Archive through February 19, 2004
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 photons: Archive through February 19, 2004
By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 06:11 pm: Edit

I'm infavor of fastloaded standards on a 12/24 photon. However, the fastloads would be under the same range restriction as X1, and they could not be upgraded (like an X1 fast-overload). Shot'em or lose'em.

BTW, if we are going to kill the fastload for the photon, what about for other weapons like Hellbores and Plasmas? Is X1 so bad that we want it to go away?

Also, the old argument of "you can match disruptors by cycling your photons" is BS in X2 just as much as it is in the GW. Photon accuracy is crap compared to the disruptor and keeping the Fed in a position where it can fire half its photons every turn with any hope of matching a disruptor boat is just going to leave the Fed cut to pieces. It needs to get in, drop the hammer, and get out. Basic photon tactics. I invite anyone to try and make the cycle your photons and make them seem like disruptors thing actually work against a COMPETENT opponent.

And I'm sure somebody is going to mention, "well, if you give them fastloads, then the Fed will come in holding overloads, fire them, then fastload a salvo for the coup de grace." True enough, but if the Fed isn't built like some kind of ubership with tons of power, it will pay a price in speed and/or EW to do this. It is not as easy as everyone would make it sound. A wholistic approach to design is the only way to make this work - designing weapons in a vacuum will not.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 06:12 pm: Edit

Jeff: There is many ways X2 can turn out. There is multiple way it can turn out that I'd be happy with. We really should just propose one option. Better to develope a few than one.

For the record, I'm into limited fast loads. That is Fast Load standard 8 pointers with variable standard and 17-20 point crits. The three turn totals stay on par with X1 but are used differently.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 06:15 pm: Edit

Jeremy,

The problem is that X2 will not always be fighting X2. An X2 CC can cycle his photons all day long and have a VERY good chance of hitting, because he has the power to avoid that nasty EW shift...if he faces one at all. So what if he hits with one? It's still 24 points, enough to drop all but the front shield on a cruiser. Add in some phasers, and its in a bad way. I know it isn't perfect, but fastloading and a massive increase in warhead size is just too much.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 06:28 pm: Edit

Mike, my point is, why does he have to have that kind of power? The original Fed CA is quite underpowered when compared to the old D7. That difference in power is part of the mix. I will not deny that these ships will have a lot of power to play with, but if we give the Fed a big crunch weapon (and don't significantly upgrade the power from X1) we will not have a ship thatr can just fly around cycling photons all day. It could maybe do it for a turn or two until the batteries are empty and it will start sucking wind. In my opinion, that gets us back to the good 'ol days when the Klingons won with speed, EW, and manuever and the Fed won with raw firepower.

I know the 24 pointer will trash a shield on a typical GW cruiser. I'm OK with that. This XCA will be in a BPV range that is equal or better than a DNH. I believe it should be able to match (or at least approach) the DNHs firepower.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 06:35 pm: Edit

Jeremy, re. Photon vs. Disruptor: I basically agree. The photons matches damage wise but not at all with how and what it's mounted on. The Photons has a tighter arc on a less maneuverable ship. This is in addition to it's disadvantage in accuracy.

Now, put a Leg. Navigator and Weapons Officer and the you might get closer. :)

I agree also with a wholistic approach however, I really feel that the 24 pointer is too big. And the Double Hammer slam is easier and easier the larger the number of ships. You could suddenly see the Feds using the anchor more than the Gorns. And it lends to close and hose.

Still, the Feds really should have the biggest crunch. The Photon I proposed remains so and is on par with the X1 unit.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 06:43 pm: Edit

With the photon proposal I offer here is what I see as the basic new Fed tactical paradigm.

Fly in with OL's. Depending on the tactical situation they may be full 20 point crits or 16 points (holdable) with reserve power for full 20's in mind in case a R8 oppertunity doesn't present it's self. Eventually comethe Alpha strike.

Instead of starting to load two turn photons the Fed captain can, if he wishes, load Fast Load 8 pointers. This gives him something to fire in case of an emergency. If he is able to move away as planned he can then hold those 8's and OL them the following turn. Ultimatly, this is two turn OLs with a little deterent midway during reloading.

