Yes, and let me confirm I'm just trying to help out constructivly. Not directly pushing any ideas here.
So then you would have to commit to arming a heavy on the first turn inorder to close any rules loop holes. The damage curve is fine. Its the arming curve that I think will be questioned. Remember, the rule must leave as little as possible to player Interpretation.

I want something for the Feds Photon, but its got to convince the Steves. And that can be as daunting as blowing up a Star Base with a Frigate. Or with the right arguement..be as easy as blowing up a Frigate with a Star Base!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 03:15 pm: Edit

I guess I have to ask this. How would you, by vurtue of strict observation of the rules and play, prevent a player from deciding which type a photon(OL or heavy)was armed at the moment of fire? Say, I arm a heavy but circumstances lead to a range 1 situation. So, I could just say I've been loading a 10pt OL. My power accounting would be correct. Yes, thats cheating, and I don't cheat(whats the point? Its a game.) But its something that has to be worked out.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 05:26 pm: Edit

I see your concern...hmmm. I didn't consider that since I don't cheat. My solution would be that it must be written on the EA form in the notes section that that's what you decided on the second turn. It's like plasmas and ppt's. Someone could conceivably fire a real one, and it be weasled or outrun, and they could claim it's a ppt. They have to account for it on the sheet.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 09:44 pm: Edit

Second turn EA?

I wasn't inferring about anybodys honesty, I hope you all see.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 10:34 pm: Edit

Loren,

No offense taken, I assure you...it just hadn't occured to me. 2nd turn EA should do it, I'd think.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 10:52 pm: Edit

Cool.
O.k. So that takes care of the April 14, 3:15 concern. Good. Thats fair. Your point about the plasmas is right on.

I have something on my mind but I have writers block. So, I'll wait untill you post the rule draft. Also, would you concider multiple approches to a photon enhancement?

I'm still wondering about some of the arming issues I posted earlier. And some of the solutions.

By David Crew (Catwholeaps) on Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 11:23 pm: Edit

Just mark a heavy photon the same way you'd mark whether it was a prox or not (in the EAF box).

Isn't the '3-turn arming heavy photon' (if I have the right terminology here) just adding to the Fed's accuracy weakness? i.e. even LESS die rolls but more damage for each one - more of a 'if I hit I win, if I miss I lose' situation.

To fix the Feds accuracy problem you need to increase the to-hit chances or increase the rate of fire. Say a one-turn 1/2 photon - a rapid-fire photon (all the average damages stay the same but more die rolls pulls the standard deviation down). Noone will buy that though (shortening the arming cycle removes one of the Feds BIG weaknesses - especially in knife fights).

The last choice is some sort of 'prox overload' trading damage for accuracy in the overload regime, the ultimate manifestation of which is 'Photons do exactly average damage - no die roll is made' - so each full OL fired at range 8 would do 8 points (ignoring EW). This seems the best path to take to me - and doesn't make them a nightmare when used in fleets where the photon is currently perfectly fine. It doesn't fix the EW problem but maybe look elsewhere for that (like an ECCM drone... [shrug]).

Cat.

[Note added later: And now having read the archives this has all been said before - which isn't surprising I suppose.]

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 12:55 am: Edit

Loren you have some good points, I believe the solution is simply to designate which pattern you are going to use on turn 1. If we use the refit idea I stated above the destroyers and frigates will only have the heavy option on a max of two tubes. As for the holding costs they would kick in when it is appropriate eg. when the secondturn of arming for the light and standard are done and the 3rd turn of arming for the heavy is done. So to prevent any confusion, the simplest way is to mark you load pattern on turn 1 for each tube. What do you think?

