Topic: Klingon v.s. Romulan Cloaking Device, Klingon v.s. Federaton Photons

[Azrael]

So, is one better than the other?

If not, should there be a difference?

Technically, the Klingons aquired cloaking technology in return for ships (D-7 Cruisers mainly) which the Roms modified for their own use.

If I were the Romulans, I wouldn't have given them maybe the "Top of the Line" model.

That being said, if the Klingons are smart enough to win battles with some of the nightmare smaller ships they have to fly, conceivably they could have improved upon their own design.

Kidding aside, I would think it fair that the Romulans have an advantage in the Cloaking Dept.

Klingon Photon Torpedoes.  How my eyes rolled when I first heard about Klingons using them in TNG.  I thought it was a little lazy of the writers not to appreciate the racial weapon preferences that characterised the original series.

Is a Fed Torp better than a Klink torp?  Again, if I was the Fed's, knowing I was sharing an effective weapon with Klingons, I again, beleive they wouldn't have given them the "Top of the Line" model.  Everybody loves Worf, so let's make the Klingons and Feds allies, but careful, we don't want them winning any battles (lol).

Is there a diff?  Should there be?

Azrael  

[Firestorm]

Yes, Fed Photons are better(do more damage) than Klingon torpedos.

The Quantum Torpedos(Fed only weapon) are even better yet.

Fed Photons also have proxie setting allowing them to do damage without having a direct hit, where all Klingon photons must actually hit the target to do damage, which doesn't happen very often.

According to Taldren the Klingon and Romulan cloaks are identical.  It has been my exeperience that the Romulan cloak works better, but then again, I am usually travelling at a higher rate of speed with makes cloak less effective.

[Scorpion]

    I don't think that there is any difference between the rom and klink cloaks.  I think they are basically the same in the game.  The romulan cloaks should be harder to detect and probably more energy efficient than the klingon cloaks.  Maybe this will be fixed in the patch, but I doubt it.  
   The difference between the fed and klink photon torpedos is that the klingon torpedos load faster and do less damage than the fed torpedos.  The fed torpedos also have the proximity mode option that the klink torpedos don't have.  I'm not sure if this is how it's supposed to be but it seems more in-line with TNG than the issue with the cloaks.    

[Argos65987]

I thought Romulan cloaks had less mass then klingon cloaks, but no other differences.  

[kevlar]

And it is true. Klingon and romulan cloaks are supposed to be identical ( at least is what we can see on the "spec" file) apart from the mass.

[Robb Stark]

I'm not so sure that the Klingon Photon is worse than the Fed Photon.  I really like the Klingon version - it doesn't take much power, so it's easy to overload.  It may not have the range, but it multi-volleys a lot and it charges so fast.  I think if they had decided not to call it a "Photon" and instead given it another name and a different color, it would be easier to see that it has its own strengths.  It really isn't a Photon Torpedo, in the Federation sense, but it is a pretty slick weapon.

Now the Poleron Torp... that's just not there yet.  Compared to the Quantum Torpedo, it's hopelessly inadequate.  

By the by, if they keep the same settings as they created in the Beta patch, the Ion Cannon becomes a rather wicked piece of work.  Big damage, not much power cost, charges pretty quickly - the only drawback is that it's short range.  The Klingons seem made to play a fairly short-ranged game - get in close, do as much damage as you can in one spot while trying to stay out of the enemy's firing arcs, and keep your speed up.    

[Vertigo]

If you played earlier SFCs, you'll recognize the K-Photon right away.  

It's basically a new version of the old K-Dizzies.  It fires twice as often as a F-Photon, and does 2/3 the damage.  It also costs less prestige and uses less power.  

So, *technically*, it is superior to the F-Photon in damage per turn, doing 12 damage in the time a F-Photon can do 9, and doing it for less energy.  If you powered both with the same amount of energy (i.e. overload K-Photons to 8 energy), the K-Photon jumps up to 14 damage vs. 9 damage.

Heck, *technically*,  a Quantum is [10 energy for 13 damage] while a K-Phot is [10 energy for 16 damage].

BUT:

1) Who cares how much PP weaps cost?
2) It doesn't seem to have the accuracy of the old DisRs <--the real killer
3) Due to the other SFC3 changes sabredancing doesn't work as well anymore
4) It costs more energy (relatively speaking) that the old DisRs
5) Many Kling hulls don't have designs that allow proper use of this weap.
6) It's hard to get a good shot every 2 turns.
7) Not having proxies is a killer.

