Scott: I don't have a problem with the weapons suite. The LS/RS arrangement is consistent with the phaser arrangement on every other Andro hull, and as Xander points out, while these things have plenty of firepower they do have weak protection and should die fast.

Xander: I think the Howler's a bit overpowered IMO, due to synergies of the Ph-G with the way PFs work.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, February 25, 2011 - 11:39 am: Edit

Scott Tenhoff:

Sigh. Pick and choose data points.

A Gorn FF+ has three phaser-1s, two phaser-3s, and one plasma-F.

A Gorn PF has three phaser-1s and can launch two plasma-Fs a turn for two consecutive turns.

Pretty obvious to me the Gorn PF is more heavily armed than the Gorn FF.

Romulan Seahawks manage a whole phaser-3 above the armament of a Starhawk with the standard modules.

Compared to a PC an Arachnid replaces two phaser-1s with two disruptors.

A Harrier has exactly the same weapons loadout as a Hunter.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, February 25, 2011 - 11:45 am: Edit

I'm not asking this question as a means of trying to further push for an inclusion of uniquely specific Omega- or LMC-derived hulls; as I noted in my last post, I'm not pressing for that any further in this thread.

That said, there is one thing I'd want to clarify; from an in-universe perspective, what year would these threat files have been updated to?

To put it another way, would each file be created in one year and presented in C3A as a "snapshot" of what was being postulated at that specific point in time, or would updates and revisions be spliced in up to Y225?

If the former, then yes, an Alpha analyst in, say, Y180 would have no idea about how the Andros would be recorded as operating outside of the Alpha Octant; but if the latter, the information gained through Operation Unity in Y202, or brought back by the Sakharov in Y219, would allow for a later analyst to potentially incorporate details recorded from both alternate sources into their evaluations.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, February 25, 2011 - 12:59 pm: Edit

Why would it even need an "in-game date"?

To me, it should simply be sufficient to say, "These are all the wild-eyed visions that the military intelligence analysts feared would show up." It happens over time.

So, if the satellite ships with TRH are included, those could be introduced fairly early. Any Andro PFs would have to be after Y180 (or so). Any X-ships would likely have to be after that.

So, I expect C3A to cover a broad range of potential "times". The "time" for each ship will be handled the same way it is handled for every other ship in the game: with the YIS date.

By Mike Kenyon (Mikek) on Friday, February 25, 2011 - 01:42 pm: Edit

Mike West,

The reasons I can see doing so are 3-fold:
* Technology inference - If you haven't thought of fast warp yet, it's hard to postulate it in others.
* Campaigns - Let's be honest, marking a ship as conjectural doesn't always stop it from showing up in campaigns, so it's good to know when it "would" be there.
* Continuing, albeit with a different tact, the discussion of why it's not going to contain Omega/Mag. versions. If it's post Unity, you know about the Mags, so you could design for them. If it's post either the Iridani arrival in Alpha or the Fed SR that returned, you know that Omega exists, and potentially what their PF vision would be.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Friday, February 25, 2011 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Sort of side-stepping that discussion (kind of) momentarily...

Are there any thoughts for this project (since it is 'Andro ships that definitely did not exist..but the alpha sector races planned for') to include some possibilities that might be in violation of current rules?

IE., (D10.0) flat out states that no ship can have shields and power absorbers, and that the systems are mutually exclusive and cannot work together.

Surely, at least one of the alpha powers would have mocked up - for simulator use if nothing else - a ship to try to test the question 'What would it look like if the Andros HAD found a way around that limitation?' (Or would that kind of thing fall into the category of 'so ridiculously and obviously impossible, nobody would have wasted any time thinking about it'?)

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, February 25, 2011 - 02:30 pm: Edit

Mike Kenyon,

The YIS date is there precisely to address those concerns you raise. I am simply saying that the narrative of the whole module should not have a date assigned.

Each individual ship should have its YIS date applied based on that individual ship, not the module as a whole. Likewise, any appropriate ship should be available for consideration, with no concern over its YIS date. So, if the conjectural X-fleet needs to be given a YIS of Y200, so be it. No ship should be rejected solely because its YIS date is "too early" or "too late".

By Mike Kenyon (Mikek) on Friday, February 25, 2011 - 02:55 pm: Edit

Mike West,

I agree with you completely. My reading of Gary's post ...

---

Quote:

To put it another way, would each file be created in one year and presented in C3A as a "snapshot" of what was being postulated at that specific point in time, or would updates and revisions be spliced in up to Y225?