The draw back is the midway power requirements. Regular reloading would only require a minimum of 2 points of power allowing the Fed to get away faster. The Fast 8's require 4 points for the privelage of some defense during reloading.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 06:48 pm: Edit

Well, say you have 50 regenerative power. You can dump 24 into photons every turn if you like, and that assumes that you fire them every time, and never hold them. Still, though, you have 26 points left, without touching batteries. That's plenty to keep up a reasonable speed. A Klingon, coming in with his six X2 disruptors, is in just about the same shape (6 x 4 for 24 points). He, too, cannot keep this up forever. As I say, I know it isn't a perfect answer, but giving photons a huge warhead increase without taking away ANY abilities is too much. Imagine a hellbore with 50% more power, and fastload capabilities. Or a plasma torpedo with a 75 point warhead, and Sabot/fastload capabilities. That makes for some mighty high BPVs.

We've been over this ground a great deal in the past year or so on this thread, and all agree on two things: that like you said, we should look at the ship, not the individual systems, and also that even small improvements can add up quickly.

So, I still believe that if we want Feds to have the big hammer, they don't need fastloads. It's just too much.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 11:36 pm: Edit

I don't see the UFP Admiralty or Government dropping the ability to fire 12 point Fastloads...If that was brought back to fastloading 8 points standars you'ld have two problems.

1) You'ld be chucking out spitwadds in comparison to 6 O/L UIM Disruptors. ( particularly if you've both taken 1 TORP hit.)
2) If the Klingon did tractor you at 10,000,000 metres, you'ld be screwed until next turn by whioch time it may well be too late.


DIaling back the Fastload to 10 pointers might be possible but I still don't see the Admirals buying it.

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 12:02 am: 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.

Mike, please develop a better argument. I don't want to discount your oppinion, however as Jeremy points out what you are suggesting is sub-optimal at best. I am also concerned about a fastload follow on shot, but I doubt that in most circumstances the follow on stot will be against the same shield.

Now, put a Leg. Navigator and Weapons Officer and the you might get closer.

Loren,
That is true but what is good for the goose is good for the gander. A Klingon with a Nav. and Wep. offers will be just as competative.

Well, say you have 50 regenerative power. You can dump 24 into photons every turn if you like, and that assumes that you fire them every time, and never hold them. Still, though, you have 26 points left, without touching batteries.

26 points minus 6 to 8 points of EW renders a speed of 18 to 20. Try chasing a Klingon down at that speed and unless you are on a closed map and the Klingon makes some manuvuer mistakes its goint to be a long chase.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 12:49 am: Edit

Orman: Ah no. It would be more cometative. It's maneuverability and accuracy along with great arcs would totally out class the Fed.

You missed the point. I was supporting what Jeremy said. If you try to say that alternating OL photons are equal to disruptors then that would be inaccurate because while the damage is the same the arcs, accuracy, and maneuverability differences are radical.

This is why I said if you added those officers then you could start to compare the two (alternating photons 2 each turn to disruptors on a Klingon ship).

I don't see where that wasn't clear to begin with.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 04:51 am: Edit

Ran a few numbers on the Fed XCA I'm working on. She has 50 power (two more than the CX) and 4 12/24 photons. When holding full overloads (12 points), it has two less power available than the CX, 34 points after paying for HK compared to 36. If it is arming fastloads (limited to the 12 point standard) it has two more points of power available than the CX, 22 power vice 20 after HK. If arming normal max overloads (assuming 6+6 or 4+4 over two turns), the XCA will be considerably slower, with 22 power after HK compared to 28.

The difference in power is pretty minor, but it does mean that while the XCA will be slightly faster arming fastloads, it will be considerably slower when using 24 point warheads, especially when loading them. If the Fed player is using a mix of X1 and X2 ships and tries to arm the 24 pointers to max power, it will either slow his fleet down or force him to burn more batteries on the 2X ships to maintain the high EW levels that give X ships so much of an edge. I think this is proper - arming the max loads should come at a price. The XCA would, of course, have the option of loading a smaller warhead and keeping up with the X1 ships. Interestingly, if the XCA opted to arm 20 pt overloads (assuming 5+5), the size opponents of the 24 pointer suggest, it ends up have two more power available on each turn than the CX.

