetime capabilities for combat effectiveness, then perhaps a 12-point standard with a 24-point overload (reflected, of course, in similar improvements in other heavy weapons) would be in order.

Oh, and ditch the fast-load. That was a wartime emergency mode of operation that frankly shouldn't be retained in a shiny new baseline fleet. If technobabble is needed, say that it was found that fastloads were too hard on the tubes, electronics and mountings in the X1 ships, drastically shortening the functional life of all of the above. Fastloads suck all the fun out of fighting against a Fed, suck a fair amount of the challenge out of flying a Fed, and make me more prone to chuck the whole affair and go watch the History Channel for a while.

'Course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 09:58 am: Edit

Jessica brings up an interesting point. A fair number of people still feel X1 is, if not broken then at least less enjoyable then GW tech.

I have assumed that X1 including the 2001 changes is a baseline and immutable. Perhaps it is not. Do we want to go there?

I can’t recall anyone saying “lets take away this feature of X1 during the X2 period.” If they had I would have added my desire to see the –1 ECCM shift eliminated. Obviously Jessica dislikes photon fast loads. I’m sure we could find some other things that seem over the top but again, do we want to go there?

“1. Are X2 ships going to be more of a ‘back to basics’ thing, as I recommended, or ‘tricked-out combat monsters,’ and what will the shielding look like on them?”

Back-to-basics general-purpose multi-mission hulls approximately equal in combat to an X1 ship mainly due to fewer but modestly improved weapons.

“2. Has the Type-V Phaser met with general approval from the masses as the standard offensive phaser of the X2 era...and if so, will it be a more-or-less equal distribution thing, or will the ‘Western’ empires lag on their fire controls again and retain a fair number of Type-I Phasers in the mix.”

There will be an improved offensive phaser in X2. Most have agreed on the chart. The SSDs I am about to post use a different chart. My designs have fewer P5 then most and more P1 then most. I use the P1 in the same way that the Klingons used to use the P2 as an offensive/defensive phaser. No uniform decisions have been made, though most authors are internally consistent.

“3. What is happening with other heavy weapons (most importantly: disruptor bolts, plasma torpedoes and drones)?”

Unfortunately I can only give you my answers. I am expecting drones to stay roughly the same as in X1. Perhaps speed 40. The drone rack itself has changed to a GX2 rack which retains all the functions of the GX rack while adding a second magazine so it can be reloaded and fired in the same turn. Plasma remains undefined. The disruptor gets improvements, but the majority want disruptor tech to vary by race. Suffice it to say that this too remains undefined.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 10:08 am: Edit

As to plasma. Other than the few odds and ends tossed out by various ppl. IIRC the only real work on them was done for my Rom submission.

If you notice from my integrated proposal way back when. The plasma upgrades I supported are a number of minor improvements in arming and a minor movement improvement. No change in the damage itself.

I may revise them somewhat with a few changes, in a few weeks. But they shouldn't change appreciably. The biggest change will be MY take on the P5, instead of the one thats on it currently.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 10:13 am: Edit

Tos and I are pretty close on this one.

To answer your questions:

1: Yes, they will go back to a more general purpose design, not optimized for combat. Perhaps later, in the Xork invasion period, we'll see more combat capable ships, just as with the late GW era designs.

2: More or less, yes. In general, the P5 is assumed to be mounted in lesser numbers, though it is a better weapon. Where a Fed CX had 12 P1's, an XCC would have only 8 P5's, and still have roughly the same phaser capabilities, though at close range it might not muster as much damage.

3: Other heavy weapons, as Tos said, are up in the air. There are a variety of disruptor proposals. One, that is fairly popular, is for the disruptor to integrate UIM and DERFACS into the system, so that the benefits of these are automatic, and they cannot be burned out or killed by H&R raids. This, coupled with capacitors or perhaps a base increase in damage from 5 to 6, is one of the options we've seen.
Tos and I also agree on drones, and have both adopted his G2X rack idea.

