|
Post by walrusguy on Sept 27, 2018 13:46:15 GMT -7
I'd like to get folks opinion on adding torpedoes to the older FASA Klingon ships (D-7, D-4, D-20, L-6). The KP-1 is not overly powerful or long ranged, but it would change the overall WDF of these classes.
FASA - of course - didn't put photon torpedoes on older Klingons ships to ensure that our heroes (Kirk and the lads!) would always have just a bit of an edge. However - Enterprise, NuTrek and other sources now indicate that those older ships do indeed have Photons. Since the KP-1 has a paltry 1.5 WDF...it would do little to change the overall Combat Efficiency of these ships - yet bring them into more mainstream established specs.
However - there is also the traditionalist view that we should just live with it the way it is.
What is everyone's opinion? (I'll probably change our web pages depending on everyone's opinion.)
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Sept 27, 2018 16:06:11 GMT -7
I believe I have tried the D7 with a (probably KP-1) torpedo in the STCS a few times. Having a torp launcher does give it a bit more punch but, I don't think it really makes it overwhelmingly better.
The FASA version of the D7 is treated like a Light Cruiser rather than a Battle Cruiser. This does show clearly in all of it's stats.
In SFB, the D7 was treated as a Heavy Cruiser equivalent - comparable to the Constitution class in most ways (sans research labs etc...) and could hold it's own in a one-on-one fight. This is not the case with FASA as the D7 just can't take as much punishment, nor dish it out as well.
At the same time, the FASA Constitution - in it's 4YW form - isn't overwhelming either so..?
|
|
|
Post by kmart494 on Sept 27, 2018 16:50:04 GMT -7
A lack of photon torps is why it was so easy to kill Klingon ships in every version of computer Star Trek. Anyway, it's my understanding the SFB version of the D7 was designed at the beginning to be a match for the Federation Heavy Cruiser. I think the D6 was created as a retro version of the D7, which of course had weaker armament. I like the FASA D7s the way they are. However, I wonder why the D7A only has 4 disruptors.
|
|
|
Post by krebizfan on Sept 27, 2018 17:34:00 GMT -7
Adding a weak torpedo to an all beam ship changes how damage is taken. The torpedo would absorb a hit that would otherwise pass to superstructure.
KP-1 won't mix well with the disruptors. Given the D7's usual opponents and its inherent brittleness, the D7 might often turn away before reaching useful ranges for the KP-1.
|
|
|
Post by thescreamingswede on Sept 27, 2018 23:49:38 GMT -7
While it seems established that the Klingons did have torpedoes prior to the Klingon/Federation conflict, I like that FASA didn't give them torpedoes until later, after the war concluded. The lack of torpedo weaponry makes the early Klingons much more interesting to play; much more of a strategic and tactical exercise. Even later on in the timeline I prefer to use vessels like the L-9 Sabre because most models lack the torpedo.
Personal choice aside however, I would be hesitant to add torpedoes, even one as paltry as the KP-1, to any Four Years War designs. Their absence is probably the one greatest plot point FASA subtly added into the game. As a GM who blended RPG with the game for decades, my Klingon characters of that era were always complaining about the lack of torpedoes, so it became an unwritten quest for them to acquire them during my campaigns. It was never something I actively wrote for them to do, they took it upon themselves to try. When they would ultimately succeed, they were quite jubilant.
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Sept 28, 2018 5:05:58 GMT -7
You are not alone in your thinking and I completely agree with your assessment. I have already addressed the "canon conflict" with a few of my own ideas. I added the KP-2 to the original D-7 because we have seen it fire torpedoes in the show. However, I think that the original FASA version would make an excellent light scout version of the D-7 (and I plan to include it in an "update"). For the K't'inga, we see in the first Star Trek movie that this ship has a pseudo burst-fire torpedo launcher that can fire three torpedoes in the same time it takes the Enterprise to fire two. Sulu was also concerned about facing off against one of these ships. The K't'inga also served as the Chancellor's flagship (suitably modified of course). Whether or not this was for budget reasons is practically irrelevant - it is canon. This would indicate that the K't'inga was a quite formidable warship and I redesigned it to be a threat to a Federation heavy cruiser on its own. ststcsolda.proboards.com/thread/733/reworking-d7-ktingaI also worked up designs for the ships of Axanar and made sure that photon torpedoes played a significant role in the Klingon designs: ststcsolda.proboards.com/thread/709/ships-axanarAs far as adding torpedoes to other classes - go for it. Don't worry about how it will affect the WDF (but do recalculate it for balance). I would base the choice of torpedo on when the ships were introduced. Older ships should be equipped with KP-1's or KP-2's. Newer ships would have the KP-3 and onward. A note about destroyers: You will notice that consistently throughout the FASA SRMs, that they never gives destroyers a torpedo capable of inflicting more than 10 points of damage (until TNG anyway). That is why I don't equip any of my destroyers from these time periods with anything more powerful and why I disagree with some fan designs when they equip destroyers with more powerful torpedoes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 8:47:43 GMT -7
Why does "Klingon Torpedoes" sound so dirty?