I guess what I'm driving at is that I want to give the Fed the ability to get to a 24 point photon, but to do so, it must give up some measure its ability to control the manuever game while arming them. I'm reluctant to increase the total generated power beyond 50 points, because I think it will remove these restrictions and make the 24 pointer far too easy to use.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 07:25 am: Edit

Orman,

What's the point? I have made my position on this clear. For over a year, the folks that started this thred - and I am one - have worked on God knows how many different proposals for the photon, covering everything from overload proximities to 2D6 photon tables, to yes...12 point meg-photons. During that time, I came to the conclusion that X2 should not necessarily be better at combat than X1, because X2 ships are not being built in a time of war. This idea is absolutely critical to the way some of these propasals are made, mine included. They are more advanced, yes, but not necessarily as good at combat as the X1 equivelant. So, it was and is my opinion that there are lots of different ways to get a better photon without simply driving up the warhead strength. We even took a poll, asking a variety of questions about what kind of photon people would like to see, including what standards, overloads, special features, firing table...we covered a great deal with it. And the results were mostly in favor of a 10 point standard, with a 20 point limit. This is where Loren's idea of critical overloads came from. We talked about it, and some like it (or something very near it), some don't. But we did at least consider it fairly. You, however, have considered no other idea than this, and will not listen to or entertain anything else without scoffing critically at what is put forth with comments such as:

Quote:

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.



or...
Quote:

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.



When this thread started, I was all four 12 point standards, and even 16 point fastloads! But I have changed my mind after seeing other options, and going along with Steve's intention that X2 be different...not just better. In any case, I think that many of the proposed photon ideas have merit, so long as they are balanced against the ship they are mounted on, and the kind of opponent they face. You may differ, as is your right. But stop immediately discounting any other view than your own. Not everyone wants X2 to be a simple improvment over X1; I fit that niche. You don't, and that's fine. That doesn't make you wrong; but it doesn't make me, or anyone else that disagrees with you wrong, either.

But as to our reasons. They are simple.
  1. We don't want to see X2 as a generation of combat monster ships. X1 was born and bred for combat in a time of total war; X2 is not. So, X2 does not have to trump X1 at every turn, and my in some cases be weaker, but more capable at other missions.
  2. The photon is the benchmark weapon in this game. Change it, and you have to change everything else. A 50% change in the photon is going to require enormous changes in everything else, and may result in ships that are worse than those seen in Supplement 2. While there may be no five point batteries or overloaded phasers and range 12 overloads, huge increases in damage capacity may be just as bad.
  3. X2 BPV should not necessarily be a huge leap over X1. Given that we also wanted other nifty X improvements (SIF's, S-Bridges, "Any" boxes, movement precedence, advanced labs, etc), we can't do drastic changes to weapons without violating this desire. In other words, we can't have it all, and felt that we'd rather have some new toys instead of new uber-weapons.


There you go. You can, of course, disagree. But many of the posters on this thread have been working for a year with this stuff, and have posted complete proposals, SSD's, and done playtesting to get us where we are right now. You apparently want everyone to simply adopt your idea as not just a viable choice, but as the only obvious choice. That may happen in the end, and it may not; we just have to see. But others may go forward with a different approach. You should do them the credit of listening to what they say and evaluating it fairly, as we have done in the past.

All that being said, I think the basic problem is that your vision for X2 is different from what many of the rest of us have in mind, and that your desired version of the photon fits in with your vision just fine. That's cool and all. MJC, for example, has a definate preference for much more powerful ships than most of the rest of us; and no, this isn't an attack on MJC. It's just an observation that his vision for X2 is much, much more powerful than mine and many others. So, if you want to avoid all this pointless arguing, show us something more substantial. Show us an X2 SSD, complete with whatever kind of phasers, toys, and improvements you like, with a BPV. You might get buy-in; you might not. But just saying that 12 point standard photons and 24 point overloads are okay, and that not only is it okay but that it is the only, obvious choice isn't going to be enough. because X1 should have isn't going to sway him one bit.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 09:07 am: Edit

Quote:

During that time, I came to the conclusion that X2 should not necessarily be better at combat than X1, because X2 ships are not being built in a time of war.


Yes...but the period the R&D was done in was WAR and so some of the designs will be total war designs probably with simple cut down versions being employed in the Trade Wars period but holding in reserve the ability to refit the vessels to a full war footing design philosphy.
It is possible to design for war in a time of peace:- C.A.D. files don't cost nearly as much as Actual hardware.


Quote:

But I have changed my mind after seeing other options, and going along with Steve's intention that X2 be different...not just better.


