Mike R-

Thank you for the summary...it helps (I think) to be reminded where we have been so that we can get to where we want to be!

Back to the discussion!

Can we "settle" on the basic questions yet?

i.e. X2 Photon to be an improved yield warhead, doing a base (10 or 12?) points of damage with an arming energy cycle of 2+3 (or 3+3) energy points and no change to the base to hit tables...(a number of proposals included increasing the to hit range number on both the standard photon max range and the Proximity Photon max range, separate issue that could be decided if we can "nail down" the 10/12 (20/24 o.l.) question.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 11:26 am: Edit

I agree with no change to the to hit tables. I experimented a great deal with that and it is either fruitless or opens a con of worms with other races weapons. It would be nice to change the table but the only changes that I can find practical would be fractional and you can't have that.

The two dice photon can work this way but two dice change the averages a lot to the middle. Again you almost need fractional results to balance it out.

ultimately, I believe the Photon and Disruptor tables should remain the same. This is an automatic step towards playing nice with GW. (not the only way but is one way that certainly is easy)

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 04:45 pm: Edit

Have fun with this one guys. I'm done. Sorry I stopped by. Feel free to bash the hell out of each other until you're blue in the face. Sorry I'm not going to get a chance to contribute (as much I might want to), but I don't feel like dealing with this level of aggrevation. Despite what you might say, I'm certain what I have to offer will be rejected out of hand by most of the folks assembled here, so I wont waste my time or anyone else's by any continued effort on X2 in this forum. This isn't constructive debate, its "my way or the highway". I wish you all luck. When (and if) X2 comes along, I'll make my submission. If it sees the light of day, great. If not, so be it.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 04:49 pm: Edit

Do I sense an area of agreement?

1. No Change to Photon Torpedo to hit tables.

To be honest, The only change here I'd be willing to support is a higher range bracket...(or extending the max range on the table.)

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 05:00 pm: Edit

Okay this kind of brings me back to some ideas from a few weeks ago. I like Mike's flexi-16-photon. I also like the 10/20 photon. For what it's worth I also like the 8/12/16/20/24 photon given that I'm a Fed fan, but I don't want to see anything like that for early-X2. It's just simply too much too soon. It's something we should grow into if at all.

Anyway my (modified) suggestion is to give Size Class 4 and smaller ships (yes I'm thinking SC5 ships as well) Mike's flexi-photon and Size Class 3 and larger ships the 10/20 photon.

Furthermore Loren and a couple of others posted ideas about pulse-fire photons and photon shotguns. I think those features could be added to the flexi-photon. We also discussed a "slowton" photon seeker but it didn't seem to gain much traction.

The 10/20 photon is obvious: bigger warhead = more damage to target. No die roll bonus, no fast-load (other than existing X1 stuff). The result is you can load an 8-10 standard or an up to 20 overload over two turns (anything 8>=10 you can select if it's standard or overload on firing). X1 fastloads for the 10/20 are still limited to 8pt standards and 12pt overloads. This photon works better on larger ships that have more power.

The flexi-photon: very flexible firing options. No more damage to target but better opportunities to actually DO damage. If you add in the pulse/shotgun photons you have more tactical flexibility. This photon works better on smaller ships that have less power and rely on maneuverability and flexibility in combat.

For the sake of argument, if we went with something like this call the flexi-photon the Advanced Photon Torpedo (APHOT) and the 10/20 photon the Heavy Photon Torpedo (HPHOT).

I also like an idea someone posted about using proximity photon bursts as a sort of "flashcube" effect to give a die roll bonus (let's say -2) to the follow-on photon shot. The bonus only applies if the prox hits. You "lose" a proximity torpedo (it does no damage on a hit) but you gain an improved standard shot. The idea is the prox burst "paints" the target for the follow-on shot. This would limit such a bonus to range 9+ shots. This just happens to fit in with the general idea of "forcing" longer range combat in X2 especially since the ideal range for such flashcube-photons would be 9-12 hexes. Flashcube-photons could be fired by either flexi-photons or 10/20 photons.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 05:04 pm: Edit