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 01:02 am: Edit

I have also come to the conclusion that the Steves would probably be better inclined to accept photon improvements if the Klingons get something too. I'm sure they are convinced that the Feds and Klingons are balanced, that is why they have stated in the past that the UIM was created to make the disruptor statistically even to the photon. So unless there is an idea to improve klick disruptors alongside the photon proposal they are going to be reluctant to accept for fear on game balance. Any opinions on this observation?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 04:41 am: Edit

First, I like the type designation onthe second turn EA. First turn is tacticly too early and would likely stragle the Feds. There really no difference to this. Though I'm not sure what you mean by lights. Still, turn two you designate your photon as heavy (standard is default) and the tube cannot fire untill turn three. Also I realy think a enhancement should be a general improvement. To have ships with some heavy tubes and some not would really require new ssd's. I'd be hard to convince otherwise and I think SVC would be too.

Feds Vs Klingon? Balanced. Are all the improvements everybody else gets to balance against the Feds?? That dose seem to be the asumption. I think the Feds got a little catchin' up to do. Truely I think they really need some more tactical options with the photon. Like I said before, the Fed science core never came up with any improvements?

Personaly I'm likin' the 12 becomes standard with a 3+3 only load. April 14, 3:05 am. Any body got an opinion on that?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 06:54 am: Edit

The UIM makes the disruptor vastly superior stastically to the photon, period. Add DERFACS in there and you've got the Klingons with two different systems to enhance disruptors, while the feds get none. Just look at the charts...a range 30 disruptor overloaded with UIM has AT LEAST an 80% chance to hit all the way out to it's max range. So, let's assume a D7 fires at range 8. His overloaded disruptors will do six points. Statistically, over two turns you'll hit with six of your disruptors, assuming you fire four each turn. That's 36 points. In the same period, at the same range, a fed CA will hit only 50% of the time. Assuming MAXIMUM OVERLOADS on his photons, statistically, he'll only do 32 points. Toss in the difference in power cost (four points for each disruptor, versus eight for each photon) and what you end up with is the disruptor having a faster firing rate, better damage potential through accuracy(even if it does drop off at range), and a lower power cost. Then, it gets worse...newer klingon ships have vastly improved firing arcs for their disruptors, and the larger (class 2) ships have range 40 disruptors. I'd say they don't need any more improvements.

By Kevin M. McCollum (Sfbl5r) on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 11:02 am: Edit

Mr. Raper, you are killing me. Yes, the disruptor hits more often and does more damage over two turns (if you don't burn out your UIM) which SHOULD hit over two different shields AND hit (18 points, each turn) two different allocations of reinforcement! So, if you have ten points of reinforcement each turn, you score eight points of shield damage over two turns! The photons delivered all their damage on one turn. The result is more damage delivered to the shields of the Klingon vessel!

How much experience do you have playing a battle against a Klingon with a Fed?

Oh, and all the plasma improvements are to help out the poor Romulans and Gorn vs. fast moving ships on an open map. Since the start of this game, ships have steadily increased in power available (which translates into faster moving ships) which means a plasma torp, on an open map, rarely reaches a target with significant warhead strength.

By Stephen W. Fairfield (Sfairfield) on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 11:36 am: Edit

Generally speaking Federation/Romulan/Klingon ships are balanced in terms of firing modes, if you include all their weapon systems:

Federation	Romulan	Klingon
Normal Photon	Normal Plasma	Normal Disruptor
Overload Photon	Enveloping Plasma	Overload Disruptor
Proximity Photon	Bolted Plasma	DERFACS Disruptor
G-Rack/Drone	Fast Load Plasma	Drone
G-Rack/ADD	Shotgun Plasma	ADD

The UIM is the only system without a clear analog, but even then, it's only useful if the Disruptor user is willing to enter within overload range of its target and it can burn out, a bigger problem with the higher rate of fire for disruptors than if a similar system existed for Photons. And as mentioned, the fast/ecm plasma upgrades are in line with similar drone upgrades.

As much as I like playing the Feds and would like to be able to do more with the photon torpedo, I think the decision made long ago to make the Feds another drone fleet killed any chance of that since the photon/drone combination is balanced relative to the Fed's main opponents. Now if there was some sort of alternate-universe Federation that never deployed drones, then there might be a good rational for improving the photon.

(Hmmm... Module R1,294 - The Mirror Universe)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 12:32 pm: Edit

These, I'm forced to admit, are good arguments that if the Steves had to present would cirtainly agitate them. These must be considersd. Still, historicly, "No improvements to the Photon? Come on." how could the Federation sit on their hands on this one.

Would any one like to comment on the 12pt standard fire mode with 3+3 arming only? How bad would this be. (I.E. 12 pt to R30 or 6pt Prox.)

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 01:13 pm: Edit

Kevin McCollum,

If you will go back and read the history of this thread, you'll find that the purpose is, as Loren says, to find a way for the Fed player to upgrade his primary heavy weapon in the same manner as the other races have. Do you seriously beleive that the plasma and disruptor races should continually upgrade their technology, and the Federation shouldn't? It doesn't make sense at all for them not to. I simply point out in my post that the UIM makes the disruptor a superior weapon stastically, with the best accuracy of any df heavy weapon in the game. If you don't beleive that, take a look at the charts and find one that has an 80% chance to hit all the way out to it's maximum overload range, and that has no minimum range. Yes, the UIM may burn out...but since you get replacements, that's not as big an issue as it may seem. Even if it DOES burn out, the disruptor is still a more accurate weapon except in very narrow range categories or special circumstances (i.e., range 0 overloads, or proximities.) Your points about shield reinforcement, taking hits on alternate shields, etc. are valid, but immaterial in that they are results of player tactics and strategy...it's incumbent on the Fed player to NOT get hit in the same shield twice, just as it's incumbent on the Klingon to try to hit twice in the same spot, and to avoid getting within range 0 of the Fed ship. This is about equality of the weapons...not the players.

As for your question about how much experience I have playing feds vs. klingons, the answer is "alot." I've been playing for about 17 years now, and I've found that the smart klingon player will outmaneuver a fed player and take advantage of his better rate of fire and wider firing arcs. Sure, a photon has great crunch power. Is that enough to justify that it NEVER recieves any upgrades at all? NONE? I don't see it. Oh, sure they get drone upgrades...but again, so do the klingons. For the disruptor to get two upgrades, and the photon none just doesn't make alot of sense. I don't call for a drastic upgrade...a modest increase in the chance to hit would be just fine. However, since the Steves have always rejected any attempt to make the photon more accurate, this thread got started to make the photon more flexible in other ways...by adding the heavy option. If you find that this option is offensive or uneeded, then by all means ignore it. But try to limit your posts to constructive criticism of the rule proposed rather than questioning player experience or comments like "you are killing me." We've managed to avoid that sort of thing thus far...I'm sure we'd like to continue to.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 01:45 pm: Edit

Loren the enhanced photons allow you to arm your photons as lights which correspond to the mini photons in P-6. When the Fed needs to manuever or needs to tailor his fire for smaller targets ( to conserve warp) the tube improvements allow him to arm as a "light". Although this perhaps should have always been an option for the standard tube. Since the arming cycle for the light is 1/1 you need to designate what type you are loading on turn 1. The reason I suggested designating your photon type on turn 1 is it allows you to spread out your overload for a heavy over 3 turns.

Stphen, calling the Feds a "drone race" is a misnomer. The Feds are only a little more "drone" than they are "Plasma". They intended their drones to be even more auxilliary than the Klincks. They also have some specialized ships that use plasma, does that make them a "plasma" race? Besides specialized ships the Feds use very few plasma and drones (1 rack), their fighters being an exception. Just about every Fed ship uses photons, so improving these weapons would be the most economically, logically and doctrinally most likely event.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 01:53 pm: Edit

Mike, both you and I are convinced that the disruptors do not need and improvement to coincide with a photon improvement. As I see it the Feds would just be "catching up." However the Steves see the two systems as statistically balanced, and they are the ones that need to approve any changes. I believe they won't unless something is proposed for Klingon disruptors. I don't believe that the Lyrans or Kzintis are as disruptor dependent as the Klingons are, so any new improvements to the disruptor should be for the klincks only, even though we agree that they really don,t need one.