Where does One Go?
• Better to Hit...more Disruptor like, bad taste...why not just mount disruptors!?!
• Better Fastload Damage...15 Point Fastloads will break even with 6 UIM O/L Disruptors for damage but have a worse Damage to power ratio at 30 points of warp over for a full set of four photons instead of 24 points of power for six O/L Disruptors....so why not just have a Disruptor Boat!?!
• Higher Maximum Warhead...Federation taste...but too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.
• Some Kind of special effect...whilst perhaps not automatically a bad thing, won't it become like an ECM drone that can't be shot at, that only the Feds & some Tholians & Orion Pirates can use...speical effects are an area where it's just too easy to break the game.

None of these options will be liked by everyone...personnally I'm seeing a big Klingon bias in players ( I'll let the Poll sit for a while yet ) so the brick-wall of people on this thread who want to completely emasculate the Photon should be no surprise.
A 15 point Fastloaded Photon comes a close second to six O/L Disruptors thanks to UIM ( Will the Klingons get built in UIM?...It seems more than likely ) but looses out once damage starts to happen and costs WARP power to arm.

A more powerful warhead is the only thing that would push the Captains towards two turn arming, and a warhead would have to be seriously massive to ween the Admirals off retaining fastloads ( say 24 point warheads for 4+4 arming ( effectively a 27 point warhead )).
On the other hand an increased Fastload makes the X2 Feds into second rate Klingons ( lousey arcs & turning ).

Either higher to hit or bigger fastloads; castrates the Photon, which is why practically everyone on this thread wants one of those things that ISN'T a larger warhead ( or is but at the cost of fastloads but even that is something the Klingons don't like ). Failing that keep everything else as X1 because under X1 the Federation CX is a second rate Klingon. The two extra points of damage at R8 those Photons are doing on the first battle pass won't make up for the fact that holding overloads costs the DX 12 points of power ( instead on an expected 16 for the Photon ) nor the extra 6 damage done every turn after the fist battle pass (@ R8), nor the fact that six disruptors survive TORP hits better than 4 Photons, so the Federation is a second rate Klingon.

Some of the people on this thread beleive that getting the other guy to play YOUR GAME is strongly aided by designing his ships to be only able to play the game that best suites you but still suck at it!

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 09:25 am: Edit

Quote:

None of these options will be liked by everyone...



Yes, exactly. But none of them should automatically be discounted as inherently wrong or bad unless looked at in the round, compared with other weapons or systems on opponent ships.

Quote:

Some of the people on this thread beleive that getting the other guy to play YOUR GAME is strongly aided by designing his ships to be only able to play the game that best suites you but still suck at it!



Haven't seen that yet. Heck, I've only seen a very few Klingon or other race's ships yet, and those looked pretty darn effective to me, and so do the majority of the Fed ships people have posted.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 09:47 am: Edit

The more and more I read on these boards, the less and less feasible the whole idea of second-generation X-ships sounds. A few people, such as Mike R., are trying to keep it within the bounds of still being fun to play, but all too many want to keep "kicking it up a notch" to the point where it becomes both goofy and unchallenging to play. And just to make it completely clear: a 50% increase in photon torpedo warhead strength along with a fastload capability makes them both goofy and unchallenging to play.

I've reached the unfortunate point where I simply have to step back and admit that, even though I have purchased absoultely everything else ever released for Star Fleet Battles -- in every edition of the game -- I won't be buying the second-generation X-ship rules when they are released, at least not unless some cooler heads prevail and keep this from completely running away with itself.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 09:56 am: Edit

I agree that we have to look at the WHOLE ship, but would say for practical application, start with a short statement/proposal for the Photon system.

10 point standards and 20 point Overloads.

What other (SHORT!) statements need to be part of the X2 Photon proposal.

Acceptance of X1 fast loads? (8 pointers? 10's? 12's?)

What else?

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 11:22 am: Edit

Everyone seems intent on making disruptors more accurate. How about making standard Phots hit on the prox table out to 40?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 11:36 am: Edit

Jessica: Please don't say that. No one but no one...heck including Steve, knows what X2 will actually be.

We are but a bunch of fans, none of which are actual profit making game designers, kicking around ideas. This is not the X2 developement forum for the final product. X2 isn't even in the works.

I'd like to suggest that it is premature to be pessamistic, particularly if it is based on the X-Files.

One thing though, it can be really hard to differentiat proposals through reading these threads. One can get ideas mixed a lot and begin to see something no one is proposing. It's easier for those who were involved from the beginning but I can see how others might see the seemingly eclectic mix of posts and responses and a general path to a unified proposal. IT's pretty messy in here.

Hmmm, a little like my desk. :O

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 01:28 pm: Edit

Jessica is correct in that the X2 design must be playuable. it needs to attract players instead of discouraging them through boredom.