Just one set of photon rules please, whatever those happen to be - it's a one size fits all weapon.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 05:09 pm: Edit

Andrew, admittedly one set of rules is the simplest solution but I do like the idea of customizing photons for the different ship sizes to their performance capabilities. If we went with one I'd stick with the flexi-photon for early-X2.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 05:22 pm: Edit

on "Flash Cube" proximity Photons...since the "weapon strike" is going to be in the same hex as that target no matter what...the "effect" of the flash cube is (in theory) going to reflect a range of results...from zero effect (and thus no benefit to the follow-on shot) up to some maximum possible bonus to the follow-on shot. instead of "rolling to hit" a specific hypothetic location that would yeild best results...why not just roll a 6 sided die...and apply some sort of modifier to the results that is "reasonable".

Since the beneifit is (as proposed by RBN as) '-2' we could assign the value of the die roll as minus bonus factor plus 1. the results then would be -1d6+1 = {-5 to 0 range of values} or and average die result of -2.5.

An alternative could be -1d6+2 = {-4 to +1} and the average die result is -1.5.

Just suggesting that there are hypothetically many possible targets for such a proximity Photon torpedo that would give the flash cube results...there isn't just one unique solution...the method chosen should reflect that "reality".

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 05:46 pm: Edit

Jeff, no offense but I'm not quite following you here. Can you reword that? Maybe I just went into "dummy" mode but it's not gelling for me.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 06:54 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

. 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.

---

---

Quote:

You are forgetting the full overload status you can get with 2 turn arming

---

---

Quote:

Since the CX has 4 photons your comparison doesn't make any sense.

---

---

Quote:

If anyone thinks that's wrong, that we shouldn't explore other options, I challenge you to tell me why.

---

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

No, what I said was that just because not everyone has fallen on their knees and immediately accepted that 12 point photons are the only option doesn't make us wrong. You have been completely inflexible, considering no ideas but your own at every turn. I, and the others, have been trying to find alternate options. As I have said repeatedly, it may very well come down to 12 point photons. But that may not be the only option, and you should be bright enough to know it. Apparently, you aren't. The "challenge" I posed was to tell me why we shouldn't at least consider other ideas. We've considered yours...even posted several SSD's with it, to get a feel for it. I guess, though, that you don't feel you should return the same courtesy to us.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 07:08 pm: Edit

MJC, could I ask a favour? Please stop using your acronyms SSReo and GSReo - these make me stop and think 'what does that mean' each and every time. Please use 'reinf' which, being accustomed to SFB jargon, I understand immediately (and that will be more intuitive for casual players too).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 07:23 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Can we "settle" on the basic questions yet?

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 07:29 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Let's not.
Let's come up with dozens of different proposals and let Steve take what he likes.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 07:38 pm: Edit

Well there comes a problem with it...having lots of "yes men" each in their thread might creat dozens of proposals with fatal-flaws.

Hopefully SPP and SVC are smart enough to spot them though.


Also there is the risk of building a fantastically well developed weapon that can't be balanced to other weapons...I think it'ld suck if the Klingon X2 ships never have more than 4 X2 Disruptors ( even in the final day of the tradewars period ) but the Feds had their Four 24 point Photons from day one!


Do we want to keep butting head in an attempt to iron out problems or just start putting up the proposals we like in a thread of our own?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 08:32 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

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.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 08:32 pm: Edit

I think balance is the key. When I was supporting 24 point photons - and there may come a day that I do again - I had equipped the Klingon BC with six disruptors, with the UIM/DERFACS integration, 210 degree arcs, and capacitors. That felt pretty balanced to me. For a lighter photon proposal, I put fcur similar disruptors on the ship instead.

The troublesome part of this, to me, is finding some kind of new weapon for everyone. I know the P5 is new, and all should get it to some degree or other, but it isn't really "new". It's just a better phaser.

I say let's quite fighting over all this stuff and try to make some progress. I'll even extend the first "olive branch". MJC, I'm sorry if I've been rude or offensive. I will try to be more open to the 12 point photon, but ask that you, as well, try not to discount anything else that others may put up. Sound like a deal?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 08:43 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I think balance is the key. When I was supporting 24 point photons - and there may come a day that I do again - I had equipped the Klingon BC with six disruptors, with the UIM/DERFACS integration, 210 degree arcs, and capacitors. That felt pretty balanced to me. For a lighter photon proposal, I put fcur similar disruptors on the ship instead.

