I agree that while the photon should get something, this isn't it. The fundamental point is that it is bad for the game. You have an inaccurate game-winning weapon. If you allow narrow salvoes (and why not) you have a 50% chance of winning a duel at R8.

As for shock, the only shocked ship the Feds ever made is the BCJ. Nobody makes a Shocking weapon that they fit to all their ships. In fact, the only non-mauler non-Rom shock ships listed in G1 are the BCJ, F6 and Kzin FH, which are limited production units that suffer shock only from their extra weapons and only under certain circumstances (overloads, rapid fire).

Look at UIM and DERFACS: they make disruptors more accurate. Not more damage, more hits. As most people would agree, the problem with the photon is not that it doesn't do plenty of damage, but that it doesn't do it often enough. This can be fixed in two ways: fastloads (which come in X) or improving accuracy. There are a plethora of schemes for solving the accuracy problem, none of which were accepted.

A photon is not an entity in isolation. It's fitted to a ship. While a Y125 CA and a Y180 BCG both have 4 photons, the extra power, phasers and drones cover the gap quite well.

The Fusion Beam is vastly worse than a photon in 90% of ways, but I don't hear people clamouring to improve them. Holding is the only refit they ever got.

By Randall Black (Randy) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 06:58 pm: Edit

Hydrans also have a Hellbore which in many ways outperform Photon torpedoes.

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 07:04 pm: Edit

And in many ways the hellbore does NOT outperform better than the photon.

By Randall Black (Randy) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 07:14 pm: Edit

I think the two best weapons in the game are Hellbore and PPD's plain and simple.
Just my opinion though. You can think what you want.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 09:47 pm: Edit

Jim,

I agree in principle...but as you said, of the umpteen ideas put forward to improve accuracy, none were accepted. If you can't make them more accurate, then making them bigger or more powerful is a trade off. Not perfect, but the idea of shock is a balancing factor. If you prefer, think of them not as heavy, but as "double overloaded" like fusion beams, or something. I personally would like to see an accuracy improvement, but it ain't happening.

Robert, as to hellbores vs. photons...you're right. They both have advantages. But having hellbores AND fusions is a pretty good deal, you gotta admit.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 11:44 pm: Edit

All right that one did it. I have to say something. Mike you wrote "double overloaded" and that caused a spark. So, what about double overloaded photons. When you suicide OV fusions you destroy the weapon. But what about a 18 to 24 point photon that requires a tube flush(no potty jokes please) for one turn before the tube can be re-armed?

I'll go back over there now.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 11:46 pm: Edit

Jim,I don't agree that this improvement is bad for the game. With all the improvements that are planned for the Plasma torps (sabot) especially and the constant increase in new drone types, plus the advent of Pf's which negate the Fed fighter advantage this improvement may be what balances the Feds with their foes. And as I said before the torps still have the same chance of missing, even with narrow salvos. The Feds are only going to get maybe one big shot of the type your describing before they are mixing it up at close range where they won't have the luxury of the "big stick" so to speak. Btw imagine what kind of trouble they will be in when 2 romulan warbirds uncloak and unleash 2 double fast R's. The Fed's need a credible response they can't continue with 30 year old tech and still compete in the face of constant improvement by their foes.

By Andrew C. Cowling (Andrew) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 05:22 am: Edit

Tossing in more (semi-serious) ideas for the photon:

Enhanced Proximity Fuse Refit

Around Y183 Federation researchers managed to shorten the minimum range at which a proximity-fused photon torpedo could be safely fired.

This refit allows proximity-fused photons to be fired at targets 50 Kkm away, a great improvement on the original 90 Kkm minimum.

At range 5-8, a prox photon's chance to hit is 1-4.

An overloaded photon torpedo may be proximity-fused with this refit - if so it may not be fired at targets between 0 and 4 hexes distant (and still cannot reach beyond 8 hexes).

An overloaded proximity photon does 50% of the damage that a non-proximity photon of the same overload level would inflict (round fractions down). Examples: a warhead strength 9 overload would be a damage 4 overloaded proximity photon, a 16-point overload would do 8 point of damage as an overloaded proximity photon.

Changing an overloaded torpedo from proximity to non-proximity, or vice versa, is done only in EA, just as for standard to proximity and proximity to standard. (Note that a photon cannot be "un-overloaded" by this method.)

BPV cost of refit: (guesstimated) around 2 points per launcher.

___________________________________________________________________

There may be something along these lines already suggested somewhere, I can't recall off-hand. It does strike me as too simple not to have already been proposed.

This is my two cents worth, should an improvement in late-war photon hit probabilities be felt to be needed. (Don't ask me to decide, I fly PPD/Plasma!)

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 08:11 am: Edit

Loren,

I don't know. While it sounds fair, I think having to wait three to four turns to fire it again (depending on firing mode chosen) is a bit much and would discourage people from using the option. You'd actually end up doing less damage than just normal photons over time that way. I think the shock effects and three turn arming are pretty good balancing factors, myself.