Overall, I like the K-Phot better than the Poleron, and really like them on the smallest ships.  K-Phots earn their keep when you can get behind a large ship and stay there for a couple of turns.
   

[Robb Stark]

Quote:

BUT:

1) Who cares how much PP weaps cost?
2) It doesn't seem to have the accuracy of the old DisRs <--the real killer
3) Due to the other SFC3 changes sabredancing doesn't work as well anymore
4) It costs more energy (relatively speaking) that the old DisRs
5) Many Kling hulls don't have designs that allow proper use of this weap.
6) It's hard to get a good shot every 2 turns.
7) Not having proxies is a killer.

Overall, I like the K-Phot better than the Poleron, and really like them on the smallest ships.  K-Phots earn their keep when you can get behind a large ship and stay there for a couple of turns.
 

The other thing with the new system is that the K-Photon does not have the firing arc advantage of the old SFB Disruptors.  That was a big saber-dancing advantage that the Klingons had - not only did they outmaneuver everyone, but their heavy weapons had these wide arcs.  

I think there's a case to be made for some more variety in the firing arcs available in the game, certainly.  

[SirWilliam]

Quote:
If you played earlier SFCs, you'll recognize the K-Photon right away.  

It's basically a new version of the old K-Dizzies.  It fires twice as often as a F-Photon, and does 2/3 the damage.  It also costs less prestige and uses less power.  

So, *technically*, it is superior to the F-Photon in damage per turn, doing 12 damage in the time a F-Photon can do 9, and doing it for less energy.  If you powered both with the same amount of energy (i.e. overload K-Photons to 8 energy), the K-Photon jumps up to 14 damage vs. 9 damage.

Heck, *technically*,  a Quantum is [10 energy for 13 damage] while a K-Phot is [10 energy for 16 damage].

BUT:

1) Who cares how much PP weaps cost?
2) It doesn't seem to have the accuracy of the old DisRs <--the real killer
3) Due to the other SFC3 changes sabredancing doesn't work as well anymore
4) It costs more energy (relatively speaking) that the old DisRs
5) Many Kling hulls don't have designs that allow proper use of this weap.
6) It's hard to get a good shot every 2 turns.
7) Not having proxies is a killer.

Overall, I like the K-Phot better than the Poleron, and really like them on the smallest ships.  K-Phots earn their keep when you can get behind a large ship and stay there for a couple of turns.
     

Good post.  Overall I think the versatility of the K-Photon should not be underestimated.  Bottom line is: it's cheap, it loads very fast, its mass is relatively light, and considering how easily it can be overcharged vs. its rate of fire, it is an extremely efficient if slightly non-glamorous weapon, especially with a competent tac-O.  

[Azrael]

Just one question...

Overcharge?  You can overload this weapon?  If so, how?  Or are you talking about something different?

One nifty thing about Polarons, mind you.

If you target hull, you've a 25% chance of dropping the thing and it not hitting the floor.

If you target a sub-system, they seem to smack and damage them faster than any other direct fire weapon in the game.

Azrael

[SirWilliam]

Quote:
Just one question...

Overcharge?  You can overload this weapon?  If so, how?  Or are you talking about something different?

One nifty thing about Polarons, mind you.

If you target hull, you've a 25% chance of dropping the thing and it not hitting the floor.

If you target a sub-system, they seem to smack and damage them faster than any other direct fire weapon in the game.

Azrael  

*If you have enough excess warp power you can max out your Heavy Weapon energy.

I usually fly Klingon.  IMO, for Klinks anyway, if you don't have a lot of excess, best to put 2/3 of your excess into the primaries and the remainder into your heavy.  By putting an oversized warp core on even a BOP you can overcharge the weapons and make it a MUCH more effective ship.  Better to have an energy utilization ratio of .67 to 1 than 1 to 1 any day of the week; in other words, I'd rather have 4 weapons I can overcharge the hell out of than 6 weapons that I only have the minimum power required in order for them to properly function.

Another little trick for K-Photons: if you have an aft-mounted torpedo, it can be taken offline when you don't need it, freeing up a lot of power for overcharging the forward weapons.  If you need it, the power will reallocate to it as soon as you bring it back on line so make sure your shields are still in good shape before you bring it back online.

*Don't read this if you aren't flying Klingon.  ha ha.

   

[Vertigo]

Quote:
Just one question...

Overcharge?  You can overload this weapon?  If so, how?  Or are you talking about something different?

One nifty thing about Polarons, mind you.

If you target hull, you've a 25% chance of dropping the thing and it not hitting the floor.

If you target a sub-system, they seem to smack and damage them faster than any other direct fire weapon in the game.

Azrael  

You can overload any weapon.  Every 2% above nominal gives 1% more damage.  

[Aves]

Good post(s) Vertigo et.al.

Of coarse if it seems like we went over all of this before in  the old forum... its because we did, but here's the hard data on the torps (again) anyway:

---------------cost---mass--damage/turn--efficiency
Fed photon----1000---200----2.25----------.281
K photon------900----200----3-------------.5
Quantum------1500---300----3.25----------.325
Polaron Torp---2200---300----3.42----------.381

given the polaron's poor accuracy (which IMO is not negated by the shield piercing) it is overpriced and only useful for those long boring cloak snipe epics we all love so much.

the fed photon is saved by its proximity ability (which for the cut in damage is IMO over-rated)

the K-photon is the most bang for your energy and pp buck, but has no bells and whistles

and finally the Quantum is every Borg Warp-core Drone-engineer's nightmare, but if not for its awesome range would probably not be better tactically than the much cheaper, lighter, and efficient K-photon.



     

[Aenigma]

 

Quote:
  ---------------cost---mass--damage/turn--efficiency
Fed photon----1000---200----2.25----------.281
K photon------900----200----3-------------.5
Quantum------1500---300----3.25----------.325
Polaron Torp---2200---300----3.42----------.381

Could you add the numbers for the Romulan Plasma Torpedo? I'm just curious about that.

Maybe you should link efficiency to the power usage instead of the mass, or maybe use both factors for the efficiency calculations. The cost is actually not a good factor, because you only have to buy it once and you'll have it on your ship forever. It doesn't make the weapon more efficient, only cheaper. (i don't know whether you took cost as a factor for efficiency or not, but it actually doesn't mean much for efficiency)

erei'Arrain Aenigma  

[Aves]

Sorry for lack of clarity, I DID use power usage for efficiency, not mass... I just didn't list power usage since it is covered by efficiency (which is damageperturn/energy)


---------------cost---mass--damage/turn--efficiency
Fed photon----1000---200----2.25----------.281
K photon------900----200----3-------------.5
Quantum------1500---300----3.25----------.325
Polaron Torp---2200---300----3.42----------.381
Plasma L------800-----200----1.83----------.262
Plasma M-----1200----300----2.5-----------.25
Plasma H-----1600----400----3.33----------.208
   

[SirWilliam]

Quote:
Sorry for lack of clarity, I DID use power usage for efficiency, not mass... I just didn't list power usage since it is covered by efficiency (which is damageperturn/energy)


---------------cost---mass--damage/turn--efficiency
Fed photon----1000---200----2.25----------.281
K photon------900----200----3-------------.5
Quantum------1500---300----3.25----------.325
Polaron Torp---2200---300----3.42----------.381
Plasma L------800-----200----1.83----------.262
Plasma M-----1200----300----2.5-----------.25
Plasma H-----1600----400----3.33----------.208
     

How about this:  

Belchfire & I came up with a different formula for efficiency.

Damage per turn (D)/mass (M) = Yield (Y)

D/M = Y

Y/Energy (E) = weapon efficiency (f)

Y/E = f

This would IMO give a more complete picture of the damage inflicted for a given weapon's mass and energy consumption.  I would be interested to see if anyone can come up with some numbers using this; I don't know where to get the energy consumption figures short of going into the yards and recording the energy used by each system.

Anyone care to comment?  

[Cmdr. Krotz]

It might be worth one's while to consider the relative power outputs of the various races when debating the subjective "efficiency ratings" of their weapons- klingon power planets put out roughly 80-85% of the equivalent fed one, roms are around 90-100% of fed warp core output...polarons, for instance, while they utilize 1 less point of power than the advanced fed torp, the quantum, the polaron is a greater relative stress on klingon power systems; this also somewhat diminishes the overload potential of k-photons (still well balanced against f-photons though).