---

---

Quote:

The troublesome part of this, to me, is finding some kind of new weapon for everyone. I know the P5 is new, and all should get it to some degree or other, but it isn't really "new". It's just a better phaser.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 08:44 pm: Edit

Hmmm...yeah, I guess I can see that. Certainly speed 32 is a weapon of sorts, as is the S-bridge thingy. Defensive weapons are part of the picture. The SIF and S-bridge may be just what we need.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 09:20 pm: Edit

I might have been more open to a 10 or 12-base photon before reading the "scattering the superstack" thread.

I find the long-range game in SFB to be too effective and too boring. Nobody gets within 30 and bashes units with massed prox photons. Boar--ing.

For that reason, I will tend to resist 10 or 12 point standard loads, because they improve the long-range game.

I would prefer a 8/20 or 8/24 photon.

Unless we're going to come up with a "middle load" concept where the photon is overloadable to 20/24 out to range-8, midloadable to 10/12 (5/6 prox) out to, say 16, then drops to standard loads. at 17+.

I just throw the idea out. Feel free to ignore.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 09:33 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I just throw the idea out. Feel free to ignore.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 09:55 pm: Edit

On the Above list of possible restrictions.
Six UIM Disruptors firing R23-30 will hit on 1-3 for 2 points of damage yeilding 6 points of damage per turn.
Four heavy 12 point Disruptors firing as proximity warheads every other turn will yeild ( 1-3 x 4 x 6 ) 12 points of damage or 6 points of damage per turn.
Since neither is enough to get past BTTY the difference is purely academic.

On the other hand six Disruptors at 15 will yeild (4/6 x 3 x 6 ) 12 points of damage per turn but four fastloaded heavy Photons proxies will yeild ( 3/6 x 6 x 4 ) 12 points of damage.

Admittedly the Photons will get better at R9-12 and the Disruptors wont.


All in all I don't see a need to put any of my above list of restrictions on heavy standards ( and heavy proxies ) but if fleet battles do create boring proxy blasts at range type battles then maybe some of the restrictions should be apllied.

However I think an R30 restriction is needed against heavy Standard to make base busting less easy.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 11:06 pm: Edit

To me its all about target BPV.

I want an XCC to have the combat capability approximately equal to a CX.

You can't take a CX, add some power, fancy new drones, special bridge, P5, ASIF, etc., etc., plus increase the photon warhead by 50% without radically increasing the BPV.

4x24 Photons and 6xDisruptors plus all the other X2 goodies adds up to too much BPV for my tastes.

If you want your XCC to have 2x24 photons plus all the other X2 goodies then show me the SSD. If we can keep the BPV in the 250 range then I don't see a problem with it.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 11:11 pm: Edit

RBN-

Re:flashcube proxy photons.

since the prosimity photon is not fired for effect but rather to expose the target for the benefit of a better followup shot for standard photon torpedo, i am suggesting that you do not roll to hit for the proximity photon at all.

assume that it explodes some where in the targets hex, and the roll you make is to determine how effective the proximity photon "exposed" the target.

this exposure is measured by the amount of the bonus. roll a 6 sided die.

on a result of a:
'1' the bonus is +1 to hit.
'2' the bonus is +0 to hit.
'3' the bonus is -1 to hit.
'4' the bonus is -2 to hit.
'5' the bonus is -3 to hit.
'6' the bonus is -4 to hit.

thus the "range of results" is +1 to -4 bonus to the to hit roll for the follow on shot of the standard photon. the "Average" result is -1.5 bonus which is not as good as the -2 you proposed...but close while giving a variation.

or you could "bump" the table up or down by 1 to get an average result of -2.5 or -0.5...

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 11:26 pm: Edit

Jeff I think I follow you but it almost sounds like you're saying there should be a range of effect similar to phaser fire. Did I read you right? My point is hit or miss using the bonus. Where do you stand on this?