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 10:59 am: Edit

While I have not advocated actually removing X1 functionality, I certainly have not been a big fan of directly improving on it.

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 11:34 am: Edit

Sigh. You seem to have missed the point of the whole discussion. Let me try this again, then. One of the stated goals most of us had for X2 was to encourage combat at longer ranges than previous generations saw. This is one of the driving forces behind the P5, for example; it does its best work at mid ranges, not up close.

For photons, simply upping the warhead strength rather than looking at other options does not encourage longer range. Quite the contrary. The opportunity for the X2 Fed to close and deliver a nearly 100 point salvo of photons is only going to encourage the Fed to do exactly that. In an X2 ship, they can do it, too. With 50 power, they can easily hold photons, run at top speed, and put up all the EW they want. You may have found it difficult to reach that range before...but you won't with one of these, and certainly not against any pre-X2 opponent. If you truly believe players won't try for it, I think you are decieving yourself. As for the general difficulty of doing it at all, all I can tell you is it has worked for me, and others I've played with and against.

In any case, if the object is to make X2 ships better without necessarily being bigger, and to make them better at longer range combat, then other options need to be considered other than simply giving a huge increase to warhead strength.

I could ask if you read and comprehended what I posted, but I will not. I will, however ask why you think MJC's and my analysis is wrong? We basicly posted the same analysis showing that 96 points of photon damage is not out of line even without ASIF. Historically the photon has been its best at short range and at long range; not medium range. Why do you feel the need to artificially change the way the photon works just because some weapons may be changed/improved to opperate at medium range? Playing to the strengths of the system or reducing the vunerabilities of the photon would be smarter. I also need to ask what is the diference between a given BPV of GW-ships and the same BPV of X2-ships? If 200 points of Fed starships pulls up towards a base you would expect between 4 to 8 photon launchers and a damage potential every second turn of 16 to 32 points of prox loads. With an X2 ship of about 200 BPV you would expect 4 launchers and you think that it would be out of line for it to do 24 points with 6 point prox loads. For a 250 to 325 point ship we are currently talking about four lauchers per ship. At the BPV we are talking about would even a GW era base would be dealing with a compretable amount of photon damage or even less depending on attacking force composition.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 11:41 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Did I miss a memo!?!

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 11:45 am: Edit

Orman: How is a 24 point photon NOT going to lead to the fail paradigm of "Close and Hose"?

If you go back in the opening archives of these threads you will find most of the reasoning most people hate the 24 point photon.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 12:16 pm: Edit

I understand the arguments against the 24 point photon. Many are quite valid. I'm just not certain that they make the idea totally unworkable. I could be wrong, but just like anything else that gets talked about in X2, it really comes down to how the ships and fleets are designed as a whole.

My vision for X2 is probably closer to Tos Crawford's than any of the others I've seen. One of the big problems with the original X1 was that phasers simply overpowered heavy weapons and, in effect, became the primary weapons. Those original X1 phasers led to the "close and hose" mentality, not heavy weapons. I'd like to see heavies restored as the primary offensive weapon. I like the improved phasers, and you will see them in some quantity on my designs, but expect the numbers to be small. I want heavy weapons to be the real stars of the show.

You will also see a lot of room for refits. I will probably include refits to increase the number of phaser-Vs, improve shielding etc. I like the idea of a fleet that goes through a process of improvement over time, like most fleets in the Y160s and early Y170s, and I'd like to see a return to that sort of thing in X2.

Anyway, I'm starting work on a couple of designs to showcase what I have in mind. Please reserve judgement until you have seen them. My intention is to more or less simultaniously create ships for several races so they can compete properly. 300 BPV will probably be the extreme upper end and I'm going to try to stay well below that. Designing one ship in a vacuum and designing others to match is going to lead to a cookie cutter effect that I want to get away from, so I need to develop some ideas for different races at the same time to keep things in line. The differences may go beyond what types of heavy weapons they carry, but I'll leave those surprises for later.

