Archive through January 17, 2007
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Rules:
(FD) New Drones:
Drone Abbreviation Nomenclature:
Archive through January 17, 2007
While I like the chart in general, I absolutely hate the lower-case/upper-case thing. I also dislike using letters that are not related to the name, like "w" for "Stonefish". In this form, the codes don't really help anyone who hasn't memorized this chart. The codes need to much more obvious, even to someone who hasn't seen the chart. Using three letter codes whould be a much better approach.
EX1, EX2, EX3, EX4 - Explosive, 1/2 space each
ECM - Electronic Warfare
MW3, MW5 - Multi-Warhead with 3 or 5 subs
ST1, ST3, ST5 - Stonefish / Starfish with 1, 3, or 5 ADD
SW1, SW2, SW3 - Swordfish with phaser type
IA1, IA2, IA3, IA4 - Internal Armor, 1/2 space each
SP1, SP2 - Spearfish, size 1 or 2
PRB - Probe
NL1, NL2, NL3, NL4 - Null, 1/2 space each
John,
Are you sure that is enough differentiation between stonefish and starfish? Should a stonefish be a MW1 instead? [iirc the stonefish has a single VI sub].
What would you label external armor as? EX and XA make sense.
I'm fine with the idea but I'm concerned about EX, which might be confused with external armor. Are you willing to consider a two digit code (E1, E2, E3, E4) for explosive modules? Are you willing to ignore explosive modules in favor of recording the damage a type-IV drone does in this format: IV-6/24-F?
I was just throwing those out as possibles, rather than just saying I don't like the single letter lower/upper case thing. Actually for explosive stuff, something like 6/12/18/24 or E6/E12/E18/E24 is probably be better.
[The chart says a stonefish has a single ADD which I think is right, so I think the stonefish/starfish thing works.]
Ah, so which is the drone with a single VI submunition? Answer: look at the chart. Its a Stingray drone.
We should call the Stingray MW1 and the Stonefish ST1, just as you said. Gawd, I can't even keep these names straight, let alone arbitrary abbreviations. Clear abreviations will make things much easier.
Using the E12 style explosive designation makes sense and allows us to use E06 to conform with the three digit concept. I like it.
Quote:I like it. Do you have a spreadsheet version?
Yes, but I won't consider distrubuting it until we have a concensus here.
Quote:Can you add a second column for alternative name (long code)?
Currently, I've started it as another page in my spreadsheet. I can add it to the current one (just didn't want to crowd this chart even more than it already is.)
Quote:EX1, EX2, EX3, EX4 - Explosive, 1/2 space each
Is this confusing because we're talking each full number is a half-space on the drone?
Would E0.5, E1.0, E1.5, E2.0 be better?
(Current format would be e, E, Ee, EE.)
I like the E06, E12, E18, E24 options for explosive modules.
But now you're back to memorizing the chart to know that "E06" takes a half-space and "E18" takes 1.5 spaces.
IMO, the key use of the abbreviations is so that there is a consistent nomenclature used so that any SFB player can read a drone loadout and understand the capabilities of the drones purchased. IMO, expanding this nomenclature so that it also allows people not to have to look up on the chart (when building/purchasing drones) is what we in the business call "scope creep."
Quote:the key use of the abbreviations is so that there is a consistent nomenclature used so that any SFB player can read a drone loadout and understand the capabilities of the drones purchased.
I would disagree.
The key use of the abbreviations is to have a "shorthand" to quickly write the drone loads in minimal space when building a force.
If you were looking for readability, you would just spell it out. ("6xI-F-H-E" vs. "6 Type-I Fast 1 space Explosive with ATG")
Gary. My apologies, I had assumed the use of the word "nomenclature" in the context of this discussion assumed a certain level of shorthand.
Nonetheless, I would still stipulate that the primary use is for recording drone load-outs, not for creating them. As such, I would consider having the nomenclature indicate space count as out of scope.
Quote:...the primary use is for recording drone load-outs, not for creating them. As such, I would consider having the nomenclature indicate space count as out of scope.
I can agree with that. It seemed some others were trying to make this more all-encompassing.
I second E06, E12, E18, E24. People can examine the chart to determine how many warhead spaces that takes (a task that is somewhat irrelevant once the drone has been created). I think it will take players less time to know that an E18 takes up 1.5 warhead spaces then it will take for them to know that 1.5 explosive spaces results in 18 damage. Of the two I consider what the drone does (18) to be the more important component when playing the game.
To be consistant it might be good to also use IA2, IA4, IA6, XA2, XA4 to denote how much extra damage a drone can absorb.
