Federation Commander

Much as it bugs me when I have to do it myself, I might suggest you probably have to write the post afresh...

.... photons..... are greatness.....
not only can you overload them twice, it is somewhat more efficient than disrupters.
most of the time, photons are easy to lad, 2 per photon per turn.
which leaves tons of power to fire, and it costs nothing to fire as long as the photons are loaded.

on most of the occasions with disrupters, you can fire them once a turn, which is good but the power demands along the other weapons that want to be fired AS WELL as the possible power needed to defend itself means that either not all of the disrupters can be fired or overloaded.

Photons seriously outdo the disrupters all the time

Nerroth wrote:Much as it bugs me when I have to do it myself, I might suggest you probably have to write the post afresh...

Grumble-grumble-grumble
Mutiny-mutiny-mutiny

I'll have to see about that when I get home, then . . . which will be in 12 hours or so.

Suffice it to say, I agree with what you, Nerroth, said, but not what the others have said. I have a lot to say, but, currently, don't have time to re-say it.

yeah.. .well.... life is not always fair

(and gives you lemons)
yum

Well, I'm not sure I would hurry to put too much stock in my own comments; I don't have the on-table (or online) experience I ought to have in order to back them up.

Still, I would say that, even though the two weapons (well, two-and-change, if you count light and heavy photons) might seem a certain way on the firing range, they can still be affected by context. An Orion can pick and choose which weapon to put in its option mounts, and will still have the same turn modes and power reserves to run them with; a Fed or Klingon might not appreciate a weapons swap so much. (I wouldn't like to see a Lyran close if it had photons in place of its disruptors; but even then, photons would make it harder to back up successive ESG rams.)


EDIT: Thinking about that other weapon over in SFB got me to thinking; one of the key differences between photons (of ay caliber) and disruptors over there isn't so much due to proximity warheads, or UIM or DERFACS; but that photons require warp power to arm. That warp power has to come from somewhere; unless you've got a fast cruiser or a double-engined Orion, the compromises that photon arming require (even for ships with AWR refits) does have a knock-on effect in terms of how it shapes the kind of firing opportunities a photon ship might have relative to a disruptor ship.

In FC, where power is power, is that kind of built-in redundancy conspicuous in its absence?

A photon can be held - either as a standard or an overload - at a considerable cost savings relative to its arming cost (1/4 the cost of arming). A disruptor does not have that option. It pays the entirety of its arming cost at the moment it is fired. The Photon pays a total of 8 power over two turns and then can be held until you are ready to fire it. This allows the photon ships other options (such as EM) to mitigate the between firing turns.

This is it. I am a die-hard feddie, so let me explain why this is usefull. we'll apply it to the CA vs D7 matchup:

On turn two (turn one involved the klnik moving but the fed sitting to arm photon overloads), the CA has all +8s in his photons. He has 40 energy, minus the 8 to hold the photons and 9 for phasers (which isn't paid immediately, but will be). This leaves him with 23, which can give him 16+7 speed.
The D7, meanwhile, starts with 42. For all his weapons, he must pay 17, like the fed. But the difference is obvious: the Disrs (10 damage at close range) cost only as much energy as the Photons (16 at any range up to . This example obviously assumes that all weapons will be fired, but the advantage is still there. Even with non-overloads, the Fed gets more bang for his buck, because he started with a down payment .

Ultimately, the federation requires patience to play (although, actually less than the klinks need). But it's worth it, as the photon is the best heavy wapon other than HBs, PPDs, PL-S and PL-R.

mjwest wrote:Paul covered it better than I was going to.

One other thing: Range 8 is still good, particularly with squadrons. Sure, about half are gonna miss (and the odds stabilize with more ships), but the half that hits is going to do way more damage than your opponent's disruptors at that range. And you are going fast enough to ensure he won't get closer (or, if he is going just as fast, he won't be able to use overloads).

So, don't fixate on range 0-2. Use range 8.

3 cruisers at range 8 with 12 overloaded photons can severly cripple another cruiser (~96 damage which generally means 60+ internals)

Move at speed 32, close to range 8, fire all photons and immediately turn away and run away to reload. On the next pass the enemy will be down one cruiser and you will have an advantage. Then you can decide whether to snipe again or close.

To be really unfair use Fed Strike Cruisers in the mix and do this. They can fly at speed 32, hold/fire 4 overloaded photons and still fire ~4 phasers.