For fun, last night I played a quick scenario (the duel) with this rule. It worked out okay, but I think it's CRITICAL that no ship can start WSIII with heavy overloads...period. I used them in the game, and while I lost one before I could fire (•••• klingon sabre-dancing) them, the three that did hit were ugly. 72 points, all on a D7 #2 shield. Boom. That doesn't count the 12 points of phaser damage I scored, either.

So, in a way, having these as an option is nice, but the rematch left the Klingon player most anxious to stay away. He manuevered more, kept away from me, and was in general more conservative in his play. He won that one, mostly because I couldn't hit him. I did arm the things to heavy status, but only one hit. Rattled him a bit, but he eventually won because I suffered shock breakdown. (treated the SEP's just like the BCJ) He got a nice, free round of overloaded disruptors and several good hits with phasers.

Granted, I pushed it by firing all of them exclusively as heavies in both games, just to see what would happen.

All in all, it's an interesting variant. Not sure it will ever be accepted as a permanent rule, though.

Anyone else playtested these yet?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 02:20 pm: Edit

I was thinking this morning that Feds would then become a "Crunch or Burn" only race. You can play that way now but with 96 points of OV in your hands the tactic to rush in(mabey that should be walk in) would be too tempting.

It seems to me, to parallel WWII submarine torpeedos, that incremental improvements should be made to the photon. Small but useful ones.
Mabey only allow 18 points only for super OV. I also like Andrews idea. Spread these improvements out over the years like one in Y172 and another in Y179 (Super OV). I'm starting to agree that some additional dynamic should be granted to the photon.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 02:49 pm: Edit

Mike, thanks for playtesting the rule, I think that your playtest proves what I've been saying. It is more likely that the Fed will use a combination of loading patterns to improve his tactical options. It is unlikely that he will do the big crunch tactic unless the situation Promotes it. As far as spreading the improvements over time, that has historical merit, and I like it.Say they are made in reaction to tech developements by the other races similar to how these things actually happen in real life. I think I will research the tech timeline and post a revised proposal this weekend.
Andrew, the proposal you made has been made in SSJ-1.
One other option to consider if we apply a timeline distrubuted improvement,similar to Lorens suggestion is; Antimatter venting.
The early refit would be subject to ineffieciency, on a roll of 1-2 the tube post heavy overload use would have to be "vented" delaying rearming by +12 or +8 impulses for that tube only.
Also as you have already surmised destroyer/frigate class ships etc would be more vulnerable to shock than their larger brothers and size class 2 ships would recieve shock only if they fire more than 2 heavies in overload or more than 4 heavies in normal/prox load.
The reason for the size 2 rule is that the FRA in Omega do use heavies on their larger ships without suffering shock and they are essentially "Feds", so we can use them as a reference.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 02:55 pm: Edit

Hugh,

No problem. One thing I didn't mention was that we toyed around with x-ships and these rules a bit. The x-ship fast load is something to address. We allowed fast loading of heavies over two turns, and it can be done but the power output is prohibitive. Not as bad as fully overloaded normal photon 1 turn fast loads, but still very high. So, we figured it could be allowed, but that it wouldn't be used very often.

Just my two cents again.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 03:06 pm: Edit

My feeling on x photon power usage is that the Feds develop a more capable AWR that produces 2 warp instead of 1. But thats another subject.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 03:24 pm: Edit

The venting idea was to balance the power of the damage output. My idea is that the tube must remain inactive for one turn after the heavy OV is fired. So, if you arm one in two turns and fire it on the(held one turn) third then the tube must rest for turn four and could start rearming on turn five.

This would be a small improvement to the Feds all by itself. It has many drawbacks. A 18 point war head costs 5 points to load for two turns and you have to hang for one. But in the right place at the right time..heres 72 to chew. (The new Fed moto?)

If the Feds could also have an improved Prox.(R 10 to match the plasma opt range) Well, that would open a lot of doors with out creating something totaly new. On Star Trek TOS, TNG, DS9, STV, photons seem pretty reliable. Not that I want SFB to parallel ST but some new dynamic for the photon would seem in order. Some thing, anything.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 04:01 pm: Edit

Loren,

Speaking for myself, I'd never bother to use them if I had to wait an extra turn. The way Hugh has it now, you're already spending three turns arming them. Add a turn to vent, and now you're waiting four turns to arm a weapon for 50% more damage. Not worth it, not even for 96 points. This is why (IMHO). For one, the damage you could do in two turns just using normal overloads would be more in total...by 32 points. Also, in four turns of arming/venting, you'll likely take damage and loose at least one or maybe more torpedo tubes. Not even the plasma R takes 4 turns to fire. So, while I like the notion of the venting process, I think it's prohibitive.

