Is it manned?

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 10:23 pm: Edit

Unmanned. It's remote operated just like a UAV.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 03:48 pm: Edit

Like a RC-only shuttle?

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 07:56 pm: Edit

Right, but it's not a shuttle. Not big enough. More like a really big drone with a lot of nifty stuff crammed into it.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 03:30 pm: Edit

If the missions are more shuttle-like, here would be appropriate.

Whereas turning a probe into a poor ADD does not.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 08:01 am: Edit

Rules-wise I'd put it under the G section. Here's a draft description:

1. For every two collocated X-Shuttle boxes, an X2 Ship receives (as part of its BPV) a Servo Drone (SD). Each SD must operate within 15 hexes of its controlling unit (either the parent unit or an X-Shuttle from the parent unit) or it will go inert until the controlling unit is within 15 hexes again. It is controlled like a remote-controlled shuttle (J15.0) and does not count against the controlling unit's drone control rating. At WS-II one SD can be launched and in the same hex as its parent unit or a hex adjacent to its parent unit. At WS-III one SD can be launched and operating within 15 hexes of its parent unit.

2. The SD can lend 4 points of EW to any friendly unit within 15 hexes (or O-EW to enemy units), carries one X2 probe (FH-arc), a FX-arc X2-ADD rack with 4 X2-ADDs. The X2 probe can not be armed as a weapon, but otherwise can be launched as desired. The SD can move at any speed up to and including 32, can change speed once every 8 impulses, can perform one HET each turn, and has 1 point of built-in anti-tractor. It is a large Size Class 7 nimble unit.

3. A servo drone can not be operated by a remotely-piloted X-shuttle and is destroyed with 8 points of damage. It retains all functions until destroyed. When not operating it is stored in a special ready rack in the shuttle bay (must be an X-Shuttle bay) and can only be destroyed when both adjoining X-shuttle boxes are destroyed. No unit can launch/recover a shuttle and a servo drone during the same impulse. No servo drone can be altered to act as an offensive drone, but it will destroy any drone it is guided into (and is itself destroyed). It produces two points of damage against Size Class 5-6 units, no damage against larger units, and can not be guided into plasma torpedoes.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 10:09 am: Edit

G is so full...now H, there's an under-used rules section.


I'm not saying anything here except that it's amazing how much of the game falls under G.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 06:30 pm: Edit

The unit is not appropriate to H (Power systems).

It would either be under G or J.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 07:57 pm: Edit

Are you reading what I'm saying?
I'm not commenting about the proposal here but rather than game as a whole.
G is a big section!...nothing more.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 08:20 pm: Edit

MJC,

I don't often read your stuff closely.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 09:49 pm: Edit

MJC, true H is an oft-ignored section. There's so much that is central to the game in it though. Perhaps that's why it isn't tinkered with as much: fear of monkeying with a kernal of the game.

I digress. Nobody has a comment for the servo drone? I'd very much welcome ideas, comments, criticism (with solutions), etc. I certainly don't have all the answers.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 10:03 pm: Edit

You have efectively provided an area-effect ECM drone and given it to everybody.

Just allowing a *scout channel* to do an area-effect ECM is a big, huge thing. Putting it on a large drone/small shuttle frame is insanely good.

Multiple SD EW effects don't stack, do they? They shouldn't, nor should loadned SD ECM stack with ECM drone ECM.

Suggest simply shortening the name to "servo" to avoid confusion.

The OEW ability is, on the other hand, a little too powerful. (OECM drones anyone?). I'd prefer that function to remain exclusive to scout channels.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 11:13 pm: Edit

That sounds reasonable. But no O-EW? What if it could only lend either EW or O-EW? To clarify, it can only lend to units within an area (and I would limit it to lending to only one other unit other than the parent unit), not affect an area. How about adding: the parent unit's X2 AEGIS can fire the servo's X2-ADDs on behalf of the ship?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 11:21 pm: Edit

This unit is boardering on a mini-SWACS and you're providing them by the bucketload.