Mark Skarr wrote:Please forgive me if this is an old topic, but I'm new to Federation Commander, and have a horrendous problem with Photon Torpedos.

Why do they suck out loud?
<snip>
So . . . what makes Photons relevant? What am I missing?

ETA: Noticed a smiley where there shouldn't have been one.

Photons have a couple of glaring weaknesses:

1) Comparably poor hit chances outside range 4.
2) Very power hungry during reload turns.

To counter-balance this Fed has many strengths and many flexible options:

1) CRUNCH. It is always better to do a lot of damage in one salvo than some damage in two because it is difficult--even with superior maneuverability--to create consecutive firing opportunities on the same shield.

2) Held overloads. Photons can be fully overloaded and held for only 2 power. Means that once a Fed gets fully armed he can go really fast if he needs to and still have the threat of 64 points of photon out to range 8.

3) Flexible arming.

4) Not photon-specific, but Feds have a better offensive phaser array than Klingons. A Fed CC can fire 6 phaser 1's anywhere in the FA and 8 Phaser-1s on centerline. Fed ships are also more durable with lots of shuttle, hull and labs. Klingons start losing power, weapons and systems quickly.

5) Manipulation of the arming cycle: A smart Fed will tend to fire his photons near then end of a turn (Impulses 7-8 ). Why? Because if he fires then he is only lacking overloaded photons for 9-10 impulses. It may seem he is 'empty' but if you aren't well away around impulse 5 of the rearm turn you may find the Fed turning back in and trying to close for a repeat photon hosing on the next turn. If you fired overloaded disruptors during that turn you are down 16 energy (more if you used phasers--which you did if you are smart because phasers are more energy efficient) which means you are NOT moving fast and will likely not be able to get back out of range.

6) Evasive maneuvers. Feds often operate under evasive maneuvers against disruptor ships. This reduces the 'every turn firing' advantage of the Klingon and helps to cover the re-arm turn. It is also a very useful way to keep that ship that the Klingon's damaged earlier as a lower priority target while allowing it to stay with or near the rest of the squadron.


That all being said, there are some nice things about disruptor ships too.

a) They have nice secondary weapons (kzinti drones, lyran ESGs, klingons lots of weapons in general).
b) Point-and-click firing. Being able to allocate all the energy for firing only when a good opportunity presents itself is very handy. A photon ship really must devote at least 2 power per tube every turn minimum as the opportunity cost for lengthening the arming cycle to 3 turns makes this an emergency option only.
c) The ability to repair and fire immediately makes them bounce back well. While phasers come first at the energy buffet, disruptors usually come first when it comes to damage control as they are less likely to be destroyed.
d) Much better at range.
e) As a "smaller" faster heavy weapon it is less painful to shoot a fighter or drone with a disruptor than with a photon as the energy investment is lower and the weapon will be available again next turn.

I don't like Photons, but they don't suck

If you are playing on a fixed map you can always close on your enemy and either cripple or destroy them with photons!

On a floating map they do suck!

Mark Skarr wrote:Keep in mind that you've spent 4 turns... (snip)

Mark, you seem to have misunderstood the rules. It doesn't take four turns to overload your photons. Overload energy can be added on either of the arming turns, or afterwards too.

This leads to some Fed-specific strategies. So turn 1 you could fly very slowly, pay the first turn's arming cost, add six points of power, and on the second arming turn pay only the second turn's arming cost. Then on Impulse #1 of the second arming turn I am loaded for bear and ready to fire.

This is a common tactic when flying Federation ships, they fly slowly (Baseline speed zero or eight) on Turn 1 and then jump to a higher speed on the next turn. On the first turn the Klingon opponent will often be completely out of range, meaning that the disruptors can do no damage, and even if he does get within 25 hexes you will typically find that shield reinforcement will simply make the damage vanish.

On another point: when comparing two ships, it's not all about the heavy weapons (disruptors, photons, plasma torpedoes). Federation ships have excellent phaser arrays, usually better than their Klingon counterparts. Phaser-1s are a really good weapon in Federation Commander, mostly because they are so power-efficient. Also, Federation ships have thicker shields and can take more damage than Klingons typically can.

terryoc wrote:
On another point: when comparing two ships, it's not all about the heavy weapons (disruptors, photons, plasma torpedoes).