Now, all that being said, here's a possible suggestion. Say that not venting your tubes has a penalty, like maybe increasing your SEP's when you fire. If you allow venting to keep your SEP's at the base level for your ship instead of building up, then maybe I'd do it every so often. Sort of like changing the barrels on a machine gun to let it cool and avoid breaking down, to draw a parallel.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 04:45 pm: Edit

Very interesting, so your asking for a breakdown if you don't vent but you can still load normally. Note that my venting idea delays loading by a smaller impulse total than 32 similar to Death bolt preparation. Rules wise it is easier than multiple SEP equations, but the Sep increase idea allows the Fed to retain more tactical control.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Well, I'm not sure how it would go, maybe size class would help. Say you're a DN. You load up 4 heavies and fire them on turn 4. Later, on turn 7, you're loaded up again and you choose NOT to vent. since this is 1 consecutive firing, increase your sep's by 2 per tube. If a CA used the same scenario, it would add three per tube. See what I mean? It imposes a natural penalty against smaller ships, which would be more likely to suffer breakdown anyway because of their size. So, if you start with a fixed SEP, you'll always have SOME threat of breakdown, but firing consecutive salvos of heavies makes it far worse. The idea of making it per tube works too, since firing more of them at once is obviously worse than firing just one or two.

I'd have to work it out, but I think this might also almost assuredly prevent a ship like the DNH or BB from ever firing an entire load of heavy photons consecutively.

Hugh, what do you think?

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 05:30 pm: Edit

Andrew's prox refit wouldn't break anything, but it's barely useful. Except in very heavy EW (2 shift), you're going to do substantially less damage, so it's certainly not worth 2 BPV per tube.

It does of course fix the odd situation wherein a photon has worse best-case accuracy at 5-8 than at 9-12, but I can't see people using it much.

I'd proposed a similar semi-prox ability which did 3/4 the damage (round down) for +1 to hit at range 5-30.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 05:31 pm: Edit

Hugh - it is bad for the game. Look at Mike's first example. If you get the big hammer, you win. If you don't (second example), you die. The end.

---

Quote:

Btw imagine what kind of trouble they will be in when 2 romulan warbirds uncloak and unleash 2 double fast R's.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 05:54 pm: Edit

Jim,

I agree with the notion that photons could use an improvement to either rof or accuracy. But, as has already been covered, it ain't happening. I wish it would, but that hardly matters.

Your analysis of my games isn't quite right, either (not your fault at all...you just were'nt there to really see what happened, and perhaps my summary was too short). The reason I won the first one is the same reason I'd have one even with normal photons...I got lucky, and pasted him with three hits. 48 points to a D7's #2 is pretty bad damage. The rest is certainly great, but the battle would have been over with regardless. The second game I lost was mostly due to the klingon player taking better advantage of his ship...not because of any failure in Hugh's proposal. I missed, plain and simple. Granted, the breakdown sucked, but that's the tradeoff this rule provides. As I said in that post, in a normal game, I'd never load up all of them that way. One or two for some extra punch, yes, but not all...too much risk of shock. I think the option of having that punch is viable, especially given that no other option has ever been accepted.

In any case, it sounds as if you and I agree that photons need some help...we just differ on what we'll accept and won't.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 05:54 pm: Edit

Mike looks like it could be done I'll try to devlop a chart for sep's this weekend.
Jim If you read Mikes' playtest you will note that he used exclusively Heavy torps with ol's. If he did not do this the second time around he probably would have had a better fight. AS far as your suggestions for torp improvements Accuracy has been shot down too many times to count, repair time could be partially modified by using hasty repairs as lights, rate of fire would really change things, possibly making the Feds unbeatable, R1 standards and no R1 feedback would be a very limited improvement and not change the tactical options much.
Btw just because we disagree doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the commentary keep it coming eventually some good will come of it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 06:13 pm: Edit

The idea I had was two turns to arm. Fire on turn two. But if it is super overloaded then you must vent to tube for one turn. Any longer then it would be a waste. However, a strike of 4 photons with 18 points each would indeed be an advantage. Thats 40 internals against a standard cruiser. Then add mizia phasers. Job done! Even if only two hit thats a down shield plus some. You could alternate photons two at a time and have no photons only on one turn. (Every third) Beyond 18 points is too much. Having an NCL park and hold a C7 is not right. I don't even use 16 point OVs much, but think of the deterent or base busting capabilitys.

There is one way I thought of for increasing accuracy. A flash photon. Exploads flashing a target. Adds a +1 to hit the following impulse for the firing ship.(Could be used to expose cloaks as to which hex but would not provide a lock on.) Uses prox rules so no targeting at less than range 12. (Thank you Mr. Data.)

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 06:42 pm: Edit

Loren,

the flash photon is alot like the tracer photon rules thread. It's an interesting idea, but there isn't much lee way in making photons more accurate.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 06:49 pm: Edit

A plus one for photons could go a long way for standards or other proxs. also note the flash would effect phaser fire too. Not much but when you short a Ledg. Wep. Off....(Sheesh, or when your not!)

Not the big fix but its out there. I'll read the Tracer post.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 06:57 pm: Edit

I've been posting "Plus one" Ooops switch that to 'minus one". Ahh Duhh. Sorry about that chief.