The numbers posted thus far heavily weigh damage-over-time, which does have some serious weaknesses to consider: first, just because a weapon that can fire more often, does not mean it will always be in position to fire as soon as it is ready, and even if it is, it may not be hitting the same place (relevant to shielded targets), so that the actual damge being done over time may often be short of the full potential of the weapon. Another thing to consider as well is the fact that crunch power isn't really considered in these figures- weapons dependent on doing damage over time naturally tend to have less punch per shot, but the big, slow weapons can often take a shield down and do significant hull damage in one salvo (which might especially such if the ship with fast weapons has a bunch of it's weapon systems damaged/destroyed/stunned). I have to admit though, I don't have much of an idea on what would make a good formula for computing a useful "crunch power" value for weapons (plus it wouldn't be much value when considering the borg as one's target, after all, they haven't got any shields).

Just a couple things to consider when one looks at those efficiency numbers.  

[SirWilliam]

Quote:
It might be worth one's while to consider the relative power outputs of the various races when debating the subjective "efficiency ratings" of their weapons- klingon power planets put out roughly 80-85% of the equivalent fed one, roms are around 90-100% of fed warp core output...polarons, for instance, while they utilize 1 less point of power than the advanced fed torp, the quantum, the polaron is a greater relative stress on klingon power systems; this also somewhat diminishes the overload potential of k-photons (still well balanced against f-photons though).

The numbers posted thus far heavily weigh damage-over-time, which does have some serious weaknesses to consider: first, just because a weapon that can fire more often, does not mean it will always be in position to fire as soon as it is ready, and even if it is, it may not be hitting the same place (relevant to shielded targets), so that the actual damge being done over time may often be short of the full potential of the weapon. Another thing to consider as well is the fact that crunch power isn't really considered in these figures- weapons dependent on doing damage over time naturally tend to have less punch per shot, but the big, slow weapons can often take a shield down and do significant hull damage in one salvo (which might especially such if the ship with fast weapons has a bunch of it's weapon systems damaged/destroyed/stunned). I have to admit though, I don't have much of an idea on what would make a good formula for computing a useful "crunch power" value for weapons (plus it wouldn't be much value when considering the borg as one's target, after all, they haven't got any shields).

Just a couple things to consider when one looks at those efficiency numbers.  

Excellent points all.  

When considering "race-relative" power output however, using the (Yield/Energy = Efficiency)would work because energy consumed by a given weapon is a set number, not subject to the variations in warp power output of various engineering plants.

The chief weakness of this forumla is as you stated; it doesn't take into account chance to hit (a pretty big if) nor does it consider special weapon abilities (i.e. shield puncture.)  I simply submit it for using as a tool for figuring out how much firepower (as a function of energy output) can potentially be put on a target for a given weapon mass.

I would not even attempt to come up with an all-inclusive formula to determine relative effectiveness of all weapons in the game.  Maybe that guy in "A Beautiful Mind" could do it though.  

[Whiplash]

I absolutely like the Klingon weapons better. They fit they Klingon fighting style best. The Fed photons still feel a lot like the stodgy, power-piggish things they did in earlier SFCs. I don't like'em.

W.
 

[Cleaven]

Quote:


Excellent points all.  

When considering "race-relative" power output however, using the (Yield/Energy = Efficiency)would work because energy consumed by a given weapon is a set number, not subject to the variations in warp power output of various engineering plants.

The chief weakness of this forumla is as you stated; it doesn't take into account chance to hit (a pretty big if) nor does it consider special weapon abilities (i.e. shield puncture.)  I simply submit it for using as a tool for figuring out how much firepower (as a function of energy output) can potentially be put on a target for a given weapon mass.

I would not even attempt to come up with an all-inclusive formula to determine relative effectiveness of all weapons in the game.  Maybe that guy in "A Beautiful Mind" could do it though.    

On the contrary, I think a theory of everything would have been attempted in the development phase. Without it, or at least an approximation, you would just be guessing at the play balance. The alternative is a very lengthy and man power intensive trial-and-error process of testing and modifying parameters until the desired balance is achieved. Removing seeking weapons should have simplified the equation, but AMM's have complicated it a little bit.