Archive through February 18, 2004
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 photons: Archive through February 18, 2004
By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 04:24 pm: Edit

So you're basically saying that increasing the photons on the CX by half again only rates a BPV increase of 10 points. You must be kidding. With six photons with X1 abilities, the CX would completely outgun the DX, in any situation you could ask. Six full overloads followed up with fastloads would be devestating, and certainly worth more than a measly 10 points.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 05:00 pm: Edit

Mike Raper:

The problem is that many people (including me) believe that the DX is more than 10 points better than the CX, as both currently stand. Partly, it's the torpedos, partly the power, partly the manueverability. I don't know how to apportion it between those factors. But the areas in which the DX beats the CX seem to outweigh the areas in which the CX is better (an additional Ph-1, more shuttlecraft, slightly better durability) and to do so by more than 10 points.

I'm not arguing either for against X2 photons with a 20 or 24 point warhead here (but see below). Actually, I would rather see different X2 cruisers have superiority in different areas. For example, maybe the Klingons should have torpedo superiority but the Feds should have Phaser superiority. That is, however, more difficult to balance.

Regarding the issue of fast loading photons - maybe it would have been better if that hadn't been part of X1 - opinions can differ. But since it is now part of the established technology and is unlikely to go away, I am dubious about the Feds losing that capability in the X2 era. It is too useful for the Feds to forego unless the single-shot expected damage of an X2 photon is MUCH better than for an X1 photon out to at least 15 hexes, the maximum fast load range. My personal preference would be to retain all the capabilities of an X1 photon and add some modest improvements, which might or might not include an upgrade to warhead strength.

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

I agree. Fastloads need to stay.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 05:20 pm: Edit

RBN-

if fast loads need to stay, then (as was said before) we need a reason to make normal loading of photons (two turns, i mean) some how preferable to the fast load...

either a quality improvement, or a quantity improvement.

There are a number of people that want a federation racial trait that is different from the other races...and making fast loads important (ie valuable) tends to blur the line of distinction between one turn arming rates and thoses of multiple turn arming rates.

anyway, back to my last question...are we back looking at quality improvements to the photon?

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 05:43 pm: Edit

Which is why in an earlier post i gave normal loading a to-hit bonus.

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 07:39 pm: Edit

Mike,
To quote myself:
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.

Maybe I should have restated the bit about not fastloading. Also, for the record I would price 4 megaphotons about three points less than six standard photons due to damage vunerablity and damage normalization issues.

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 07:56 pm: Edit

RBN, Jeff,

A quality improvement might work, the problem would be what type of improvment will be sufficient to entice player to use a two turn arming cycle. RBN mentioned a to hit bonus, if I remember the correct post it was suggested to give the photon a -1 to the die roll for two turn torps that did not combine with the positive ECCM shift and had restrictions on proxes. My memory might be off. If there was no restriction on the to hit bonus provided by armin for two turns that would be a better incentive. I need to think about it more and consider the implications. Off the top of my head such a option may eventually require more photons per ship.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 09:15 pm: Edit

Sound then like it would have ended up as Same Ol' Same Old with bigger numbers.

I don't want to spend more time rolling more internals just for the sake of dishing out more damage.

X1 needed to have a new way of opperating so that there would be new tactics not Same Ol with bigger numbers.

As for the CX vs DX...

Well to be honest I haven't be able to play with the new X-Rules errata but previously they were even in my game play. I play against very good players (also 24 year veterans). The CX is plenty bas ass.

Now the DXD is a scarry ship!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 10:44 pm: Edit

Quote:

That's WHY the P5 was made to be more effective at middle ranges. It has nothing to do with the "8 P5's vs. 12 P1's" debate. It has to do with avoiding close-and-hose tactics where we can.


The Ph-5 was made with a sweetspot at R8 for two reasons...
1) To show the ships were more advanced by having a sweetspot of something longer than R5.
2) To keep the X2 ships fighting fairly with GW ships by forcing them into overload range.

It was not made to make ships fight at medium range in and of it'self, as some kind of high and mighty this is how ships should build their tactical doctrine.


Quote:

I see. So giving the Feds 24 point photons will make up for that 10 points, eh? Anyone else buy that? I mean, that's what you're implying; if 24 point photons are the equal of X1 disruptors, than just adding them on will even up the BPV.