---

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, February 26, 2011 - 11:54 pm: Edit

Will this product include very many new rules/systems? I know you have mentioned X-tech, and Gunboats, but what about Mega-TRs, or a new center module that could take three BSs and make a SB, or anything else really?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, February 27, 2011 - 04:22 pm: Edit

Lots and lots of stuff. Endless stuff.

By John Hall (Fedf111fan) on Monday, March 14, 2011 - 12:20 am: Edit

would it be possible to get the following?
a "regular starbase"
devastator(bb) variants of dominators that have already come out:
mauler,
hangar heavy,
tr heavy,
phaser heavy,
pa panel heavy

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, March 14, 2011 - 10:02 pm: Edit

hahahahaha....

A Desecrator w/ ~12 hanger spaces.. (The SDS variant)... bwahahahahahhahahhah

I've just got 24 MWPs (6 spaces), 2 Cobra, Termintator, Anaconda, and Mamba. Fear me!

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Monday, March 14, 2011 - 10:14 pm: Edit

With Mega-TRs!

By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Thursday, March 17, 2011 - 05:07 pm: Edit

When the Andros invaded the LMC, they used a super energy module to penetrate the radiation shell around the Core. However, this energy module isn't defined. Could it be part of this module?

By Charles Gray (Cgray45) on Saturday, March 26, 2011 - 06:58 pm: Edit

How much room is their for new weapons systems? I recall some ideas for homing pa torpedoes and such, but a curse of the Andro's from the very start has been due to thier somewhat different way of acting, most systems require more in the way of rules, espcially when interacting with galactic technology.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, March 26, 2011 - 07:44 pm: Edit

There are definitely new weapon systems in this product. o_O

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Saturday, March 26, 2011 - 09:55 pm: Edit

I'm curious to know how close this is to being published?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, March 27, 2011 - 11:59 pm: Edit

It would be much closer if somebody had not take up so much of Petrick's time. (This person decided that Petrick's only job was to deal with this person's inability to read the rulebook and apply it to his story.) I told Petrick a week ago to print out what he had and give it to me, and that hasn't happened (because of this needy person) so I told Petrick to ignore him and work on C3A.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, April 01, 2011 - 04:34 pm: Edit

Things for Module C3A

Andromedan Eviscerator (Heavy Weapon with limited range)
Andromedan Spatial Distorter (an optional employment of the Displacement Device)
Andromedan Hyper Transporters (Not saying everything, but NSMs as T-bombs, Satellite ships able to use their transporters to move other ships)
Suicide Sleds (Andromedan version of the Suicide Freighter)
Seeking Energy Modules (exactly what it says with a big bang)
Heavy Vipers (and variants)
Heavy Cobras (and variants)
Heavy Mambas (and variants)
Variants of the Conqueror
TRH refits for satellite ships
Phaser-1 refits
Fast Patrol Ships
Improved Pseudo Satellite Ships
More

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, April 01, 2011 - 08:25 pm: Edit

X-ships was mentioned in an earlier post somewhere.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, April 02, 2011 - 11:58 am: Edit

Richard B Eitzen:

Yes . . . More.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Saturday, April 02, 2011 - 12:45 pm: Edit

So a 'What would an Andro perform like with PA panels *and* shields' variant didn't make the cut?

A shame, that would have been an...interesting combination to play with.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, April 02, 2011 - 02:10 pm: Edit

I saw no info saying that is or is not included in 'more'.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, April 02, 2011 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Xander Fulton:

I do not think such a combination would be "interesting".

"Oh, you downed my (5, 10, 20, whatever) box shield and my power absorber panels will have to absorb the energy."

The only difference is that you have a shield you can dump reinforcement energy into to clear your batteries to absorb power, and you can turn new shields to face the enemy while dumping your panels into your batteries, and if your opponent fires on the new facing shield, why the power you just dumped from your panels reinforces that shield and if it drops, the damage points go into the empty panels again.

There is also "So I have a down shield, you are going to do X amount of damage to my facing panels, but I will dump my batteries for "general shield reinforcement" and again be able to dump my panels into my batteries"

It is not an interesting combination to play with (at least to me). The effects of such a combination are so obvious that it is probably why the introduction to (D10.0) included this sentence:

"A given ship cannot have both shields and PA panels; the two systems are mutually exclusive and cannot work together."

I (me, myself) do not think a simulator ship with both shields and PA panels is needed to make the point.

Richard B. Eitzen:

Sorry, I just did not think it was necessary to include every single rule. The X Andros were going to be in this all the way back to their first appearance in CL#18.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Saturday, April 02, 2011 - 04:09 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

It is not an interesting combination to play with (at least to me).
...
I (me, myself) do not think a simulator ship with both shields and PA panels is needed to make the point.

---