I'd say that after speed the most important information for 90% of all drones I launch can be summarized as 4/12, 6/6, 6/24, 8/18, 10/12 or 12/6.
It is somewhat traditional to reverse the damage/explosive strength numbers - at least in my experience e.g. IV (18/8).
Another thing to keep in mind with drones is that 90% of them are I, IV, I(6/6), IV(18/8) with a smattering of IV(12/10) in there. The point is it should be easy to state what the bulk of normal drones are.
If it takes you a bit of writing to state a IV-FMW(8/6) with M speed submunitions there is unlikely to be very many of them anyway. (That is a fast type IV, with a 1 space MW module with 3 medium speed submunitions and the rear space filled with half a space of armour and half a space of explosive module for those without a direct line to my personal nomenclature... 
However, if to write out a standard type I we get I-M(12/4)-20 or something, I for one will ignore the nomenclature...
I agree that a standard all explosive module drone can (and should) be short handed to I-M or IV-F. The long hand version should be an acceptable alternate.
Even I-Me12 isn't too bad.
I think that explosive modules should not even be noted - you can just assume that any spaces that are not otherwise specified are explosive. Thus, a 1M is a 4/12 explosive drone (and contrary to what David says, the order I have always seen is hitpoints/warhead).
An 8/18 fast drone would be 4Fa. A 12/6 would be 4FAa.
And I still say, we need to get rid of those clumsy Roman numerals for drone types. Also, if you are sticking with single letters for the various modules, you don't need all those dashes - they just make things longer and harder to read.
Quote:we need to get rid of those clumsy Roman numerals for drone types.
That's not an option. It's how the rules are written.
Of course, an appeal to SVC may change this in which case you're "golden".
Alternate Designators:
| Letter Code | Description | BPV | YIS | Avail | Size | Warheads | Damage | Destroy | End | Rule | Notes |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Drone Frames - Pick 1 | | | | | | | | | | |
| I- | Type-I Drone Frame | 0.0 | 65 | G | 1.0 | 1 | - | 4 | 3 turns | (FD2.1) | - |
| II- | Type-II Drone Frame | 0.5 | 77/100/120 | L/R/G | 1.0 | 1 | - | 4 | 2 turns | (FD10.33) | 1 |
| III- | Type-III Drone Frame | 0.5 | 83 | L | 1.0 | 1 | - | 4 | 25 turns | (FD2.1) | 1, 3, 4, 9 |
| III-XX- | Type-III Extended Range Drone | 1.0 | 93 | L | 2.0 | 1 | - | 4 | 100 turns | (FD10.24) | 1, 3, 4, 9 |
| IV- | Type-IV Drone Frame | 0.0 | 65 | G | 2.0 | 2 | - | 6 | 3 turns | (FD2.1) | - |
| V- | Type-V Drone Frame | 0.5 | 77/100/120 | L/R/G | 2.0 | 2 | - | 6 | 2 turns | (FD10.33) | 1 |
| VI- | Type-VI Dogfight Drone Frame | 0.0 | 99 | G | 0.5 | NA | 2/4/8 | 3 | 12 hex | (FD2.5) | 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 |
| H- | Type-H Heavy Drone Frame | 0.0 | 165 | G | 3.0 | 3 | - | 12 | 3 turns | (FD21.2) | 18, 19 |
| H2- | Type-H Heavy Drone Frame | 0.0 | 165 | G | 3.0 | 3 | - | 12 | 2 turns | (FD21.2) | 1, 18, 19 |
| VII- | Type-VII X-Drone Frame | 0.0 | 181 | G | 1.0 | 1.5 | - | 6 | 5 turns | (XFD2.0) | 2, 4 |
| VIII- | Type-VIII X-Drone Frame | 0.0 | 181 | G | 1.5 | 2 | - | 8 | 5 turns | (XFD2.0) | 2, 4 |
| IX- | Type-IX X-Dogfight Drone Frame | 0.0 | 181 | G | 0.5 | NA | 2/4/8 | 4 | 2 turns | (XFD2.0) | 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Drone Speeds - Pick 1 | | | | | | | | | | |
