Loren, correct me if I'm misinterpreting your assumption that the heavies load in 2 turns. The way the rule will work is that the heavies are loaded in a 3-turn arming cycle and you have to decide if you will arm in this mode at the start of the second turn arming sequence. The standard heavy load arming cycle would be 2/2/2 with the third turn deciding whether to ol or not.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 01:28 am: Edit

We are talking two different things. You're talking heavy photons from P6, right?

What I was talking about was an idea that poped into my head when Mike Raper (April 9, 9:47pm) used the term "double overload, like fusions". My following post (April 9, 11:44) presented an idea to allow photons to be overloaded beyond 16 points. Our posts might be getting the two types mixed up. Lets call Heavys the same and the other eXtra overload (XOL)

I was going to call them super overload but that would be SOL. Which what the idea probably is anyway. Mike playtested it and found it not lame, but not the finnished answer either. I think thats what he ment.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 08:15 am: Edit

Okay, just to clarify so that we're all on the same page:

Megaphoton: From P6, a normal photon that does 50% more damage for 50% more power. Used only on size class 2 ships.

Heavy Photon: Hughs idea, a photon loaded over 3 turns, 50% more power, 50% more damage, and has shock effects. Can be used by any photon armed ship.

Now, in regards to my double overload quote. Sorry to confuse anyone, but the reason I said it that way was to underscore the fact that this rule would mean firing a heavy photon could end up breaking down your ship. The "double overload" fusion explodes. I just wanted to show that the two ideas are similar...that is, that putting that much power into a weapon has risks.

As for my playtest results, Loren is right...I found the idea useful and think it's a great start, but that it will require a bit of tweaking (sep cost, rules for x-ships, etc.) before it's complete.

There...that clear everything up?

Hugh, it would be interesting to see an arming chart. One that shows how the heavy photon is armed, just like the normal chart. That way it's clear to everyone when and how you allot your power, and when you record that you're doing heavy overloads. Note that I didn't say "declare". The reason for that should be obvious...if your opponent KNOWS you're packing four heavy photons, he'll make it tres hard to hit him with it. No sense volunteering this information. I just recorded it on my sheet. Granted, in my game we both knew exactly what I was doing, but played it like he didn't.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 12:27 pm: Edit

Ok Mike and Loren, I'll start on this right away. Btw the X-rules you are refering to is in X-1 or were they revised in CL23 which are you using so I can take a look at them, you've made me curious.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 05:38 pm: Edit

Mike - I'd disagree that a D7 is doomed if it takes 48 (3 normal OLs) on its #2. It's obviously pretty unhappy about it and at a substantial disadvantage, but it is still in with a good shout if the positions are right: Assuming R4, the Fed is likely to have to HET to avoid a tractor, and may then eat drones, an SP and the hack-&-slash, followed by a turn with no photons.

However, bump that up by 50% to 72 and that's 24 more internals (total 50ish if phasers are added), which is well into the shuttle bay and stripping lots of power.

The same applies at R8: 3 16-pt hits hurts the Klink and means that he has to retaliate quickly while in no good position to do it; 2 hits just knocks off a shield and bit of fluff. 2 24-pt hits (the expected) is as 3x16 above, and 3x24 means he's doomed.

It rather depends on exactly what ships we're discussing, but we can assume late war, so D7K vs CAR+ or similar.

Essentially what this does is give the Fed another 50% photon tubes, with funny arming rules and less resilience.

And as for the second game, "I missed, plain and simple". Right. So with 24-pt photons, the dice decide the game and you don't. My point exactly.


[bad analogy time]
Photons are like a sledgehammer. Crude, simple, effective but not exactly versatile. The 24-pt warhead is just a bigger sledgehammer. It might work, but you'd be better off with a pickaxe or pneumatic drill (read - drones, plasma).


Hugh - "R1 standards and no R1 feedback would be a very limited improvement and not change the tactical options much."

Play against Romulans some day and come back to me. Admittedly it's not much, but it's one of the things that Fed players get to hate.


Loren's 18-pointer won't break anything as such, but it seems a bit half-baked. For a start, the other races will start claiming that they can double- or suicide-overload their HBs, disruptors, particles, etc etc.


