| By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 03:57 pm: Edit |
Per (XE2.4321) A phaser-4 may be fired as two phaser-1s. Now phaser-4s were not upgrade in the XP-refit ((XR3.15) CL3 31).
I could see a limited deployment of X tech GBPF (phaser-4s). I agree there wouldn't in general use any more than PL-Ms or PL-Ls would be. Critical or key planets such as sector control points, major planets, and home worlds.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 04:11 pm: Edit |
While attrition units might be needed to hunt RTN, that gives no basis for any deviation from the concept that X-ships make attrtion units go away. The Andros don't have X-tech.
X-tech Phaser-4s (and indeed, X-tech weapons on ground bases): I vote no. X-tech is limited and nobody can predict where the enemy will attack, so most would be wasted and X-tech is too expensive to waste. We'll ask Petrick what he thinks. I might be bribed into allowing these for capital planets only. And I do not mean planets in the capital hex. One planet per race.
S-Bridge will NOT be part of X1R. I am not making any promises if it will be considered for X2.
X-sensor not being blinded: I vote NO. Allow me to change my vote. I vote HELL NO.
We made a decision long ago that plasma racks could NOT replace plasma-D with two Ks, but only one. We did it for a reason. The reason has not changed. I'm going to fight on this one.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 04:29 pm: Edit |
PETRICK’S ANSWERS
He wasn’t going to come in to the office today due to the very steep and slick and icy hill between his house and mine, so I phoned him to get his answers.
=============
1) Can XP, in full or in part, be added to a PF? Specifically for the purpose of launching X-Drones?
- - - - - -
SPP: This would take a wholesale rules change which I do not want to do. Consider it rejected.
=============
2) Can XP, in full or in part, be added to a fighter mega-pack? Allows for 2 X-drones and/or PL-L torp plasma Mega-Pack.
- - - - - -
SPP: This would take a wholesale rules change which I do not want to do. Consider it rejected.
=============
3) Could launch rate for plasma fighters be increased after a certain date?
- - - - - -
SPP: This is not an X-tech question. What, specifically is wanted and why? Why should plasma fighters have a higher launch rate than standard drone fighters. I might consider one D and one K. Also see remote control.
=============
4) Can IX drones be made available to non-X ships as a direct replacement for the VI drone? PFs? Fighters? As sub-munitions on a non-X MW drone?
- - - - - -
SPP: NO, this cannot be done.
=============
5) Can the F-111 get a photon option for its internal bay?
- - - - - -
SPP: This is not an X-question.
SVC: I discussed it with Petrick. J2 says no, and we see no reason to revisit the issue.
=============
6) Could a PF XP attribute be the elimination of the damage penalty on WBP?
- - - - - -
SPP: NO.
=============
7) Could an improved WBP be created that eliminates the double damage a fighter takes?
- - - - - -
SPP: The Megapack (as already published) is as far as this is going.
=============
8) What is the maximum number of SSDs that can reasonably be released in X1R?
- - - - - -
SPP: The answer SVC gave stands.
=============
9) Can a VII-XX and/or VIII-XX drone be created for the DBX mission?
- - - - - -
SPP: This one seems more plausible than some of the others, but I see little reason for the bother since a type-III-XX drone does this mission just fine.
=============
10) Will a S-Bridge be considered or could some of its features (like RTN tracking without special sensors) be retrofit into existing X-tech?
- - - - - -
SPP: This was already rejected by SVC.
=============
11) What S8 changes will be necessary? Would you consider a new S8 rule that defines X deployment differently in different time periods?
- - - - - -
SPP: This will have to be considered, but it is a task I do not look forward to.
=============
12) Will there be any X-Drogues or modifications to existing Drogue rules to better support X-Ships?
- - - - - -
SPP: I think this may be inevitable although I note that SVC opposes X-drogues.
=============
13) Will there be rules for X-Maulers?
- - - - - -
SPP: The answer SVC gave stands.
=============
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 11:44 pm: Edit |
One thing I've thought of for a while now, is the possibility that the F-111 had a module for her bays built that would fill the bays but provide a small amount of shielding. Say five forward and three rear. Then the F-111 would be as protected against ADDs as a true interceptor and would fill the PF role better. Perhaps that would be what the F-111 got in the late X1 era.
| By John Erwin Hacker (Godzillaking) on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 11:54 pm: Edit |
Hi 
Is this idea ever going to get into print or is it going to stay here forever ?
Just wondering that's all.
| By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, December 31, 2006 - 01:19 pm: Edit |
SVC,
You stated "While attrition units might be needed to hunt RTN, that gives no basis for any deviation from the concept that X-ships make attrition units go away."
As I understand attritions units are: drones, fighters, and PFs.