| S- | Slow Speed | 0.0 | 65 | G | - | - | - | - | - | (FD10.32) | - |
| M- | Medium Speed | 0.5 | 165/166/167 | L/R/G | - | - | - | - | - | (FD10.34) | - |
| F- | Fast Speed | 1.0 | 178/179/180 | L/R/G | - | - | - | - | - | (FD10.35) | - |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Additional Upgrades - No space consumed. | | | | | | | | | | |
| X- | Extended Range | 0.5 | 93 | G | - | - | - | - | x2, x4 | (FD2.222) | 8, 9 |
| ATG- | Active Terminal Guidance (ATG) | 0.5 | 126 | R | - | - | - | - | - | (FD5.2) | 4, 23 |
| b- | 0.5 External Armor | 0.25 | 67 | L | - | - | - | +2 | - | (FD12.0) | 10, 11, 12, 23 |
| B- | 1.0 External Armor | 0.5 | 67 | L | - | - | - | +4 | - | (FD12.0) | 10, 11, 12, 23 |
| CAT- | Catfish | 5.0 | 121 | G | - | - | - | - | - | (FD51.0) | 22, 23 |
| SGM- | Subspace-Guided Missile | 2.0 | 156 | G | - | - | - | - | - | (FD53.0) | 24 |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Drone Warheads - Pick up to space available for frame | | | | | | | | | | |
| e06 | Explosive | 0.0 | 65 | G | - | 0.5 | 6 | - | - | (FD10.41) | 20 |
| e12 | Explosive | 0.0 | 65 | G | - | 1.0 | 12 | - | - | (FD10.41) | 20 |
| e18 | Explosive | 0.0 | 65 | G | - | 1.5 | 18 | - | - | (FD10.41) | 20 |
| e24 | Explosive | 0.0 | 65 | G | - | 2.0 | 24 | - | - | (FD10.41) | 20 |
| n1 | Null Space | 0.0 | 65 | G | - | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | - | (FD10.48) | - |
| n2 | Null Space | 0.0 | 65 | G | - | 1.0 | 0 | 0 | - | (FD10.48) | - |
| n3 | Null Space | 0.0 | 65 | G | - | 1.5 | 0 | 0 | - | (FD10.48) | - |
| n4 | Null Space | 0.0 | 65 | G | - | 2.0 | 0 | 0 | - | (FD10.48) | - |
| ARM2 | Armor | 0.0 | 67 | R | - | 0.5 | - | +2 | - | (FD12.0) | 10, 12 |
| ARM4 | Armor | 0.0 | 67 | R/L | - | 1.0 | - | +4 | - | (FD12.0) | 10, 12, 13 |
| ARM6 | Armor | 0.0 | 67 | R | - | 1.5 | - | +6 | - | (FD12.0) | 10, 12 |
| ARM8 | Armor | 0.0 | 67 | L | - | 2.0 | - | +8 | - | (FD12.0) | 10, 12, 13 |
| PRB | Probe | 0.0 | 152/155 | R | - | 1.0 | - | - | - | (FD6.0) | 17, 21, 23 |
| MW3 | Multi-Warhead | 2.0 | 175 | L | - | 1.0 | 3xType-VI | - | - | (FD8.0) | 14, 15, 23 |
| MW5 | Multi-Warhead | 2.5 | 170 | L | - | 2.0 | 5xType-VI | - | - | (FD8.0) | 14, 15, 23 |
| MW1 | Stingray | 0.5 | 168/171 | L/R | - | 1.0 | 1xType-VI | - | - | (FD16.0) | 14, 15, 23 |
| ECM | ECM | 0.0 | 150 | R | - | 1.0 | - | - | - | (FD9.0) | 3, 12, 22, 23 |
| SW3 | SwordFish (Ph3) | 0.5 | 174 | L | - | 1.0 | Ph-3 | - | - | (FD11.0) | 14, 23 |
| SW2 | SwordFish (Ph-2) | 1.0 | 174 | L | - | 2.0 | Ph-2 | - | - | (FD11.0) | 14, 23 |
| SW1 | X-Swordfish (Ph-1) | 2.0 | 181 | L | - | 2.0 | Ph-1 | - | - | (XFD11.12) | 14, 23 |
| SP1 | SpearFish | 0.5 | 175 | L | - | 1.0 | 1+2 | - | - | (FD14.0) | 14, 16, 20 |
| SP2 | SpearFish | 1.0 | 175 | L | - | 2.0 | 2+4 | - | - | (FD14.0) | 14, 16, 20 |
| ADD3 | StarFish | 2.0 | 172 | L | - | 1.0 | 3xADD | - | - | (FD15.0) | 14, 23 |
| ADD5 | StarFish | 2.5 | 172 | L | - | 2.0 | 5xADD | - | - | (FD15.0) | 14, 23 |
| ADD1 | StoneFish | 0.5 | 168/171 | L/R | - | 1.0 | 1xADD | - | - | (FD17.0) | 14, 23 |
|
NOTES:
1. Type-II, -III, -V, -H2, and -VI drones are speed-12 (never speed-8) and do not get a speed "Letter" designator. (Type-III, and -VIs can be upgraded to speed-20 or speed-32) (FD2.21) (FD2.227).