Every unit would have tons of EW to lend themselves and use against opponents.

Imagine a 10-ship fleet with 20 of these things deployed.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 11:41 pm: Edit

I'm not disagreeing with you, but consider that the lending is limited to within 15 hexes of the servo. If we eliminate the O-EW (which is fine by me) then it does better fit the basic description of being a self-defense unit. Note also that it can only lend up to 4 EW points. Excellent point about the sheer number potentially available. Definitely agree with not being able to stack EW from other sources.

Try this: what if it could only lend for up to 16 impulses at a time, and must "recharge" 1 impulse for every 2 impulses of lent EW? This is adding complexity, but is it reasonable? Is it even necessary?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 11:15 am: Edit

I was thinking that the remote control fighter rules might get a tune up.

What if a vessel could lower the rate of control of fighter by running them in a trio, say 4 fighters per control channel if flown this way.
The fighters would all have to be in the same hex and run directly abreast of each other ( no follow the leader in asteroid feilds ) and all make exactly the same manouvers ( HEt and turn and EM and so on ) at exactly the same time.
The fighter would also be required to fire on the same target using the same weapons ( crippled fighters would not fire unless the fire for all three could be performed by the fighter ).
The fighters could be dropped into single control at will and any fighter tractored would automatically do so.

This is a way the hydrans ( who only have a seeking weapon control rating of 6 in the X period ) could increase the number of fighters they are controlling under remote control.


Yes, the droid fighters from Star Wars Episode I, and the Cylones from the Original Battle Star Galactica influenced the design.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 12:56 pm: Edit

Well, in a sense they would be just a one fighter, so why not keep it that way?
Besides I figure the paper work to handle the increased number of fighters would be more than most would like.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 07:00 pm: Edit

so a ship with a "6" Sensor rating would have 6 control channels could control 24 fighters (citing the 4 per control channels that MJC specified earlier?!?!)

I would respectfully disagree and hope ferverantly that proposal be rejected by "the appropriate" decision makers.

it may be appropriate to review the remote control rules, but this method is not the way to pursue it IMO.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 11:37 pm: Edit

Well such a ship can already control 18 and to my knowledge those fighter are far less restricted.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 12:54 pm: Edit

I was thinking a few things about Admin shuttles in the X2 Era.

Would it be a good idea to allow an X2 Admin to count as a Lab box ( under similar restrictions a WW ) for the ship in whose shuttle bay it sits, when engaging in EDR?
What about for ships that don't have a Lab box?


Also, would it be a good idea to allow a shuttle to sit in the shuttle bay, connected to the shuttle bay A.S.I.F., such that when the shuttle passes power to the ASIF, damage to the shuttle bay will first blow out the power producing systems of the shuttle but not actually detroy the shuttle bay box, and then when further damage strikes that shuttle bay box, the actual shuttle bay box is detroyed...???

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 02:03 pm: Edit

Lab in EDR use are just a way to approximate workshops. Shuttles are not workshops.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 02:39 pm: Edit

All the same, shuttles could be argued to have emergency kits, tool kits, and even the shuttle detachment would have a maintenance section.

I think Loren K.'s ASIF in some way already approximates that, but in terms of protecting shuttles in the bay (and preventing chain-reactions?) rather than acting as EDR.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 04:23 pm: Edit

Well, of course, but it is rather at the RPG level I think. There you could pick up the wrench out of the Shuttle toolbox and save the day.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 05:26 am: Edit

I was thinking along the lines that minturisation allowed the shuttle lab-function to be somewhat expanded.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 10:46 am: Edit

There could of course be dedicated repair shuttles that could do minimal repairs to the outside of a ship in a taskforce.
But if you want extra repair capability then 1. it is not really needed 2. easiest way to get it, if you want it, is to add a damcon box.