Archive through December 30, 2002
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 drones: Archive through December 30, 2002
By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, December 27, 2002 - 12:51 am: Edit

There are two very easy fixes for the point blank problem. One is the SOP change being discussed in the speed topic. The second is even easier and simply requires replacing each P3 with a P2 or a P1.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, December 27, 2002 - 01:18 am: Edit

So the D7 with ph-2 in the back for drone defense was ahead of its time. I like it.

By Chris LaRusso (Soulcatcher) on Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 12:38 am: Edit

How about the 4 space X2 drone for the Kzinti?

Triple Drone Control?

Or how about the Kzintis get hold of the Feds simulator races and learn to develop some tech: Scuds and hyperdrones... add some reality check to these items.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 01:55 am: Edit

In old X2 the Type IX was 1/2 spc with a 8 pt. warhead and the Type X was 1 spc with a 24 pt. warhead.

Weird huh?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 02:22 pm: Edit

Actually, a better fix is allowing one aegis-step's worth of point-defense fire after seeking weapon movment, after movement is over and before weapons deal damage. The weapons fire can only be taken against seeking weapons targetted on the ship.

It may necessitate a slight change in the sequence of play, may not. I don't remember it closely enough.

Chris,

An interesting way to increase drone control without going to 3x control is allow a powered ECM/ECCM circuit to control one seeking weapon instead of giving ECM or ECCM.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 07:15 pm: Edit

So let's imagine a Lyran XCC with a range 0 ESG up. In comes a drone doing a 2-0 jump. If I understand this right, the ship fires at R1 in the aegis step.

Soes this happen before or after the drone hits the R0 ESG? If before, we get 2 damage-during-movement steps; if after, things are backwards.

The extra damage-during-movement step would also be required for t-bombs, asteroids, coagulators and all manner of other things, which will probably play havoc with the SOP.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 07:56 pm: Edit

I'm not sure that the SoP would be all the confused. Since fire is only taken against inbound seeking weapons, I don't see any interation with t-bombs, asteroids or anything else you mentioned. You simply give the fire opportunitity a slot in the Sequence of play and let that position answer all your questions.

I found a SoP on line. So keeping your ESG question in mind, it seems best to let the advantage go to the attacker and give the fire op after ESGs do their work.

The fire step would go in right after ESG damage (6A3:001) and right before Enveloping Plasma damage (6A3:002) and only at this point.

It WOULD be confusing if we allowed a weapons fire step before each type of movement-based damage resolution, so we won't.

This fire would be considered to technically be a 5th Aegis step attached to fire from the turn before so weapons not tied to aegis could not fire.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 09:24 pm: Edit

Quote:

I found a SoP on line. So keeping your ESG question in mind, it seems best to let the advantage go to the attacker and give the fire op after ESGs do their work.

The fire step would go in right after ESG damage (6A3:001) and right before Enveloping Plasma damage (6A3:002) and only at this point.

It WOULD be confusing if we allowed a weapons fire step before each type of movement-based damage resolution, so we won't.

This fire would be considered to technically be a 5th Aegis step attached to fire from the turn before so weapons not tied to aegis could not fire.



Well that's just silly.

If 4 Type IV drones pass from R3 to R1 ( both ship and drones moved this impulse ) and their is an R2 ( 5 points of power ) ESG and then is fired on at R1 by phasers. The event that is resolved where the drones past through the ESG, not where they are at the end of the seeking weapons step.


We don't need an extra direct fire step between seeking movement steps.
WE NEED A POINT DEFENSE SWEETSPOT RANGE INCREASE.

If we say that the new point Defense weapon has a sweetspot at R5 ( use the Ph-1 table ).
And the Ph-2 analog has an sweetspot at R10.
And the Ph-1 analog has a sweetspot at R17 ( Ph-4 Jr. ).
Then we won't be worried by speed 40 drones, or speed 64 drones, because the ships will get a decent fire opportunity to destroy the incomming drones, and all the people really want to defend themselves against drones and plasma is 1 decent shot. More won't be needed, but is cool if we can get it.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 09:41 pm: Edit

I just thought of how to deal with ADDs.

A New design philosophy, brings about a new weapon.

The X2E-rack.
It can launch Type XII ( the Type VI X2 Analog ) drones at a rate of one per impulse.

Consequently X-ships didn't mount ADDs but instead X2E-racks.


X2G-racks might get to fire Type XIIs at the same rate as a regular E-rack or maybe one per 6 impulses or some such, to avoid them becoming completely useless.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 10:33 pm: Edit

Launching a drone, even a mini-drone is a powerful advantage over an ADD.

For most purposes, you're proposing something just short of a never-miss ADD.

I'd perfer to extend the ADD's range a hex and make the X2 ship roll a dice.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 12:31 am: Edit

Alright maybe every Impulse is too fast...maybe every second or third impulse is better.


If we're dealing with 33+ and 40+ drones then we'll need about R10 for the ADDs longest range.

Maybe replace ADDs with specialised GX-racks ( Type III drone every four impulses ) and make starfish drones more common...indeed, ubiquitous when placed on ships who's predecessor had ADDs.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 12:59 am: Edit

Just a quick note that I overlooked before. A Trans-32 seeking weapon will be able to, in one impulse, impact from R3 if the ship moves toward it on the impulse the SW jumps two. Trans-32 SW work outside of the normal machanics of the game so a unique exception should be allowed for a single R1 shot to counter this. Otherwise the power to use the limitations of the game mechanics to influance maneuve will be more powerful that the balance can handle. The Battle value of a Trans-32 Drone should be very high without this balance. It would only require a simple short rule. I made a proposal in "Late War Plasma Fix". The discusion above will be of interest as well, I think.

Moving the "Sweet Spot" is good for X2 but will not be the whole solution as other eras will be involved as well as other defenses such as ADD and Lab and Tractors.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 03:06 am: Edit

Quote:

Just a quick note that I overlooked before. A Trans-32 seeking weapon will be able to, in one impulse, impact from R3 if the ship moves toward it on the impulse the SW jumps two. Trans-32 SW work outside of the normal machanics of the game so a unique exception should be allowed for a single R1 shot to counter this. Otherwise the power to use the limitations of the game mechanics to influance maneuve will be more powerful that the balance can handle. The Battle value of a Trans-32 Drone should be very high without this balance. It would only require a simple short rule. I made a proposal in "Late War Plasma Fix". The discusion above will be of interest as well, I think.

Moving the "Sweet Spot" is good for X2 but will not be the whole solution as other eras will be involved as well as other defenses such as ADD and Lab and Tractors.



No...not quite.

So long as drone kills or good percentages of drone kills can be done, why introduce a point blank range fire step.

1) The ship shouldn't have stept into a 32+ seeker.
2) The ship could have slapped on a tractor at R3, and killed it the slow way...or found a good impulse to release on and hit it at R1.
3) The ship could have shot off Ph-1s. With the same minimum damage from an R3 Ph-1 or Ph-2 shot as an R1 Ph-3, the ships are just going to have to learn that if you're a GW or X1 ship and you have an X2 drone comming at you, you'll just have to use your Offensive phasers AS point defense phasers. It's not like the X1s are short of Ph-1s.

The whole solution is longer sweetspot for X2 phasers and New Tactics for Non-X2 ships faced with X2 weapons.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 03:41 am: Edit

Trans-32 drones are an absolute nightmare. I wouldn't go there. Providing such a weapon will require an equal counterbalance in seeking weapon defences for all units, regardless of whatever new rules you introduce.

But if you do, it should follow the same principle as hyperdrones (no stopping for labbing or tractoring) or sabot (no stopping inbetween hexes of movement in one impulse period).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 04:44 am: Edit

Quote:

Trans-32 drones are an absolute nightmare. I wouldn't go there. Providing such a weapon will require an equal counterbalance in seeking weapon defences for all units, regardless of whatever new rules you introduce.



Any more so than the Plasma Sabot?

If the plasma boys can in the GW, then it's high time the Drone user could in X2.

Trans-32 drones are not a nightmare as long as people actually prepair to defend against them instead of simply hoping that the ship design will A) have LOTS of ADDs and B) Lots of otherwise useless Ph-3s.

You have Ph-1s and some of you even have Ph-2s.
You have R3 tractors. You have your own movement including HETs. You have transporters. Some of you have your own drones and can do counter sideslips to get them infront of you.
Some of you even have shields and shield reinforcement.
And then their are the WWs.

The Debate that GW ships like the D7kb can't defend it'self against a CCXX and her drones is as pointless as the debate that a YCA can't defend herself against a D7DX!