2. All X-Drones (Types-VII, -VIII, and -IX) can be set to run at any speed and do not pay for speed upgrades (it's included in the X-drone frame) (XFD10.3).
3. Type-III ECM drones are R (Restricted) availablity for Klingon vessels (FD10.622).
4. Type-III, -VII, and -VIII drones include ATG at no extra cost (FD2.21) (XFD5.2).
5. Type-VI and -IX drones use warp-seeking guidance (FD2.56).
6. Dogfight drones (Type-VI and -IX) cannot be modified other than by speed upgrades (FD10.13).
7. Type-VI and -IX dogfight drones score 2 damage on ships, 4 on Size Class 5 targets, and 8 on Size Class 6 and 7 (FD2.54). They automatically destroy another drone (FD1.56).
8. Extended range cannot be added to Type-VI or -IX dogfight drones. (XFD2.222)
9. Type-III drones that add EXTENDED RANGE gain x4 endurance (100 turns), become a 2-space drone (Type-III-XX), but still have only 1 warhead space of payload (FD10.24).
10. External Armor cannot be combined with Internal Armor (FD12.131).
11. External Armor reduces the speed of the drone. See the chart to determine it's effective speed (based on drone size and speed) (FD12.132).
12. Armor (Internal or External) cannot be combined with an ECM module (FD10.443).
13. Slug Drones (drones with all warhead spaces filled with Internal Armor) are Limited Availability (FD10.63).
14. The following must be the "front" module in any drone with more than 1.0 warhead space: Multi-Warhead, Swordfish, Spearfish, Stingray, and Stonefish (FD10.402).
15. Multi-Warhead and Stingray warhead modules may purchase speed upgrades (if available) for their Type-VI submunitions (FD8.24).
16. Spearfish do automatic internal damage even if the shields are not exceeded. Their damage format is (Internal Damage)+(Shield Damage) per warhead. (FD14.21)
17. Only Orions can use the Probe module at the earlier Y152 date (FD6.0).
18. Type-H drones form a separate "pool" from other drone spaces for calculation of availability percentages (FD21.34).
19. Type-H drones are damaged by ADDs like shuttles, not like drones. (FD21.35).
20. Type-H drones cannot have Spearfish modules combined with Explosive modules (FD21.35).
21. Type-H drones cannot be configured as ECM or Probe drones (FD21.32).
22. CATFISH drone upgrade is available only on Frax submarinesn (FD51.0).
23. CATFISH can only use explosive, internal armor, spearfish or null modules (FD51.12). They cannot add ATG guidance.
24. Subspace-Guided Missiles are only available to the Qari and can only be applied to Type-I drones (FD53.11).
Examples (for format):
I-M-e12 (Type-I, Medium Speed, 12 damage)
I-M-ATG-e06ARM2 (Type-I, Medium Speed, ATG, 6 damage, 0.5 Armor for 6 damage to kill)
I-F-X-b-e12 (Type-I, Fast Speed, Extended Range, 0.5 external armor, 12 damage)
III-F-ECM (Type-III, Fast, ECM)
IV-M-e12ARM4 (Type-IV, Medium Speed, 12 damage, 1.0 Armor for 10 damage to kill)
Now compare that ugliness to Andy's version:
1M
1Ma-ATG
1FbX
3FE
4MA
Notice that dashes are only used when necessary to separate multi-letter abbreviations. Also, since explosive modules are assumed in any payload spaces not used by something else, the letter "E" can indicate an ECM module. As
Now let's say you have a B-rack that is filled with those drones.
Which would you rather try to read:
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| B | I-M-e12 | I-M-ATG-e06ARM2 | I-F-X-b-e12 | III-F-ECM | IV-M-e12ARM4 | -- |
or
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| B | 1M | 1Ma-ATG | 1FbX | 3FE | 4MA | -- |
On the Roman numeral thing:
I realize the rule text uses Roman numerals. However, there are no rules that say how to abbrievate drone names. That's why we have this whole topic. Everything here is a rules proposal. So what the rules use for the drone names has no bearing on whether the drone abbreviations use Roman or Arabic numerals.
I don't like the four digit armor code (ARM2) or the external armor code (B or b). Would rather see IA2, IA4, IA6, XA2, XA4 representing internal and external armor.
ATG drones do have a formal nomenclature: 'H'. Should we supplant the formal designation with a new longer designation? Answer: Now that the Type-H drone has been released it would be best to use ATG to avoid confusion and stick with a three digit standard where possible.
FWIW, phasers used to have roman numerals back in MDCCCCLXXXVIII or so, and they changed to something more sensible.