By Kevin M. McCollum (Sfbl5r) on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 02:04 pm: Edit

Mr. Raper, what exactly is the last "upgrade" the disruptor received? I am curious. The UIM and DERFACS have been out for as long as proximity and overloads have been out. In fact, at one time, the UIM worked for photon torpedoes and phasers (phasers fired at over range 9-15 were treated as range 8, if I remember correctly, it's been a long time). They had to take that away because it made the photon torpedo TOO good.

So, I'm curious about these "constant improvements".

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 02:13 pm: Edit

They are part of the historical aspect of the game. The original disruptor was improved by adding (if I'm not mistaken...somebody check me here) DERFACS, then UIM. In fact, UIM is a refit...it isn't included for all ships automatically. That's what I mean by improvements.

I remember photons being UIM compatible. I thought that was an okay improvement, as it evens out with the UIM for disruptors with all the same penalties, i.e., burnout. But, thus far attempts to get the photon UIM compatible again haven't gone through.

Hugh, I agree...they likely won't accept it. I've toyed with ideas to improve the disruptor in such a way as to make it fair, and the best I can come up with is to create a sort of "heavy disruptor" for class 2 ships. It would increase damage by basing it on six points, instead of 5. That is, an overloaded heavy disruptor at range 1 does 12 points, not 10. This would make a more damaging weapon. However, it wouldn't be any more accurate. It's sort of a trade off...the photon gets more accuracy, the disruptor, more damage. But, since your proposed heavy photon rules call for more damage, I'm not sure how I'd improve the disruptor. I'd have to work with it and playtest some before I could really say.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 02:30 pm: Edit

Now I'm really reaching back in the the old spider webs but I think the Photon has remained the same since the first Basic set box. The UIM was original but DERFACS came out later. You might say it is semi-original as it did come before comanders edition. Removal of the UIM from Fed use is fine. Proximity Photons were OEM I belive.

Two mentions about the above posts. Klingons have superior maneuverablity and the Feds lost their Positron Flywheel.(I know, that was a optional rule.) Fed drones really only off set the Klingon drones some.(Fighters excluded!) Klingons can easily remove any Fed drone hazards. Feds often need to use main phasers for this, particularly in earlier years.

Yes, the Fed vs Klingons is fairly balanced. But a moderate change would balance it more in the late war years. Are the Feds only copy cats? Remember folks, the Feds are US(humans+others). And we are inovators. What weapon have we not improved upon since WWII? (I know, weak but....)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 02:33 pm: Edit

By the way, Hugh, I like the light idea. You can arm the photon bigger in several states why not smaller. I would even accept a 2+1 load so as not to have to designate on the first turn. Maybe limit lights to R12 because they just don't have that extra umff to go further.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 02:39 pm: Edit

Loren, EXACTLY!
Mike I actually have some ideas on the disruptor, but I want to wait until I finish the draft on the Enhanced Photons before I put them up for discussion. I think you will find them intriguing.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 02:43 pm: Edit

Loren, I don't think there is any reason to limit the range of the lights. They are just fine using the mini- photon rules from P-6. I will include an arming chart on my abbreviated draft when I post it. Sorry about the delay guys but real life keeps interfering with me.

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 03:52 pm: Edit

"Remember folks, the Feds are US(humans+others). And we are inovators. What weapon have we not improved upon since WWII? (I know, weak but....)"

Who's to say that the Klingons(Kzinti's, Lyrans, Romulans, etc., etc.) aren't more inovative than we are and came up with a better firing platform? Just becuase we are human does not mean we are the best and should always be.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 04:04 pm: Edit

I don't think he necessarily wants them to be the best. He just wants some parity in terms of technological improvement. Personally, I always thought the Klingons were the most innovative. They developed the UIM and DERFACS, plus alot of the drone technology and the SFG. They built the first (and only historical) battleship as well. Thay also adapted romulan ships to their liking when they "acquired" that group of three in the war. Yep, for innovation, the Klingons have it going on.