Anyway, I digress from the subject of the 24-point photon. Like I said, I can understand some of the arguements against it. Perhaps my opinion will change when I actually get the SSD drawn up. Time will tell.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 12:36 pm: Edit

BTW, I will say that the option of a fast overload would totally go away with my 24-point photon. Fastload standards (12 points) would exist, but they would still be under the same restrictions they have in X1. So no worries about a rain of 6-point proximity torps every turn from long range. One thing about this however - exceeding 12 points on a fastload would be impossible, so a fastloaded photon could not fire at range 0-1. These photons will also require the Fed to spend a minimum of six points of power to build a photon. It will be impossible to charge a standard photon below 12 points. This will make the Fed ship a bit more power hungry than it might have been otherwise.

One other note on proximities. Yes, a six point prox is impressive. But the biggest 2X Fed ship is still only going to muster 24 points of proximity fire in a salvo (4 tubes), the exact same number we could expect from a GW DN. The Feds have always been the ultimate base busters, but I'm not sure the improvements will make them markedly better at it unless the number of photons on the ship is just gross.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 01:00 pm: Edit

Jeremy,

You know I respect your opinions on matters SFB, always. I could live with your proposed photon better than others, because of your restrictions. One question, though; why only a 12 point standard? Seems a bit inflexible. Would it work, for you, to have overloads limited to 8 to 12 points? Then you don't get proxies or overloads, just standards.

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Loren,

Please consider that from the start of the GW to X1 the photon's crunch power has been ablated by improved defenses. Therefore increasing the warhead strength to some what proportionally will lead to 'close and hose' no more than it did in Y160. Also, keep in mind that what has gone unspoken is that the photon will experience another relative reduction in crunch power when X2-ships undergo refits. There seems to be at least a tacid acceptance by everyone that there will be refits by the time the Xorks arrive. Also, I have yet to see any justification why a 275-325 (XCC/XCA) point ship or a 200-250 (XCL/XDD) point ship should not be able to generate 96 points of photon damage, or why a 130-150 point ship (XFF) should not be able to generate 48 points of photon damage. All I am asking is for some solid reasons to base that decision on. I can be convinced, I just need something more than "This is going to lead to the failed paradigm of 'Close and Hose'" or "Just say no".

To All,

The X1 fastload is a source of difficulty and it would probably be easier to ignore fastloading, however I don't think it can be removed without arbitrary rules restrictions. In addition, I haven't seen much of anything offered that would offer a player positive encouragement to use a two turn arming cycle. 20 point warheads would not do it and 24 point warheads might not be enough either.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 01:28 pm: Edit

Orman,

We do plan refits for when the Xorks arrive; problem is, since the Xorks are almost totally undefined, we don't know what those refits will look like. A bigger photon is part of the plan, though.

Let me ask you this. You seem to feel that the X1 photon is not good enough, at least for the BPV the CX and other X1 ships carry. If they had 24 point photons as you describe, what then would the BPV of a CX be? Don't change anything else; just the photons. What would that BPV be?

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 01:38 pm: Edit

I think I follow what your saying Mike. I'm essentially going with the Megaphoton from P6. The only difference is that in X2 you can arm the standards in a single turn using a fastload. It does indeed make the weapon a bit more inflexible, but that is part of the price for the high maximum warhead yield.

That is going to be at the core of my Fed proposal. The photons are going to be an absolute sledgehammer, but still suffer from all the inaccuracy problems they have always had to live with. My X2 Feds will fight best at close range or at extreme range, but they will have a harder time at medium ranges (where I want the other 2X ships from races like the Klingons and the Romulans to shine).

