Sorry folks, just venting a little frustration. We all need to keep an open mind and avoid comments that amount to condemnations of one idea or the other. I'm sure we will all see things we don't like, and I certainly don't have objections to constructive criticism, but we need to keep the mud slinging to a minimum. It will get us no where.

Again, I apologize for the previous post. I'm not here to offfend or irritate people. But if it gets everyone (including myself) to cool down just a little, then it was worth it.

Cheers,
Jeremy

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 06:40 pm: Edit

Jessica, don't worry. The Steves will be the cooler heads if nothing else. They decidedly DON'T want another Supplement #2. It's not going to happen. I'd wager that it'll be either hdifferent or it won't be published at all. Your money won't go to waste. SVC will see to that.

Jeremy you aren't wasting your time posting your ideas at all. Nobody's in charge here. Some of us are very forceful in our opinions but there's no ruling clique here. Just because we disagree with you doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means we disagree with you. WE might think you're wrong but we're not in charge.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 07:22 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

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.

---

---

Quote:

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

---

---

Quote:

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.

---

---

Quote:

I sincerely apologize if I'm one of the folks that have caused you to feel that way.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 07:43 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Jeremy you aren't wasting your time posting your ideas at all. Nobody's in charge here.

---

---

Quote:

double barrelled Phot-tubes being the only one and that because I find the record keeping unweildy

---

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 08:17 pm: Edit

<B>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.</B>

My apologies Loren, I read that post in a hurry and mistook what you were trying to say.

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.

I would be eager to read your rebuttal of the analysis that was posted by MJC and myself earlier. It would seem that you reached the conclusion that 24 point warheads cross a line that 20 point warheads don't. I am not interested in disproving your ideas, I am interested in any flaws you might see in my logic. As I get time, I will be working on my own proposal and understanding the reasons others have thier oppinions will give me some insight.

[Edited for poor proof-reading]

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

Concerning the comments against the 2 photon tube X2 CA idea.

If the initial X2 CA is supposed to be a "general" design for peace time operations, being critical of it because of its perceived failings as a wartime main line unit is inconsistant to the extent that the first war time refit of the X2 CA would be to add back the "missing" photons...

also, if "only" two photon torpedo tubes is a draw back, you'll have to support the point in the face of numerous designs that only had two photons...such as the FF, FFG, DDG, DDL, YCA, GSC...probably others...I just can't think of them off the top of my head (probably some orions & Tholians too, IIRC!)

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 09:45 pm: Edit

Mike Raper,

I have attempted to state my oppinion and back it up with data. I have also seen too many responses that were dismissive of oppinions advocating larger warheads without giving any reasons. If you think my analysis is wrong, try to post an analysis showing why. Some poeple tend to think that writing a post saying "that is too much" or "just say no" without data to back up your point can be construed as dismissive or scoffing at another's oppinion.
To paraphrase you, just saying that 10 point standard photons and 20 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. Sorry if I offend, but I don't recall if you have ever posted data supporting 10/20 is enough and that 12/24 is too much.

That being said I will eventually get around to putting my money where my mouth is so to speak. It will be as I posted earlier a while before I can devote enough time to develop a decent proposal.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 09:53 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

If the initial X2 CA is supposed to be a "general" design for peace time operations, being critical of it because of its perceived failings as a wartime main line unit is inconsistant to the extent that the first war time refit of the X2 CA would be to add back the "missing" photons...

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 10:17 pm: Edit

Orman: I and other had been down the 12/24 point road before. It took place in this thread and others quite a wile ago. I would like to review and perhaps find the old posts so that I don't have to rewrite them.

The gist of it was that while 80 is a big hit the extra 16 points from 24 pointers hit deep meat on the enemy ship. The enemy cannot get his second shot in because he neither has the weapons anymore nore has the power to get away effectively. It will lend to the paradigm that caused Commanders Supplement 2 to fail. The dreaded "Close and Hose" tactics that were fun one time but then got very quickly boring.

So 24 point photons first are something some want to avoid out of hand. Then with all the discussion of the past many of us understand they in depth why they are too much. Additionally many of us don't want to have to balance every one elses weapons to match.

To a degree 20 pointers cut into the meat deeper than 16 pointers but not to the artery like 24 points do. There comes a point when an inch is too far and something dies. So yes I say 20 points get pretty far on the line (but not quite over). That is why I impose some restrictions on them too (e.g. my "Critical OL" rules.)

To complicate matters X2 has to play fair with other era ships. We cannot just build other X2 ships to compensate for such massive power because we aren't starting from scratch. An equal BPV of CW could not hope to compete with a ship that can just stamp them out one shot at a time. Just raising the BPV isn't the answer either. The higher the BPV of a single unit the more there are discrepancies.

Some of what I present would take an exhaustive analysis of hundreds of details but I can tell you that my views are backed with about 24 years of experience playing this game. SFB reading is my favorite reading. I've read everything. So I'm fairly confident in my personal analysis. Others have agreed either completely or in general so that supports my findings.

Yes, I could be wrong. My eyes are open for better arguements for what amounts to Mega-Photons. BTW, I'd point out that Mega-Photons are the stuff of Stellar Shadows Journal. A pulication for things that are interesting but that do not fit in the Star Fleet Universe.

This is stuff off the top of my head. There is more in depth analysis somewhere in the archives...I think.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 10:23 pm: Edit

I realize, Orman, you've been playing this game for quite some time as well. Please don't think I'm trying to say I'm superior or anything like that. I just want you to know I'm not a newbie.

I would ask you to consider how many times a few more points in that big alpha strike would have won you the game right there. Then consider the effectiveness of 16 more points over 80. (not counting phasers in the equasion. Their really moot since the same amount would be on either unit.)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 10:28 pm: Edit

Another way to look at it is to take a CX. Is adding one photon tube too much? This is equivelent to 20 pointers.

If adding two more tubes for a total of six photons is OK the 24 pointers will be as well.

Yes, other X2 units may well handle it OK but I don't think the other generations will.

I just feel that 20 pointers are a good compromise between needing something more and too much.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 10:42 pm: Edit

On the CX, I'm beginning to think 16 Point Fastloads on that ship would equate to the six UIM O/L Disruptors of the DX.

The damage out put ( 30 points at R8 and 60 points at R0 ) is the same but since the power cost ( 30 point of warp power ) is much higher ( 24 points of regular power ) and the Photons loose 25% of their firepower with a single A3 hit whilst the Disruptors are only loosing 16.6% the Photons should get a little bonus, so 16 point Fastloads.


Maybe if the Feds got a 16 point Fastload and Klingons got built in UIM, that would be a restoration of balance between those ships.
I'm "agen'it" because it makes the Feds into second rate Klingons but atleast they'ld claw back some of where the CX looses out to the DX without the furror over higher than 16 point warheads.

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 11:03 pm: Edit

Loren,

I was looking for a reason why loosing a shield and about 32% to 35% of a ship's internals is worse in X2 than in the GW era. I do appreciate you taking time time more fully articulate your stance. As far as better arguments for larger photon warheads, I have a spread sheet I created for my own use that lists the type and number of systems on a fair number of ships; I may use that to try and demonstrate how much the photon's crunch power has attrophied from Y160 to Y205. In regards to X2 vs. GW, I would expect a situation simular to a X-ship fighting an equal BPV EY or Four Powers War era force.

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 11:05 pm: Edit

Loren,

I want to respond to your other questions. I will be unable to post until Sat. most likely.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 11:10 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I really don't think that in Y205 anybody is fully expecting peace to reign.

Consider WWII, the enemy was totally defeated on both fronts. Peace for a time was a pretty reasonable expectation. The winners finnished in a state of strength.

---

---

Quote:

X2 needs to be powerful because of the old saying which I paraphrase: Hope for peace, prepare for war!

---

---

Quote:

The gist of it was that while 80 is a big hit the extra 16 points from 24 pointers hit deep meat on the enemy ship. The enemy cannot get his second shot in because he neither has the weapons anymore nore has the power to get away effectively. It will lend to the paradigm that caused Commanders Supplement 2 to fail. The dreaded "Close and Hose" tactics that were fun one time but then got very quickly boring.

So 24 point photons first are something some want to avoid out of hand. Then with all the discussion of the past many of us understand they in depth why they are too much. Additionally many of us don't want to have to balance every one elses weapons to match.

To a degree 20 pointers cut into the meat deeper than 16 pointers but not to the artery like 24 points do. There comes a point when an inch is too far and something dies. So yes I say 20 points get pretty far on the line (but not quite over). That is why I impose some restrictions on them too (e.g. my "Critical OL" rules.)

---

---

Quote:

Another way to look at it is to take a CX. Is adding one photon tube too much? This is equivelent to 20 pointers.

If adding two more tubes for a total of six photons is OK the 24 pointers will be as well.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 11:26 pm: Edit

I would be amiss if I weren't to acknowledge that there is the matter of taste involved. I try to put that asside when debating a subject but I am human after all.

24 point says uber to me. But that's just my feeling. My feelings can change with changes in the understanding of the facts. I.e if I find I'm wrong I may feel differently.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 06:30 am: Edit

Orman,

I have not weighed in yet on the 10/20 photon. I think it's probably too much, depending on how the rest of the ship is designed, but I could live with that more than I could 12/24 photons.

You continue to say that no one will support their statements; I have done so twice now, with no rebuttle or comment from you other than the repeated complaint that all we seen to do is "say no". If you want to debate this, then respond to the basic reasons I stated for not wanting to go this route.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 07:06 am: Edit

Okay...lets take some number from X1 and see where they lead us. The Fed CX and the Klingon DX, heavy weapon suites.

Weapon	0	1	2	3-4	5-8	9-12	13-15	16-22	23-30	31-40
Best Disruptor	60	50	40	40	30	12	12	8	6	2
Best Photon	48	48	40	32	24	10.6	8	4	4	4

Now I would say from that, that the Photon has a lot more room to grow before it outperforms the X1 Disruptor and the X2 Disruptor should be slightly better than the X1 Disruptor so the Photon can grow quite a bit to become its X2 incarnation.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 07:58 am: Edit

Oh, bullshit. That's the same argument people have been using for years to claim that the photon is inferior to the disruptor. You are forgetting the full overload status you can get with 2 turn arming, which you can follow up with fastloads if you like; so over two turns, the photon can dish out 112 points. Further, the CX has an absolutely unreal phaser suite, with 14 X- phaser 1's. The minimum it can hit with at any one time is 7, and from the front oblique it can hit with 11. In short, the Klingons got more disruptors, the Feds got more phasers; neither heavy weapon changed its maximum damage capacity. One just got the chance to shoot more often, and the other got longer range and the ability to hold. If you want to build an X2 that uses 12 point photons, go ahead; it's not out of the realm of possibility, provided it balances with everything else. But, please, PLEASE stop whining that X1 is somehow sadly undergunned, because it isn't. You have to consider the whole ship, and not just one piece of it.

By Mark Norman (Mnorman) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 08:22 am: Edit

Mike: This is not the same argument that people have been using for years, as the 4 full overloads of the photons only just beat the 6 disruptors, but the disruptor can do that every turn. I think that X1 isn't undergunned. In fact it is overgunned and any increased capability for X2 should be defensive.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 08:42 am: Edit

Mark, it is close enough. It's a variation at most, just carried over to X1 instead of GW. The "photon isn't as good as the disruptor because the disruptor fires twice as often" has been going around forever. I do agree, though, that X1 is generally overgunned. But, it really was supposed to be. X2 isn't. What kind of increased defenses do you have in mind? Anything you want to share?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 08:48 am: Edit

MJC, I don't understand your table? Are you comparing 6 overload disruptors against 3 overload-16 photons? Since the CX has 4 photons your comparison doesn't make any sense.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 08:49 am: Edit

Okay, since those that disagree seem to want it yet again, here is why there are some on this board that don’t want to go with 12 point photons. When this whole discussion started over a year ago, lots of posters, myself included, were all for just bumping the photon to a 12 point base. It was simple, easy, and gave the Fed a nice new heavy weapon. We argued about it for quite awhile, ‘till we read and remembered what Steve wrote about X2 in module P6 back when it was published. That made us start looking in other directions, for changes to the photon that were really different, not just better versions of what had come before.

So, the basis for all of this is that we all felt that the preferred direction for X2 was to make it different, not necessarily bigger/better. This does two important things; it keeps BPV down to a reasonable level, preventing us from having a generation of battleship-cruisers, and it meets with SVC’s statement that this is how he plans to proceed with X2. To quote from his X2 preview article in module P6:

---

Quote:

One idea I had was to invent some kind of totally new weapon that everyone could have, and install it on every 2X ship. I have no idea what that weapon would be, but the concept of making 2X technology really different instead of just better than X1 technology is my central theme.

---

1. The photon is a benchmark weapon in this game system; it is the weapon everything else is balanced upon, which is why this discussion has seen so much talk before anything else, including disruptors; we all agreed early on that this has to be worked out first, in conjunction with some fairly solid agreement on what a Fed X2 ship will be capable of. Increases to the photon, therefore, will directly impact everything else. Giving the photon a basic 50% increase without taking away any of it’s X1 abilities will lead to equally drastic changes in the other heavy weapons. To again quote Steve from that same article: Weapons need to be more dangerous, but perhaps more than just firing twice as often or the oft-threatened speed-48 plasma torpedo. If we just double the firepower and shields of every ship, do we really gain anything?
2. Many of us also felt that BPV’s should remain at a reasonable threshold; less than 300 for an XCA. To get this BPV, and still have lots of different X toys (which, again, is where SVC seems to be heading), we agreed that the combat abilities of the X2 ship, particularly heavy weapons, needed to be changed very carefully. Major changes would lead to major increases in BPV, and we knew we couldn’t really have both new toys and big weapons. New toys won out, and the weapons started toning down.
3. Steve also said, in one of his very rare posts in this thread, that X2 ships must play nice with GW ships. The only way to make this happen, if you give X2 ships super-systems and weapons, will be truly enormous BPV’s. Again; we didn’t want to go there. Super ships sunk Supplement 2, and SVC made it very, very clear that he didn’t want anything like that again. And that doesn’t just mean “no R10 overloads and overloading phasers”…it was the whole aborted concept of super ships that was a problem. How they got to be super ships is immaterial. Whether you get R10 overloads or 24 point ones, the concept is still a problem; major changes that result in super-ships aren’t what he wans to see.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 08:50 am: Edit

---

Quote:

MJC, I don't understand your table? Are you comparing 6 overload disruptors against 3 overload-16 photons? Since the CX has 4 photons your comparison doesn't make any sense.

---

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 08:53 am: Edit

I think he was referring to 12 fast loads.