The one impression I've got from all these photon propsals over the years is that The Steves aren't going to accept any of them.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 08:06 pm: Edit

Jim you are probably right about the Steves accepting any Photon proposal, but I'm still going to try. As far as your analysis of Mikes' test it is likely that the Klingon will adjust his tactics if he knows the Fed has enhanced tubes forcing the Fed to arm his torps differently. On a fixed map you may have legitimate concerns, on a floater the klingon has the advantage to be sure.
Your R1 idea is something that is annoying and I have played Fed vs Romulan many times. Mostly I've played historical scenarios but I have played a few tournament duels as well. If I didn't know something about the Feds I wouldn't have proposed these rules.
The r1 fix is something that could be included in an overall Photon tech timeline which is something I am trying to do, it seems like a no brainer (at least r1 fire does).
Some additional thoughts, when the plasma races recieve the sabot options they will have to apply it to each launcher separately. Suppose the same goes for enhanced tubes with a limit of 2 on size 3 and below, unlimited on some size 3 through 2 and on bases. With there being 2 generations of tubes the first allowing light torp use being a general refit availble with either the + refit or shortly thereafter. The second the The fully enhaced tubes coming online circa 182.
This would solve some of the "overwhelming damage" problems that Jim has been adamant about, would fit the tech timeline and still result in the more flexible loading/firing/and tactical options for the Feds.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 11:42 pm: Edit

The range 1 issue is indeed a weak point of the Photon Torp. All other weapons except the PPD can fire at R1. An advantage the other races have over the Feds. Small yes, but you would think the Federation would address the issue. I wouldn't think it would be that difficult to solve. Perhaps a 1-4 hit for standard R-1. Thats just a game compromise. Why a OV photon could hit and not a standard is beyond me. (a physical explaination that is. In game terms its easy, thats just the way it is.)

By Derek Lenzi (Catdude) on Friday, April 12, 2002 - 02:24 am: Edit

Andrew C.-there is an enhanced photon fuze rule in SS1. It doesn't help normal proxes to hit, but if you roll 1-2 at R9-12 or a 1 at R13-30, you do the full 8 pts. Used with overloads, you get a -2 adjustment, and a miss made into a hit scores half damage.

By Andrew C. Cowling (Andrew) on Friday, April 12, 2002 - 04:48 am: Edit

Derek, sounds nice - thanks for supplying the data. Was there a BPV cost associated with it?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, April 12, 2002 - 09:04 am: Edit

I don't so much mind the R1 limitation as much as I do the feedback damage rule. Being damaged for taking advantage of your weapons capabilities like that just seems unfair to me...maybe I'm wrong. Since photons are prized so much for their crunch power, it's natural that getting close and letting someone have it is one of the Fed tactics of choice...the basic rule book even talks about that in the photon rules section, as I recall. I can see feedback at range zero, but range one bothers me.

I think most people would agree that photon damage and arming costs are acceptable...it's accuracy and arming time that's the gripe. I'd settle for making it a bit more accurate, or allowing players to fast load in normal ships (perhaps with a penalty...I'm just woolgathering here, so I don't have a detailed solution) but since those options seem to be rejected out of hand, extra damage or other changes seems the only way to go.

I have a question...call it a poll, if you will. If you could improve any one thing about the photon, would it be:

Damage
Accuracy
Arming Time
Power Cost
Nothing at all

No need to qualify your remarks (though you can if you like)...I'm just curious to see how the majority of folks feel about it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, April 12, 2002 - 12:45 pm: Edit

Accuracy.

Above I mentioned in all Star Trek photons usually hit. Granded they're usually fired at short range but, well, it seems to me the Feds and their huge science teams would evetually come up with something. Or do Federation Captains never complain?

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Friday, April 12, 2002 - 12:53 pm: Edit

Accuracy.

A standard photon is simply not reliably accurate beyond range 8, and a proximity photon reduces damage to half that of the disruptor (the primary competing DF weapon) over a two turn period.

I like the SSJ1 Enhanced Proximity Photon rules myself, though we'll never see them 'moved over' into the official SFU.

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Friday, April 12, 2002 - 01:04 pm: Edit

Loren, you're trying to bring SFB up to television ST?! Shame on you! There'd be no plot if they went around whiffing their torpedos.

By Kevin M. McCollum (Sfbl5r) on Friday, April 12, 2002 - 04:38 pm: Edit

Photon torpedoes hit so often in TOS because the Enterprise had an outstanding crew and legendary weapons officer.

Quit your crying about photon torpedoes! They are just fine!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, April 12, 2002 - 05:15 pm: Edit

The NCC-1701 did not have an outstanding crew at first. They just became that way. And we ain't crying. Nobody cries over a game. But it is the only original weapon that hasn't progressed in any way. So the discussion is worth having.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Friday, April 12, 2002 - 05:44 pm: Edit

Accuracy.

Not to crank up the overall damage output as such, but to
a) reduce the horrible effects that EW has, especially with those infernal ECM drones
b) make it more of a game of skill, and less one of luck.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 02:21 am: Edit

What Jim said. Ya. Hay, I thought I was saying the Photon was just fine a while back. I've been converted! OoohhhMMmmmm. ¥K

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 12:30 pm: Edit

Well, the verdict is definately in...accuracy seems to be the unanimous fix of choice. For those that insist the photon neither needs nor deserves an upgrade, read the thread on "Late War Plasma Fix." Yet another nifty set of upgrades for plasmas. That means that as it stands, late war weapons work out like this:

Plasmas: shotgun, enveloping, sabot, ecm, and downsizing are all options available to any plasma armed ship.

Drones: fast drones, armored drones, ECM drones, MIRV drones...all with a wide variety of warhead strength and endurance, availabel to the drone player. I know the feds use drones...but so do the Klingons and the Orions. And THEY benefit from these other options...the feds don't.

Disruptors: UIM, DERFACS

Now, these are all what I call "old" weapons...weapons used by major races for a long time. The photon is the ONLY ONE OF THESE not to receive any upgrade, short of fast loading...and that only for x-ships. Surely it's time to allow some kind of upgrade? Even a small one? I just can't beleive that the Federation, this scientifically advanced government that fielded the first X-ships, has made no improvement to their primary heavy weapon in all this time. I've seen alot of options, some of the more palatable ones (to me) being overloaded proxies, heavy photons from this thread, and modified P6 rules allowing the unlimited downloading of any photon ship to mini-photons. Further, making the UIM compatible seems a popular alternative.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 02:47 pm: Edit

Sorry guys, I haven't been on for awile. My father in law just passed away and things are in upheaval over here. I just wanted to echo Mike and say that some or several improvements to the photon are needed. I am still working on a written proposal for the enhanced photon rules and timeline and will credit all of you in it (even those who don't like it). I will post an abbreviated version here hopefully by Sun, but considering the real life situation it may be delayed.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 02:49 pm: Edit

Hugh, Sorry to hear that. Hope everything turns out okay for you and your family. I'm sure everyones prayers are with you.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 03:47 pm: Edit

Thanks Mike.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 02:10 am: Edit

Take your time Hugh. Life first then the game.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 03:05 am: Edit

Hugh when you have time, I was wondering. Your heavy photon rule. Two points over three turns gets you a 12 point warhead that is NOT an overload. There fore can be fired beyond range 8? And also can be fired as a prox. warhead of 6 points? Thats the primary advantage, right?

Hmmm. Then perhaps you could overload them to 18.(2+2+5) Thats almost a plasma R power requirement for less than a plasma Fs damage. (and a DF PL-R would do more) My point is that this sounds reasonable(or there is presedence for it being reasonable) and could fit into the history with no problem.(the whole concept that is) I.E. "This is how the Federation managed to survive and defeat the Andros and the ISC." There is no mention that the photon never changed through out SFB history. And in fact, it dose not change the photon in any way if your tactics don't require it.

I do see one thing that SVC or SPP is going to probably bring up. A normal photon is loaded 2+2+1 (+1= third turn holding) so the 2+2+2 of a heavy will effectivly get you 4 extra damage for 1 point of power, which is beyond the photon power curve. What would be the hold costs? This needs to be addressed.

Now I'm gonna get really depressing. Sorry. But lets say then you must pay the hold cost plus the two points to make it a heavy. Well then, is it a heavy or a 12pt overload cause thats the same arming cycle except a 12pt OL can be done in 2 turns. The only way I can see to address both these issues it to commit to arming a heavy on the first turn and of course that wont work. There may be another way, I just don't see one.

Maybe it would be easier to say that at some point (Y179-Y180) the Federation was able to increase the yield and stability of their photon torpeedos to 12 points as a non-overload status. They could still arm them as 2+2 but 3+3 also results in a torpeedo that can be fired beyond R8 and can be proximity fused. Non-Federation players should not have this ability.(at least not for five or more years.)

The remaining question is will this increase the BPV of a ship or just catch the Feds up with the rest of the galaxy?

My eyes hurt now.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 03:14 am: Edit

Akk I'm back. Quick finnishing note. The arming cycle must be 3+3. A 2+4 would be a 12pt OL. A 3+2 should be a 8pt standard with the extra point lost.

Good night!

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 08:12 am: Edit

Loren,

I can address this partially from my playtest experience. You are right about the power curve to some point, but what you missed was that, with an extra turn needed to arm, your damage curve is no different. Say I fire a heavy. It took 2+2+2 to arm it, and I got 12 points out of it. A normal photon is 2+2, and I get 8 points. In six turns, I'll fire the normal 3 times, for 12 points arming cost and 24 damage. In six turns, I'll fire the heavy twice...at 12 points arming cost and 24 damage. It's just spread out differently. As for the hold cost of two, that's actually MORE than normal. You're power and damage are increased by 50%, but hold cost by 100%. See what I mean?