I understand the desire to push the fighting range out in X2, but I think that needs to be done with some care. When I playtested for the X1 fix, I found some races were absolutely awesome at medium range already. A Klingon DX ripped a Fed DNH to ribbons and only came to range 8 twice - and never closer. In a second game, the DNH faired slightly better, but had to pull of two successful HETs to do it. The Fed CX was not quite as stong, but still managed to compete wth a C8K quite easily by fighting out at range 8 (though the accuracy of six disruptors at that range made it a bit more risky, at least until the UIM burned out). The real difference was the EW edge and the power to exploit it. I generally found the Klingon DX to be much better than the CX - at least more than the 10 point difference in BPV would indicate - primarily because if it got an EW advantage, it would hit with EVERY weapon at range 8. An alpha strike from a DX (9 Ph-1, 6 OL Disr) with a -1 shift at range 8 on the oblique STARTS at 45 points - and that's if you roll all sixes. Average dice will net it 63 points of damage at that range.

I guess what I'm getting at is that some of the existing X1 ships give the best the GW has to offer a very tough time by keeping the range open and fighting at ranges where they are pretty ineffective. Making this situation too much better may force X1 to get in close to compete with X2, but it may also make the use of GW tech against X2 utterly futile (perhaps the desired effect). I'm not saying that there should not be further improvement, but we need to be careful not to make it too good. This will influence how I use weapons like the Ph-5 in my proposal, and how I design some of the heavy weapons. My Feds will need to find a way to stay away from the disruptor sweet spot, or they will die like they always have.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 01:45 pm: Edit

My problem with the 4x24 point photon isn't the damage, its the 12 point hold cost. 12 power to do 96 damage. I would need to plow 40 power into GW disruptors to meet that level of damage.

Another factor for me is the damage curve. A jackpot with four photons is far more likely then with six photons, assuming no narrow salvo. I prefer the more predictable damage curve of six photons.

The BCJ already shows you can put six photons on a reinforced cruiser. If you want to generate 96-photon damage why not simply use 6x16? Heck, it even takes damage better. Heck, even 5x20 is better. Why do we seem to have a fixation on four photons? The Feds have shown a willingness to deviate from that philosophy with their late war designs.

Still your point is interesting. Too many of the SSDs I have seen have too many P5. I to like the flavor of the heavy weapon and feel the quantity of P5s in most designs should be reduced.

Another reason for discarding the 24 point Photon is I feel we can come up with something more interesting than simply increasing the warhead.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 02:00 pm: Edit

I guess it is the purist in me that wants 4 photons on the XCA.

I will admit that a jackpot is a bit more likely, but every miss hurts more. Its a matter of perspective I guess. I've seen Feds Jackpot at range 8 about 5 times in about 10 years of playing SFB. The danger is certainly there, but in reality it seems to be quite rare, at least in my playing experience. Then again, I have no luck with dice.

I'm not totally against something "more interesting" than photons that simply increase warhead strength, but I haven't seen anything yet that really hits my hot button. I don't really like all the arming delays that have been floated in connection with big warheads - makes it feel too much like a fusion. If it went that route, I'd rather just have more X1 photons with no changes.

I've read your (Tos's) proposal on X2 phasers, and I think you'll find that I'm going to mimic it almost exactly. We might differ on the photon, but you have definately won me over on the matter of phasers. But that's a different topic of course.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 03:01 pm: Edit

Does that mean we are back to looking for a "quality" improvement for the Photon instead of a bigger bang (ie larger war head) or improving accuracy?

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 04:21 pm: Edit

I agree for the most part with Jeremy.

Mike,

To answer your question, I feel that the X1 photon is somewhat inadequate, but under the circumstances of the revision there was not much that could be done. The primary fault lies in that the CX should have been given six torps or the DX should have lost two and forget the whole photon fastload idea. The problem was that the SSDs could not change resulting in having to work from a limited scope. If the CX had been given megaphotons I'ld place its BPV closer to the DX. If it had recieved six standard photons I'ld have to say dead even with the DX. As far as increasing the photon later when the Xorks invade; SFB history so far does not encourage me so far.

Jeff,

An improved acurracy would help to a certain degree, unfortunatly the photon armed ship would stil have to either mount more launchers or more powerfull warheads in order to preserve a deterrence factor. By my reconning X2 will be approaching the point where most captains will gladly risk a jackpot to get closer and potential deal as much or more damage than the Fed will put out.