|
|
|
Post by walrusguy on Sept 28, 2018 16:15:05 GMT -7
I am INCREDIBLY stunned...and we MAY need to start a new thread.
in looking further into the differences between the two ships (d-7 and constitution) I have opened BOTH pdf of my construction book (2nd edition) and have found COMPLETELY different WDF numbers for the Klingons! The book I've worked off of for YEARS - and the one I found multiple PDF copies of - has the WDF for the KP-3, KP-4 and KP-6 as 9.0, 9.8 and 11.8 respectively. However!!! This newer PDF had those number CUT IN HALF!
At first - I though it was an error - but using the halved numbers - you get the exact WDF's listed in the Klingon Ship Recognition Manual (2nd Edition).
YET - the Gorn - who also have torpedoes requiring 2 point of power to arm DO NOT half the WDF numbers.
The major reason this effects the above discussion is that the FAC system WDFs could potentially be "off"...making the MK I constitution a much more significant player against the klingon D-7 - torpedo or no torpedo.
My personal opinion is that the higher WDF's make sense...I find it hard to believe that a 10 point torpedo that costs 1 point of power is nearly the same WDF as a 20 point torpedo that takes 2 power...
If anyone has their old construction manual handy - please take a look at the Klingon torpedoes and let me know what you find. I can find NO discernible difference between the three versions I have (2 pdf's and a hard copy)...
|
|
|
Post by Ian not logged in on Sept 28, 2018 17:25:52 GMT -7
2nd edition 2nd printing has those numbers.
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Sept 28, 2018 17:27:47 GMT -7
My construction manual has the 9.0, 9.8, and 11.8 values.
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Sept 28, 2018 20:44:49 GMT -7
The reason for the low factors is that it takes two points to arm them (whether you agree or not) and the Gorn torpedoes, well...SMH.
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Sept 28, 2018 22:43:39 GMT -7
Taking an extra point to arm doesn't justify lowering the WDF by half.
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Sept 29, 2018 5:45:38 GMT -7
Given that the game came out when TOS was the main source of info - it only became clear later that torps would have been around in every capitol ship from the beginning. It also only became clear that a ship like Enterprise would have all its firing arcs covered, even having aft torps. I added those to my redesigns, along with giving Klings heavy disruptor bolts (7-10, higher dmg close up), and Plasma weapons to Gorn instead of torps; all like in Klingon Academy.
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Sept 29, 2018 5:55:05 GMT -7
Taking an extra point to arm doesn't justify lowering the WDF by half. Like I said..."whether you agree or not"...*shrugs*
|
|
|
Post by walrusguy on Sept 29, 2018 6:04:38 GMT -7
Gorn - I like that idea. It makes sense and seems closer to what has become cannon. I'm still on the fence about adding the torpedoes...we seem almost evenly divided. I'll give it a few more days and see if we get some more input.
As for the WDF issue - don't think I'll start a new thread. I'm going to go with the higher numbers. Using the division logic, a 20 point torpedo that took 3 points of power would have a WDF of 3.9 - despite the fact that it could singlehandedly destroy some ships. Since part of our original mandate was to correct and expand the overall data from the 80's - I'm thinking 3rd editions of various books and material are in order. (So much for updating web pages!)
One final thought - I think the main reason I want to add a torpedo to the D-7 (perhaps even a KP-2!) is that in TOS - Kirk describes the D-7 and Constitution as "similar" - I get the feeling that with a photon torpedo - the D-7 becomes a more menacing danger - what it seems to be in the TOS period.
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Sept 29, 2018 17:50:29 GMT -7
WDF calculations do not take power requirements into consideration. If you are going to reduce WDF based on power to arm imagine how far down the WDF would have to come on beam weapons that are 1 damage per unit of power.
|
|
|
Post by thescreamingswede on Sept 29, 2018 20:26:57 GMT -7
WDF is also modified by the use of a cloaking device, as is seen in the Romulan numbers for their weapons. The Klingon weapons do not take this into account however, so many of their ships equipped with cloaking devices have incorrect numbers.