The Romulan Thuderhawk BCS was very effective in hunting down Andromedan bases (R4.50; J2). It was the only BCS with special sensors. can this ship be converted to an X-ship? My question is more about can this class (heavy hawks) become an X-ship not will it be in X1R.
The Romulan scout carrier class (SPU) enjoyed brief fame tracking Andromedan RTN lines (R4.103; J2). Can this ship be converted to an X-ship?
The Tholian scout carriers were used to track the RTN points (R7.48; J2); so was the Kzinti SSCS Goliath (R5.22; K).
Ships with special sensors and attrition units (a hunter/killer unit; as mentioned above out of J2 and K) were used to attack the RTN bases. It appears that scouts and survey cruiser (a hunter unit) just located the RTN base and left the area (SH75.0; R2).
I am not following the part of your statement that says “attrition units might be needed to hunt RTN”? What other type of either hunter/killer or hunter ship are you thinking of for X1R? I am intending this as a question not a rhetorical question. I don’t know how else to phrase the question. Sure I would like a Federation X-carrier but if X1R doesn’t have one, no problem. I will be happy with what ever is in.
Is an X-ship with two special sensors and normal suite of weapons a combat scout (auto reject), or is a unit like this a possibility for X1R?
| By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, December 31, 2006 - 03:21 pm: Edit |
As an a follow on to the post above: Examples of RTN hunters.
RTN Hunter ship:
The Romulan Sparrowhawk scout cruiser (SPC) could be converted to an X-ship (like the SPX (R4.202)). The SPC-X would have 4xspecial sensors; 1xPL-M; 2xPL-L; 6xPH-1s. Two casual PFs could also be carried.
I am not sure if any other race has scouts with heavy weapons.
Would a light command X-cruisers be useful or a waste of resources?
The Gorn HDS (R6.23) has 2xPL-F, 4x4xspecial sensors. The HDS-X could be converted to an X-ship. Would the HDS-X have 2xPL-S like the HDX?
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, December 31, 2006 - 05:16 pm: Edit |
Drones are not attrition units.
| By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 12:46 am: Edit |
Quote:9) Can a VII-XX and/or VIII-XX drone be created for the DBX mission?
- - - - - -
SPP: This one seems more plausible than some of the others, but I see little reason for the bother since a type-III-XX drone does this mission just fine.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 01:16 am: Edit |
Also the type III-XX only needs 4 point of damage to kill, but a type VII-XX or VIII-XX would take 6 or 8 (respectively) points to kill meaning, most phaser based defenses would have a tougher time fighting those X drones.
Plus 1.5 or 2 spaces of payloaded beats one space of playload.
It might well come to pass in Y204 or some other late X year when X drone factories are relatively commonplace but they would be somewhat more advantagious than sticking with type III-XX.
| By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 10:49 am: Edit |
I haven't really read this topic, but shouldn't this module be labelled "XR1" to allow for additional X-Ship R-modules (XR2, XR3, etc.)?
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 12:06 pm: Edit |
Robert,
no the point is that X1 designates first gen X-tech. If there is to be future X1R modules then they could be X1R1.
Not that I'm the say-so guy but that's how I understand it.
======
Type-III-XX drones.
I can see this IF the history calls for it but don't see a period where X-DB would be conducted.
In the XP rules there is the S8 section that gives the amount of ships that can have XP-refits. Eventually your entire force can be XP. I would say that by this date (or slightly prior) X-drones could be considered general availability. When production is THAT high you might see Type-III-XX drones but I still doubt anyone is conducting DB raids at that time. Are DB Raids useful, really, against the Andros? Maybe but planets aren't the trouble everyone is focusing on and RTN Nodes aren't a good target for DB.
| By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 01:34 pm: Edit |
In terms of the module code, I can see it as X1A to allow for an X1B, X1C, etc. In the product survey list there is a C3A as a follow-on to C3 and C5B as a follow-on to C5. An A, B, C sequence would facilitate further stuff.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 01:43 pm: Edit |
How many X-modules do we really expect to see? The emphasis of the game will always be on the standard-tech years.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 03:31 pm: Edit |
John has the point I was thinking. I don't really expect a third X1 module but it could be called X1RA, I suppose.
SVC is the one who coined X1R.
I'd hope to see X2 before a third X1 module.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 05:57 pm: Edit |
I'd like to see an VII-XX drone be able to track moving targets rather than just stationary ones. That would give it a significant ability beyond what is currently available.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 08:02 pm: Edit |
That seems something worth discussing for X1R.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, February 05, 2007 - 07:32 pm: Edit |
Tos: sift this file for anything usable and copy it into the new X1R file. Feel free to recruit help. I don't expect to have the luxury of doing so.
Topic closed. See the X1R topic.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |