A few points ...
The point of storeylf's change is not to address any potential "plasma problem". Rather, the point is to correct a starting imbalance that has shown to cause problems. It is a "fairness" issue, as much as anything.
This would only add a second arming option for plasma. Right now, they start (not optional; it is just how they start) with one turn of arming and armed Pl-F. This would simply give a secondary option where all heavy plasma have two turns of arming at the cost of empty batteries at the start of the game. Note that this only applies to heavy plasma (and, therefore, only to ships that are so armed). It is also an option. It does not have to be taken.
This potential change would only be that specific item. Any other requests or changes would be examined and considered independently. The reason is that any other change is likely in response to the stated "plasma problem", while this change is not.
plasma arming
Moderators: mjwest, Albiegamer
It does have to be pointed out that like other weapons the batteries used to arm that second turn of arming would not exceed the energy actually needed. For example a King Eagle would only need to start a battle with 2 less power in the batteries. I hate to point this out as it seems very obvious but why wait for errors to creep in?
Any change would be modeled on those that have gone before, so, yes, those items would be included.pmiller13 wrote:It does have to be pointed out that like other weapons the batteries used to arm that second turn of arming would not exceed the energy actually needed. For example a King Eagle would only need to start a battle with 2 less power in the batteries. I hate to point this out as it seems very obvious but why wait for errors to creep in?
Federation Commander Answer Guy
For my part, I'd be interested to see how this goes, if only for the knock-on effect it will have on Trobrin implosion torpedoes; I've tried to model their pre-game arming on Alpha plasma equivalents, so a change here would lead me to edit the WIP rules for ITs.
I would agree that the amount of energy reduced from the batteries be equal to the energy required for the second turn of arming only; one would assume that, prior to the start of the scenario, the arming ship would have had two "turns" in which to get their pre-arming done.
I would agree that the amount of energy reduced from the batteries be equal to the energy required for the second turn of arming only; one would assume that, prior to the start of the scenario, the arming ship would have had two "turns" in which to get their pre-arming done.
-
Dal Downing
- Commander
- Posts: 665
- Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 1:43 pm
- Location: Western Wisconsin
Good point, Orions are another potential issue in that department, Plas S and photons type setup.
[edit] although thinking about it, that is already an issue for orions - Photons and hellbore, or PPD and photon etc. Presumably there is already a rule covering multiple heavy weapon types and start of game arming.
[edit] although thinking about it, that is already an issue for orions - Photons and hellbore, or PPD and photon etc. Presumably there is already a rule covering multiple heavy weapon types and start of game arming.
Yeah, we hit this topic in another thread.
Using the pre-game arming is all or nothing. So, if you have plasma and photons, or photons and PPD, or PPD and plasma, you either spend the batteries and pay for the final turn of arming for all eligible weapons, or none of them.
Note that with plasma, you can never be worse than one turn of arming for Pl-G/S/R and fully armed Pl-F.
Using the pre-game arming is all or nothing. So, if you have plasma and photons, or photons and PPD, or PPD and plasma, you either spend the batteries and pay for the final turn of arming for all eligible weapons, or none of them.
Note that with plasma, you can never be worse than one turn of arming for Pl-G/S/R and fully armed Pl-F.
Federation Commander Answer Guy