I mean really.
An X1 cruiser can, sideslip to get an R1 shot, in place of that R3.
Fire Ph-1s ( in X-Aegis mode so he fires what he thinks he'll need and then fires the rest if he needs it ) at R3 for that R3 shot.
Use tractors at R3 ( it's not like X-ships are short on power, it's actually only all the BTTY POWER from 1 Battery ).
Fire his own CHEAP drones and counter sideslip to push them ahead for the intercept.
HET and shuttlebay T-bomb.
WW.


Why are so many people thinking that the X1 tactics that allow the X1s to Kill GW ships should still be applied to X1 ships to allow them to kill X2 ships?
Surely it's far more likely that the X2 ships will employ X1 tactics on X1 ships to kill X1 ships and X1 ships will just have to find new tactics with which to defend themselves.

Do you use anti-tholian tactics against the Lyrans!?!
Why should X1 ships use anti GW tactics to fight X2?

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 08:51 am: Edit

Quote:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Trans-32 drones are an absolute nightmare. I wouldn't go there. Providing such a weapon will require an equal counterbalance in seeking weapon defences for all units, regardless of whatever new rules you introduce.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Any more so than the Plasma Sabot?

If the plasma boys can in the GW, then it's high time the Drone user could in X2.




MJC: There is a Big difference in an every Turn "Free Energy" Launched weapon that sticks around for 3Turns (or longer). And a weapon that takes a signifigant amount of power Over 3 Turns To ARM. And still has to chase a ship down to do damage. Thats why the Plasma Sabot is needed. Also for Plasma ships the Torps ARE their main firepower. Drones though are extra to the drone user. Thats why the Z. have 4 Disr's to go along with their 4 Racks of Speed 32 drones. (Using a BC as example.)

I do agree that NEW Tactics will need to be created for ships of all 3 generations.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 09:04 am: Edit

My point being that the Plasma Sabot should not be used as justification for Trans 32 speed drones.

And IF Trans 32 is adopted it needs to conform to the rules of the Sabot Torp.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 11:27 am: Edit

If anyone is interested, the maxium BPV of a fully refitted C8V Group (not counting Mech Link Refits) and assuming all drone launch rails and drone racks only hold type-IF drones, including the fighter ready racks on the escorts, assuming two squadrons of Z-YC fighters and assuming two of those are Z-YEs, is 1,050 BPV. This does not include Commander's Options, the maximum purchase of which would add an additional 167.6 BPV to the total for a final total of 1,217.6 BPV.

This is a Group with a C8VK, AD5, and two F5EKs.

Such a force would have a drone throw-weight (excluding the two Z-YE's which only have type-VI drones) of 56 drones a turn for three turns without using scatterpacks. [Z-Ys are able to launch two type-I drones a turn (J4.241) and (J4.242)]. On the fourth turn the maximum drone launch without scatterpacks would be only 12 drones (one each from each of the 12 type-G drone racks).

There are 13 admin shuttles available for use as scatterpacks which could conceivably put out 78 drones.

However, drone control can become a problem. The four ships can collectively control 48 drones at one time. Each non-EW fighter can only control two drones at one time (J4.25), and only drones it launched itself (J4.221). The EWFs can control 12 drones (J4.43), but can only control drones launched by fighters of their assigned squadrons.

So on the first turn you can easily launch the 56 drones. But if all of those drones are still in flight when you launch the next 56 (112 on the map) the ships will control 48, the 22 Z-YC fighters will control 44, and the two EWFs will each control 12 for a total of 24 for 116 channels, meaning if none of the drones hits, only four more can be launched on Turn #3, unless two of your fighters were carrying their maximum load of Seeking Weapon Control Pods, which adds another 24 total channels allowing you to launch 28 of the 56 drones of the third wave (note, no scatterpacks so far) Now, if the C8V had its maximum allowed two MRS shuttles, they could nominally control an additional 12 drones, but each would have launched one drone a turn itself on Turn #1 and Turn #2 (upping the total number of drones launched on those two turns to 58 each or 116 in flight on Turn #2). But you would now have a total of 152 drone control channels (and in three turns the force could nominally generate a drone launch of 182 spaces, i.e., 30 spaces more than it has control channels WITHOUT SCATTERPACKS).

152 drone control channels is the maximum number of drone control channels that can be found in a C8V group by itself including its fighters, pods, EW fighters, MRS shuttles, and all the ship control channels).

Counting the Spaces of drones available for the two MRS shuttles, the force has a total of 804 spaces of drones and 156 ADDs. Commander's Options might be used to purchase a few more drone spaces, of course.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 12:10 pm: Edit

Trans-32 drones. (Wow, talk about a health debate!)