I have engineered a spread sheet in Exel that calculates WDF. Almost every weapon I have run through it is, for the most part, correct; being off only by a few decimal points. For example:
KP-6. Book: 11.8. My calculator: 11.9
KP-4. Book: 9.8. My calculator: 9.86 (round to 9.9)
KP-3. Book: 9.0. My calculator: 8.93 (round to 8.9)
FP-4. Book: 12.5 My calculator: 12.5
So it's not totally accurate, but it is very close. JAFisher44 is correct as well. The WDF does not factor in the power to arm the weapon. If it did, the Romulan plasma weapons would be very inefficient (and they may be, but that's a different debate).
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Oct 1, 2018 4:59:55 GMT -7
WDF calculations do not take power requirements into consideration. If you are going to reduce WDF based on power to arm imagine how far down the WDF would have to come on beam weapons that are 1 damage per unit of power. That assumes that FASA treated all weapons equally - which seems unlikely. Beam weapons had their own criteria calculated to determine WDF and photon torpedoes had their own calculations as well. I would guess that their formula would be modified depending on the weapon type. WDF is also modified by the use of a cloaking device, as is seen in the Romulan numbers for their weapons. The Klingon weapons do not take this into account however, so many of their ships equipped with cloaking devices have incorrect numbers. Yeah, this irritated me to no end that FASA singled out Romulan weapons this way and left the Klingons alone. Plasma weapons are very different animals that share some qualities of a beam weapon and some qualities of a missile weapon...and a little more. Add to that the very simple rules that allowed an enemy ship to "evade" the torpedo and that degrades the effectiveness of plasma weapons in ways not considered for other weapons. It would not surprise me that FASA had an entirely different/modified formula for calculating the WDF for these weapons as well.
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Oct 1, 2018 6:51:42 GMT -7
No, the algorithm for calculating a weapons WDF has been reversed engineered for a long while. There are several different methods to arrive at the same answers (or at least close) but when you look at the math it is clear that the WDF numbers are directly tied to the potential damage output and ranges of the weapons in question.
|
|
|
Post by kaisernathan1701 on Oct 1, 2018 8:46:02 GMT -7
Speaking of Klingon ships with no Torpedos. I have a D6 or D7 metal mini that has no hole for torpedo's in the front command pod.
I assume its from SFB but i dunno which Product line Starline 2200 or 2300 that would have such a mini.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2018 10:34:25 GMT -7
I just accept that the game was designed in such a way that the Federation was supposed to win most of the time. Even at that, the D-7 is too weak...
In other games there is a formula for balancing ships by modifying the crew's skill ratings. Do we have that for ST:STCS?
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Oct 1, 2018 20:40:44 GMT -7
No, the algorithm for calculating a weapons WDF has been reversed engineered for a long while. There are several different methods to arrive at the same answers (or at least close) but when you look at the math it is clear that the WDF numbers are directly tied to the potential damage output and ranges of the weapons in question. Then why were there different values published in different reference materials? Obviously, FASA had more than one idea for calculating WDF.
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Oct 1, 2018 22:05:48 GMT -7
I'm curious what different publications have different WDF values?
|
|
|
Post by krebizfan on Oct 1, 2018 22:54:44 GMT -7
Or FASA made a mistake in calculations or transcribing the results. There were a lot of values that needed to be calculated.
The White Flame suggests that FASA was starting to experiment with assigning point values to ships instead of hoping that players could figure out the limits of WDF numbers.
Crew quality: No standard percentage given. It won't scale well. Adding a +1 to a single weapon is potent to a small ship with a single very inaccurate weapon but irrelevant to the 8+ long range highly accurate weapons on many cruisers. Similarly, +1 power per engine changes things on a ship with only 15 power but fades into the background on a ship with 84 power like some movie era craft with FASA preferred giant impulse engines. A corvette might double in value moving from a 40% crew (game system average) to a 90% crew while Enterprise would improve maybe 10% switching from the worst crew to the best crew possible in the FASA rules.
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Oct 2, 2018 5:07:59 GMT -7
I'm curious what different publications have different WDF values? My construction manual has all Klingon torpedoes from the KP-3 to the KP-6 with a WDF of less than 6. This also corresponds to the WDF of the Klingon ships in my manual. Or FASA made a mistake in calculations or transcribing the results. There were a lot of values that needed to be calculated. The White Flame suggests that FASA was starting to experiment with assigning point values to ships instead of hoping that players could figure out the limits of WDF numbers. I don't think it was so much as a "mistake" as the system being a "work in progress". I think that FASA genuinely meant to curb the Klingon torpedoes because of their power requirement...but decided to adjust them later. I think that Romulan weapons had the adjusted WDF for all weapons when paired with a cloak because FASA felt the adjustment was needed after the Klingon manual was published. Had FASA been able to continue producing these products, we would probably have seen a new edition with all kinds of modified (but consistent) rules. As for White Flame, I'll have to dig mine out (hated that module with a passion) and see what you are talking about. I never paid it much attention.
|
|