Building an X2 Uber ship that relys on massive numbers of damage points to differentiate it from X1 doesn't (IMO) qualify.

What if, we look at the Fed CA design from the basic game? before the refits and the upgrades (like the CC) added phaser 3's, phaser 1's, RA phaser 1's, APR, Flag Bridge, 'G' rack etc...

It had "LOTS" of room for future systems...what if the initial X2 cruiser had that design philosophy? suppose the X2 Photons had the 24 point overloads, X1 fast loads, double shots, pulsed photons, 6 point Proximity and other new gimicks proposed on only 2 launchers?

That would give you an overrun alpha strike potential of 48 points (2x24 war heads) compared to 64 points from the older deisgns (4 x 16 point photons) while the double shots would allow you 4 standard photons every other for 32 points (4 x 8 standard war head)...and if you wanted fast loads, you could have whatever fast loaded X1 photon you want (8 or 10 or 12 points fast loaded...(not fast loads, they can not be double shotted or pulsed).

look at 2 24 point over loads followed by 2 fast loaded 12 pointers the next turn...for 72 points compared to GW cruisers 64 point potential...(X1 being a war design would be superior in this case.

Just a thought...

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 02:03 pm: Edit

When I get my integrated Fed proposal done, I'll post the ship. But I'm frankly not that hopeful that it is really going to be worth my time here. It will be rejected out of hand by the self-appointed commitee who will call it "goofy and unchallenging" because it doesn't toe the party line. If this forum's purpose is to squash any ideas that don't meet with the approval of a select few, let me know, so I can spend my valuable time doing something else. But from where I sit, it seems like I'm being run out of the room before I even have a chance to make a complete case.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 02:48 pm: Edit

Quote:

...suppose the X2 Photons had the 24 point overloads, X1 fast loads, double shots, pulsed photons, 6 point Proximity and other new gimmicks proposed on only 2 launchers?



It could render the ship overly vulnerable to damage. In two volleys it might be toothless.


===============================

Jeremy Grey:

I sincerely apologize if I'm one of the folks that have caused you to feel that way. I've only tried to support my own proposals case but understand how it may have come across poorly given the circumstances (my photon proposal fits my overall proposal). I for one would very much like to see your proposal. Your time would NOT be wasted on me.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 03:06 pm: Edit

Absolutely. There is no reason for you not to post your ideas. As I said before, it would be best to present a variety of options to Steve, and I have no doubt you will produce quality stuff. I may disagree with some of it, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't post it. By all means, do it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 03:13 pm: Edit

I'm open to be convinced regarding 12/24 photons. I haven't yet heard a convincing arguement or proposal but few have been presented wholistically either.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 03:16 pm: Edit

BTW: I started a new thread called X2 PHASERS PH-5 AND PH-6.

Most of the discussion about those two weapons have been invarious places; mostly in the Ph-1 thread. I thought I'd give them their own thread. I started it out with my own proposal and technobabble but it is certainly open to other ideas and thoughts. I invite comments on my post there too.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 04:19 pm: Edit

Guys...Guys?...GUYS!!!

How many times do I have to post this?

Point 1:
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY

Point 2:
DIVERISTY IS GOOD

THEREFORE WE DO NOT ALL HAVE TO AGREE.

Insisting on unanimity is foolish. We are of several different mindsets here. And instead of trying to bash each other's ideas with increasing hostility we can be constructive and assess problems and suggest solutions, even if we don't like the idea being presented. What better way to know an idea than to suggest changes?

I have been won over to ideas I started out disliking by taking the attitude of "I don't like it but we're gonna try it, it ought to be done THIS way."

After a certain amount of discussion, it's best to put your money where your mouth is and post a set of rules.

With respect, jessica, I disagree that 24-point photons are automatically unplayable and uninteresting. But I would agree that the devil is in the details and any such proposal can get out of hand fast. It may be that the Fed will have to choose between power and flexability and I wouldn't cry if they lost the fastload as a cost of increased damage

A corner of my webspace is dedicated to creating a one-stop comprehensive smorgasboard of X2 ideas. If MJC's ideas are welcome there (and they are), anybody's is. Evryone is free to send me stuff (SSDs and/or rules) to post and they'll get there. (I have stuff from Tos and Brodie that need poosting right now. That will happen soon, probably tonight [2/19])

http://www.vorlonagent.com/sfb/x2.htm

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