Try it.
Take a CX and give it 24 point max overload warheads as the only change to it from being a CX and give it to you kid brother to play and You take a Klingon DX ( or DXD ) and just see what happens.

I recon you'll see 20 point warheads being fired if your lucky at the first battle pass and nothing but Fastloads after that.


Quote:

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.


The PARADIGM has a missing thread in your thinking.

Specifically IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO.

Close and Hose only becomes the same old boring tactic that everybody used WHEN it's the #1 tactic for everyone.

If it's the #1 tactic only for Photon users ( or even Photon and hellbore users ) then you get a new Dynamic. The Close & Hose ship is fought off by a non-close & hose ship in a battle of skill to see who can most effectively apply their battle plan.


Quote:

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.


I would like to mention my plan on this.
The Feds get the best ecconomy of the Post WARS period and thus their heavy weapon doesn't get refits during the X2 period ( except the XDD which gets a refit in number ) whilst other do ( particularly drones ).
Thus you get a change in dynamic; the crunch power of the Fed XCA gets less impressive as everybody upgrades their heavy weapons except the Feds.


Quote:

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.


Wait, you pump 12+12+24 into your Klingon DX Disruptors.
I pump 24+24+12 into my 24 Point Photons.

Your standard firing in R9-15 will generate 12 points of damage each turn...that's 24 damage.

At what range will we engage with our overloads?...R4!?!
Okay.
You fire 6 x 5/6 x 8 for 40 points of damage.
I Fire 4/6 x 4 x 24 for 64 points of damage.
Net reult, we both fire 64 points of heavy weapon damage and you do it for 12 points less power...that's two 3+3+1 SS or something similar if you want them, but probably just 12 points less damage to you ( particularly on turns after the primary fire point when you can use it to recharge BTTYs ).

Note that the Fed also does himself a diservice as 12Ph-1s outperform 8Ph-5s at R4.

The big problem for the third turn dive for the X2 Feds is the problem that has always been...can you survive the damage on the earlier turns long enough to make the attack run effective!?!

Quote:

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.

People like the Jackpot paradigm. A 1 in 16 happens so much more often than a 1 in 64 that it actually has a mental affect on the opponent.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 12:42 am: Edit

Quote:

The Ph-5 was made with a sweetspot at R8 for two reasons...



Gee, I think the extreme range has caused your mind reading targeting to miss it's target.

The chart currently on most proposals is the one I proposed. I worked hard on it but not really for the reasons your say. The reasons are a matter of record on the X-Files.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 01:53 am: Edit

I just thought of something new for X2 Photons:

Overloaded Photons (not crit) may be de-energized back to standard levels by discharging all but the first turns 2 points of energy and then finished with 2 points of energy on any EA. The photon MUST be marked with an 'S' to denote that this is not holding energy. Such a photon could be fitted with a proximity fuse.

How that for flexability?

Useful against plasma chuckers that turn at the glory zone. Oh ya which reminds me I have a plasma proposal I forgot to log.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 05:41 pm: Edit

Quote:

The chart currently on most proposals is the one I proposed. I worked hard on it but not really for the reasons your say. The reasons are a matter of record on the X-Files.


DO you remember that the 1/2 damage megaphaser had an average damage at R10 of 3.5 pointsand you messed with the numbers to make it do that damage at R8!?!

I do.


Quote:

How that for flexability?


Can it be instantly used to generate SSReo or does it only happen in EA?
EVen if it only happens in EA, it's 16 points of SSReo coming over from your Phot-tube Pseudo batts.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 08:01 am: Edit

Sounds like neither; he says the energy is "discharged" which usually means its just lost. But, it would give you some flexibility in changing an overload to a standard or proxy, which could come in handy in some situations; like maybe fighting an Andro who was within overload range and then displaced out of it.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 09:32 am: Edit

I know that this is just a voice in the wilderness, but I've got to try again: ditch the fastloads. They absolutely kill the "look and feel" of photon torps, and are one of the biggest reasons that I don't do any more with the X1 stuff than I have to. And don't say, "there's no going back;" there certainly can be very valid "historical" reasons for X1 fastloads to not develop into X2 fastloads; there's been a lot of dead-end technologies over the years, and it would be easy enough to simply say that this is one of them. Whatever else you may or may not do with photons, get rid of the bloody fastloads.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 09:41 am: Edit

For what it's worth, with the stuff I put up lately, I did get rid of them. They're back to being just like the old ones, save the range of 40 and the 50% across the board increase.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 10:40 am: Edit

is it time to consider a "fresh sheet of paper" approach to the X2 Photon?

