Archive through June 24, 2005
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 drones: Archive through June 24, 2005
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 08:24 am: Edit

Quote:

"the difference between double drone control and tripple isclose to irrelivent."

It won't be if you allow wire-guided drones that use 2 channels.


So one would think at first glance.


Consider a Klingon DX @ WS-III.
She launches two WBP-SPs with a mid-turn speed change...moves to R8 and launched two Type VII drones ( which have ATG as standard ) under ATG and suddenly 14 drones are legally moving toward their target.
If the enemy is likely to move consistantly slower than 20 ( not just a Fed DDa+ but a lot of ships ) then going without the WBPs and setting the drones to speed 20 becomes an option.
It gets even worse with a DXD which can through in another 4 drones.


So how do we organise these drones?

Three turns worth of switch drones ( launching type VII drones from the X2E-rack as well as the 2 X2 B-racks of a Klingon XCA+ ) fills up all 18 drone control channels and then going to R8 and launching ATG type VII drones is only going to put up 12 Type VII drones...that's less than what two SPs and a well times mid turn speed change can give you.

Or launching an SP of switch drones ( consuming 12 channels ) and launching another 2 ( from the X2A-racks of a klingon XCA ) will give you the ability to hurn 8 drones switch drones at the target...sure you get a drone tsunami and don't needed to get to R8 without a mid turn speed change but it's not nearly as deadly as a mid-turn speed change drone tsunami.


This basically is the basis of the Switch drone...you get a slightly smaller drone tsunami than you would have got with careful speed changes and SPs, without the hassel.


For 300-330 BPV the XCA isn't doing that much better than the DX which comes in at 250 BPV.
The S_bridge isn't going to be a game breaker if it's allowed to control drones even if certain new fangled drone designs use the penalty of consumming extra drone control channels.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 08:32 am: Edit

On, thinking about it.

In a duel an X2 ship could launch say four switch drones ( from an XD7D ( unrefitted ), cop a weasel, divert 3 to balistic targeting, wait for the forth to pop the weasel, wait four more impulse and then redirect all three remaining drones at the ship...this assumes the roll to avoid being terminally targeted at the WW succeeds.


I think we should make it a requirement that once a ship becomes that target of a switch drone that only another ship can beome the redirected target of a switch drone.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 08:47 am: Edit

IMO once a WW is used. you Can't switch the target until the WW explosion period is over. You can switch as long as the drones don't reach the explosion. But until the explosion is over the drones are still focused on the WW.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 09:38 am: Edit

Had a thought about drones, particularly for the Kzintis. Would giving the Kzintis a limited use of Hyperdrones be too offensive to anyone? I'm not a big Kzinti fan, but it seems like a cool Kzinti thing to have on a limited basis.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 03:40 pm: Edit

My answer is a cautious negative. Not only is there no precedence for speed-640 drones in non-simulator tech...

Picture a ship dealing with a major inbound drone swarm (say the previous turn's launch), and getting peppered with hyperdrones at the same time...

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 03:51 pm: Edit

Well, my thought would be a Kzinti CX with four normal racks, and a pair of HD racks. Anyway, it was just an idea. Maybe a limited version would work, or something; who knows?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 04:27 pm: Edit

Well, they would have to forgo useing disruptors at all. That would be their torp.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 06:44 pm: Edit

Potentially bad idea.

It would force the direct-fire drone rules on everyone.

Too many drones on a kzinti and they start to overwhelm drone defense too easily.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 07:53 pm: Edit

Too many drones on a kzinti and they start to overwhelm drone defense too easily.
And too few and they start to be Klingons ( or DC armed Klingons ).


We may have to leave the Kzintis until we've got everybody else's drone defenses sorted out...ick!

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 11:01 pm: Edit

Discussion moved here from the X1R topic.

Quote:

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 08:54 pm: Edit


Can someone write up a rule brief that will upgrade the targetting module on a VII-XX or a VIII-XX? I'd like all the features of a III-XX drone plus the ability to lock onto a moving target from somewhere between 35-100 hexes out, check the tac-intel section to see when an X-probe drone first gets level A info on a target. In this way the X drone will be superior at performing a bombardment operation against a moving target like a convoy. This new technology then gives us a reason to create more DBX ships. We will need an approximate BPV for this type of drone, endurance and if the warhead space is reduced to store more fuel.