MJC: I have never been considering any relationship between X2 and GW as far as Trans-32 drones go. But rather X2 vs. X2 problems. And perhaps X1 vs. X2.

Do you, as a non-drone thrower, want your enemy to be able to affect your plans so easily for no power cost? You suggested way to deal with trans-32 drones but most of them are fairly drastic counters to such a cheep offense.

Everyone:
The more I look into Trans-32 drones the more I grow concerned. I offered the short range boost as a way to give the drone something along these lines with out the game damage that Full time Trans-32 drones would, IMO, cause. The drone booster renders the drone suseptable to damage to the range 2 problem doesn't exsist.
A full time trans-32 (by this I mean speed 48 or 64. Obviously a 33 speed drone isn't going to be much extra threat.) that suffers no ill effect from such speed will be an uber weapon. There would be little need for torpedoes. I've been looking into this and find that if the opponant wants to stay in the game you will hit with drones...regularly. Otherwise he has no choice but to leave. This is not how I would like to see X2 Re-broaken.

The boosted drone with it's vulnerabilities wouldn't do that. Not having trans-32 drones wouldn't do that either.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 03:34 pm: Edit

Drone speed needs to be tied to maximum ship speed.

If ships break speed 31, drones need a compendatory speed increase to match.

Probably an increase to ship speed +1 where the drone take the +1 speed move on IMP 1.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 03:47 pm: Edit

MJC,


Any more so than the Plasma Sabot?

To put it simply, YES.

Completely apples and oranges.

If the plasma boys can in the GW, then it's high time the Drone user could in X2.

A completely erroneous conclusion if I ever saw one. See above re: fruit comparisons.


Trans-32 drones are not a nightmare as long as people actually prepair to defend against them instead of simply hoping that the ship design will A) have LOTS of ADDs and B) Lots of otherwise useless Ph-3s.

*eyes bug out*

If you don't have prepared drone defences NOW you will be meat against a good heavy drone user! And those defences are based around being able to deal with drones in particular range brackets; >15 (move away, either breaking lock on or setting up next turn to deal with them)
<15 (scout channels, counter seeking fire)
<8 (non-target defensive fire/tractor/labs, prepare to weasel, setup tbomb transport/drops) ~3 (add fire)
~2 (labs, early target defensive fire, final counter seeking launch)
1 (tractors, final defensive fire, sneaky movement)

This is standard stuff that all experienced fleet players use. All of this is thrown out the window if the drone moves faster than 32. Unlike plasma, where your options are limited (fire move or weasel only), they come in limited numbers, and in limited timeframes (due to launchers available and arming requirements) and are generally obvious types when launched, drones come in NUMEROUS types, amounts, launchers and timeframes.

So yes MJC, trans32 drones would be a nightmare.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 03:52 pm: Edit

By John Trauger ;

If ships break speed 31, drones need a compendatory speed increase to match.
Probably an increase to ship speed +1 where the drone take the +1 speed move on IMP 1.

Well I guess the tournement is completely broken without all speed 32 drones then. Thanks for clearing that up.:)

Simple solution to your proposed 'problem'. Don't let ships break speed 31 tactical. Which is already standard for the game and clearly stated that if a ship goes faster than 31 it disengages by acceleration.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 04:55 pm: Edit

The tournament *would* be broken if all drone tossers were limited to speed-20 drones. That's why almost everyone with a drone rack gets upgrade points and why almost all of those points get spent on drone speed upgrades.

Play against an andro with a kzinti armed only with speed-20 drones sometime. If you can convince me that it's a fair fight, I will conceed I didn't have a point after all.

In case you missed it, Geoff, signifcant talk in some of these topics (including this one) has centered around allowing X2 ships to move past 31. My comments are directly related to that.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 05:28 pm: Edit

In tourney, drones are massively restricted compared to the standard game. There are no speciality drones, no reloads, very few type-IVs and only the Kzin and Klingon get drone points or a scatterpack - just two out of the five ships that use drones.

I'd be quite happy to fly against the current tourney Andro using the tourney Kzin with only speed 20 drones - I'd be down a couple of phasers compared to the Shark, but I think the Kzin probably still has the edge.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 05:54 pm: Edit

*laughs* And as a counterargument, you use the misfit Andro as a comparison. Nice try.

And no I havn't missed all the proposals for trans32 ships. I've simply ignored them for the most part.

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