It's also about the game context. Are you playing on a tourney fixed map like Paul (the_Rock) usually does, or are you playing on a fully floatng map, what about terrain etc. Are there any scenario objectives or is it just a kill all game.

On a fixed map kill all game photons are certainly one of (or the) best heavy weapon. On a floating map that is not so clear cut. On a small fixed map a Fed can usually close on turn 2 for a full overload volley with little to counter it. On a floating map holding overloads may mean you never get to close at all as the power stops many Fed ships going speed 24+ all turn. Terrain can play havoc with photons more than some other weapons - nebula reduces your maximum range to 4, asteroids can have a similar affect. Scenario objectives that require high speed from the start make it hard to perform the tourney tactic etc.

terryoc wrote:Mark, you seem to have misunderstood the rules. It doesn't take four turns to overload your photons. Overload energy can be added on either of the arming turns, or afterwards too.

Aha, okay, that's something I misread. That goes a long way to correct the problem. As I said, I wanted to know where I was wrong.

And, honestly, it was the non-heavy weapons that caused me to think that photons sucked, compared to other heavy weapons. I mean, a phaser-1 ROCKS in comparison. The last battle I played, earlier tonight, I hit once with a non-overloaded photon (which, apparently, could have been overloaded, but I misunderstood the rule), all night. But, I savaged my opponent with phasers. I managed to chase them off with phasers.

On the other hand, while I don't see photons as game-breakers, the psychological power of them is very useful against people who do fear them. It's like the old Helblaster Volley Gun in Warhammer. It was 100 points to keep the focus of their warmachines and mages until it died. My opponents avoided being anywhere in front of me at close range, even if it meant that they wouldn't get a shot off with their heavy weapons.

storeylf wrote:It's also about the game context. Are you playing on a tourney fixed map like Paul (the_Rock) usually does, or are you playing on a fully floatng map, what about terrain etc. Are there any scenario objectives or is it just a kill all game.

I usually play on large, floating maps because the idea of cornering someone in space fails logic for me. A zone of engagement should be larger than the effective range of our weapons.

Sometimes there are objectives, sometimes it's just a fast battle. Haven't done much with terrain yet, as I say, I'm still new to Fed Com, but a very old hand with wargaming in general. The small maps I've seen are like two snipers having a duel in a bar.

I have considered using my BattleTech Iron Mountain maps as that would be some interesting "terrain" for a FC duel.

Mark Skarr wrote:I usually play on large, floating maps because the idea of cornering someone in space fails logic for me. A zone of engagement should be larger than the effective range of our weapons.

Ah, a man after my own heart

Mark Skarr wrote: I usually play on large, floating maps because the idea of cornering someone in space fails logic for me. A zone of engagement should be larger than the effective range of our weapons.

Consider this. Why would a fleet sit in open space and just take a pounding? So the Klingons make the Feds disengage by refusing to close? Big deal--nothing was lost or gained except a bunch of empty space.

Sure space is huge and there is no "cornering" people. But space is also huge so what are the odds of two fleets just happening to pick that particular chunk of open space to meet?

Play some scenarios where there is an objective (defend a convoy, attack a base station, attack a planet, etc) and you will see the photon in an entirely different light.

So the Klingons make the Feds disengage by refusing to close? Big deal--nothing was lost or gained except a bunch of empty space.

Under fedcom rules there is no such thing as just disengaging on a floating map - if you can't outrun the opponenet to get 35 hexes away then you are not disengaging, the feds can fight and die, or run and die. Of course in the context of a standard VP game the Klingons gained a win disengage or not.

duxvolantis wrote: Play some scenarios where there is an objective (defend a convoy, attack a base station, attack a planet, etc) and you will see the photon in an entirely different light.

Even there a lot depends on the paramaters you impose. E.g. Who is attacking and who is defending. If the Feds attack then photons are great - you move in with full overloads and blow away the target or the covering fleet if it gets in the way. If the klingons are attacking what do the Feds do? If they stay around the target they get disruptered to death (if facing klingons) , if they move out then they are back to chasing a better long range fleet and getting whittled down, then the klingons move in and kill the target.

You could equally have time limits, if worked out right the Feds don't have time to do the slow and full overload on turn 1 and the klingons won't have time for the slow dance of death.

The point being that Photons are great in some scenarios and not so great in others. Each scenario needs some thought put into it to account for the weaknesses and strengths of the 2 sides.