Anyone who would like to discuss this further please do so in the X2 Drone thread.



(XFD1?.00) Cruise Drones: Type VII and Type VIII drones can be constructed with war head modules that provide additional fuel and an improved guidance. In effect, converting the drones into ‘cruise’ drones usable on drone bombardment missions. Cruise modules can be purchased in .5 and 1 space modules.
(XFD1?.01) A half space cruise module costs 1.5 points, provides 25 turns of endurance and an ATG control system with all the benefits and restrictions of (FD5.251) through (FD5.254) and (FD5.256).
(XFD1?.02) A one space cruise module costs 3.0 points, provides 100 turns of endurance and an ATG control system with all the benefits and restrictions of (FD5.251) through (FD5.256).
(XFD1?.03)* Additionally, a cruise module can lock on to a target in its FA arc at a range of 30 hexes and self guide.
(XFD1?.04) If a drone equipped with a cruise module can not have its range extended.
(XFD1?.05) If a drone equipped with a cruise module is launched from a scatter pack or similar device the ATG systems will burn out.

*Probe drones giains level A tacintel at range 10; range 20 or 30 with a shift. X-probe drones apparrently do not gain an added benefit over standard tech. I would probably be more comfortable with lock-ons gained at range twelve.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 01:03 am: Edit

Better. Lets scrap the probe drone tac-intel concept and simply say that the drone can track a moving target even without a formal lock-on all the way out to tac-intel level S1. It will have to gain a formal lock-on at some point. We can either allow the launching ship to set the range that the formal lock takes place or adopt range 8 as defined in (FD5.252).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 02:17 am: Edit

Reposted from another topic

VII and VIII drones function in all respects like III XX drones. the advanced X-ATG system is sassumed to be up to the task of guiding the drone.

All XX conversions retain their full warhead capacity.


VII-XX
Becomes a 2-space drone. BPV cost to upgrade: identical to the cost of going from a III-F to a III-XXF (Don't have it in front of me, sorry) Edit: call it the cost of 3x extended range since an X-drone doesn't have the range of a III - +1.5

VIII-XX
Becomes a 3 space drone only launchable from drogues. BPV upgrade cost: 2x VII upgrade cost. Edit: 3 points

Addition:
Off the top of my head, I attempted to duplicate the process of converting a Type III to a Type III-XX.

Tos' reply:

John, I don't like it.

I'd rather trade warhead size for fuel then increase the size as was done with the III-XX.

I don't understand the objection. The III-XX doesn't trade warhead for fuel. AFAIK, it still has a full warhead space available, just as a Type-III does. I may be wrong. I didn't find many rules covering III-XX construction.

And if the III-XX has a single module of warhead space availale, the only point to making a VII-XX is to deliver that extra 1/2-space of punch. The VIII-XX is a different story. A heavy bombardment drone is almost an end unto itself.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 03:03 am: Edit

Well, couldn't this simply be the Type 10 or rather Type-X drone. A new drone frame altogether. Basically, a Type-7 with Type-3 characterisics. Can add extended range just like on a Type-3. Same rules, just add the Type-7 module spaces and damage points.

Done.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 06:07 am: Edit

Quote:

I don't understand the objection. The III-XX doesn't trade warhead for fuel. AFAIK, it still has a full warhead space available, just as a Type-III does. I may be wrong. I didn't find many rules covering III-XX construction.


Actually there is awarhead reduction in that a 1 space drone becomes a 2 space drone.

Personnally I'm REALLY not into the idea of a TYPE VIII-XX drone with type III targeting.
Quite simply the uping of 12/4/32 to 18/6/32 is well and truely enough of a boost for DB ships to be chucking at enemy units.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 06:09 am: Edit

The raised number of drone racks on X ships will also make DBXs more dangerous than GW DB ships.


These factors ARE multiplicative.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 11:22 am: Edit

Loren,

No real reason. Not a bad idea.

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 06:25 pm: Edit

Quote:

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 03:03 am: Edit


Well, couldn't this simply be the Type 10 or rather Type-X drone. A new drone frame altogether. Basically, a Type-7 with Type-3 characterisics. Can add extended range just like on a Type-3. Same rules, just add the Type-7 module spaces and damage points.