This subject keeps hanging on the same points of contention.

why not presume that X2 is "different" from x1 and go from there.

for instance, the torpedos them selves start being 50% larger and not interchangeable.

say the tubes are larger and can not fire the old style torps.

say that the energy cost goes from 2+2 arming cycle to 3+3 and the "standard" warhead is a 12 pointer.

Say that they havent worked out the bugs for "full" 24 point war heads yet, so the Overload function has a 6+4 arming cycle and results in a 20 point war head.

No fast loads available as the technology that would "allow it" is "elusive".

Expand the top range of the Photon to 45 hexes from 40 (or 30) and dangle the promise that a future refit of the torpedo promises a max range of 60 hexes?

Proximity Photons stay at 4 with an arming cycle of 2+2...with the promise that when the technology matures, they will get 5 point or even (much farther down the road) 6 point warheads.

just another thought!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 10:43 am: Edit

My latest proposal for photons ditches fast OL. They are 10 point standards but you can still Fast load 8 point standards. This does two things:

Compared to the X1 of 16+12 (over two turns) it matches the total with (20+8). Moving the crunch to the first turn.

ALso, with the Ten point standard it gives reason to use 8 points since those are the only size you can fast load.


I'm not sure I can justify no fast loads at all. I figure the Admiralty would not want to let go of that completely. They would go for Fast Standards to get 20 point Crit OL, IMO.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 10:50 am: Edit

Well, if the idea is to truly return the racial flavor of the Fed and put the emphasis back on heavy weapons for this purpose, I can see just doing the mega-photon thing as is, with the exception of longer range. 3+3 to load a standard, minimum "front load" of 3 for overloads. Anything over 12 is overloaded. Granted you loose that fast-load ability, but then again, you gain in crunch power, which seems to be a favored approach. Not sure how it'll play out, but I'm willing to try it that way. Then again, the X2 ships will only be part of the fleet; X1 versions would still have the old photon and retain the ability to fast load. So, in a mixed fleet engagement, you get X1 ships taking up the slack for the X2 ships on their off turns. Man, talk about an ugly combination.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 10:54 am: Edit

I like the Fastloads myself, and think that they should at least be an option.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 02:05 pm: Edit

You could rule that X2 Photons are "downwardly compatible"...that way the original fast loads of X1 are available....along with the normal photon options...

Not sure I ilke that approach with a 12 point standard load photon, and a 20 (or a 24) point overload but if there is support for it?!?

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 02:25 pm: Edit

I would be ok with a 12/24 two turn photon. But I still think that a 8-10 point fastload should be available, maintaining the same range restrictions as were found in X1.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 05:02 pm: Edit

to have an advantage for 2 turn arming cycle (which several people have stated) there needs to be some reason to choose one way or another. if having to choose between a 12 point fast load or a 12 point standard load that requires 2 turns to arm...I would assume most people would choose to go with the fast load (particularly if they could hold it or up grade it.)

Not sure whose idea it was , but if the X2 photon torpedo had some limitation on it that kept fast loads from being prepared larger than 8 points, the choice comes down to 8 points this turn or 12 point war heads in 2...the tactical need of trading a fast salvo against more "crunch" damage (assuming 4 torpedo launchers and standard 12 war heads.)

32 points total damage vs 48 points later (or up to 96 points if 24 point overloads are allowed).

otherwise its going to be constantly fast loads and fir every turn...which is more like a disrupter firing cycle than a photon torpedo launch cycle.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 05:04 pm: Edit

Just say no to fastloads. If you're going to up the warhead power by 50%, you just don't need anything else. If you want to fire every turn, then cycle-fire the things. You still have plenty of punch to go around that way.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 05:13 pm: Edit

What happens now?

We have 2 groups apparently, one that is in favor of X2 with fast loads and the other that wants no fast loads.

Mutually exlusive conditions...

How do we resolve this, Ask SVC for a guide? Take a poll? commission a 'Blue Ribbon Panel' of former politicians who need the work?

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 05:43 pm: Edit

Develop separate proposals?
:)

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