Done.



In one sense that would be the ideal solution. However, introducing another drone frame, assuming that frame is limited availability (with the usual exceptions for DB ships), produces a side effect. That effect is the requirement to track special drones by frames. X-drone construction currently provides for tracking special drones by module spaces only. I don’t know if other players would consider this a problem, but I would not like to calculate drone percentages by frame and module spaces at the same time.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 08:01 pm: Edit

This already is done withthe Type-III and Type-X drones would be primarilly for DB missions so they would, more often than not, be all the frames or none.

There is of course some exception. I would hate to see such a simple solution fail because of that exception.

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 10:29 pm: Edit

Loren,

I do agree that a simple solution is prefered. The problem is that if X-ships (DB ships and non-DB ships) want to use a long range drone (either Type-III or Type-X) they have to utilize a comodity that has a limited availability measured by frames rather than modules. Granted this would not be an issue in long range DB missions. That leaves complications with short range (in this case on map) drone combat were ships will be needing a mix of regular and long range drones. The latter situation will probably occur more often.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 11:17 pm: Edit

IIRC, DB ships can have their entire complement of drones be Type III. These drones are certainly functional in close range play.

Anyway, its been my experience (certainly quite limited compaired to the rest of the world of players) that such a situation, where a DB ship loads up for a close ranged mission with a mix of frame types is rare. If the effort to keep track of frame types was to be used commonly on most ships then I'd agree the extra work would affect the fun of the game. But it's one specialty class in a rare mission type.

When I play DB ships in fleets battle I never use any Type III's. They cost too much and in the case of X-drones, the Type-X offers no added capabilities exept for the long ranged DB mission.

You work to mix types would have little pay off. Just use Type7's and 8's on your DB units in fleets.

Perhaps I should have asked first, why would you mix Type-X with Type-VII and Type VIII's in a fleet in the first place?

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 12:23 am: Edit

My recollection may be wrong but I believe the rule is that DB ships may carry all Type-III-XX for bombardment missions or 25% limited availablity special drones when operating in a fleet support mode. In my experience, often players would utilize a mixture of Type 1,4 and 3 drones. At the price of 1 point we tended to use Type-3 drones as much as possible. Type-3s are the same price as Type-1-X ATG and superior in every way. Invariable any module that was limited went on a Type-III frame. Add in the fact that X-drones and standard ATG drones can not use the tame boar launch ability that is availble to Type-III drones. Which means that X-ships can not utilize the tame boar method without mixing drone construction rules.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 12:43 am: Edit

The VII-XX would have only 1 1/2 warhead spaced for a 2-space drone. I guess the warhead "reduction" is properly in play.

Same thing for the VIII-XX. It reatins the VIII warhead. Going to 3-spaces does not give it additional warhead to play with.

Basic Set sez the IX and X drones are marked "Property of X2", but I think it can be forgiven in this case.

Suppose we built a pure bombarment-specific drone out of the IX: 2-space, 1 1/2 warhead spaces, pure long-lance?

Suppose we also built a X drone that was a 3-space big brother designed to be drogue-launched?

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 02:18 am: Edit

In the X2 synopsis thread, I posted:

Quote:

For everyone except the Kzintis, use X0 or X1 racks. The Kzintis get a new rack that can hold 4 and fire 3 per turn (i.e., shoot everything at once, if one of the drones is a big one.)

For everyone except the Klingons, use X0 or X1 modules. I'll post my new proposal for Klingon drones in the drone thread.



new Klingon X2 drone proposal

The small X1 drone does 18 points of damage.

What about an X2 drone for the Klingons that does 12 points of damage, but can survive an ADD hit?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 04:54 am: Edit

Might cause problems with GW ships as they can't, as yet, rapid pulse their phasers.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 06:07 am: Edit

Would the non-autokill from ADDs influence the "drones autokill drones" rule?


As it is I think GX-racks will just wind up hurling type IX and G-racks type VIF to dispatch those Klingon drones and thay might have a particular bent for some races but in the X era I think the net result will be that the drones are non increase in challenge for X ships and hellish on GW ships that forget to load up at least one VIF in each rack.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation