I think we may have begun to forget the feel with all this talk of BPV.

A CXX should beat a CX like a CA beats a YCA.

Ship	BPV	change from previous vessel
YCA	84	0%
CA	125	48.8%
CX	240 (new )	92%
CXX	360-432	50-80%

Lets start looking at CXX of 425 and DDXX of 301 ( 300 if you will ).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 10:41 pm: Edit

L.K.:

"Plain"

Yes I have a copy of Module X1.

I would have though that obvious through some of the minutia I've mentioned about X1...but I admit I've been invent my own ship types in order to be more colourful.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 10:46 pm: Edit

I'm sorry, but if we have 2X ships with this enormous BPV's, it'll end up broken again, just like the first time. Destroyers with the BPV's of battleships, and cruisers with even more are just too much. I'd think a BPV of a cruiser would be somewhere around the mid to high 300 range, maybe 400 with some of the bigger ones. That's just my gut feeling, though.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 10:54 pm: Edit

If the CB was also in that table, the jump from each class to the next is always under 50%. This would put a CXX at around 340-360 points.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 11:09 pm: Edit

MJC: I couldn't be sure. Some thing indicated you did but some things you propose are already the rule in Module X. I don't want to get into which and where. It's not important. You have it and that what matters. Now I can read your posts knowing you do.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 11:24 pm: Edit

Let's play with dronestuff that differentiates drones by race in the same way we're playing with disruptors, differentiaiting them by race.

For the Kzintis

Control module

Developed by the Kzinti to allow super-massive drone waves, the control module allows a drone to control other drones. Control must be transferred to a control module. It will not assume control on its own. Once a Control Module has control of a drone, it will not voluntarily transfer that control. A ship cannot reassume control of a drone assigned to a control module. For a drone to be assigned to a control module it must have the same target as the drone with the control module.

Drones controlled by a Control Module may use ECCM generated by the controlling module the same way drones controlled by a ship utilize the ship's ECCM. They may not use ECCM of any unit controlling the drone with the control module.
Example: Drones A and B are controlled by Drone C which is controlled by Ship D. Drone C has its own ECCM and the ECCM of Ship D. Drone A gets its own ECCM plus Drone C's ECCM, but not Ship D's ECCM.

The Control module is available in 1 and 2 space units. the 1-space controls 2 drones, the 2-space controls 4.

The result is the Kzinti can field more drones but they do so under less-than optimal EW conditions.


ECCM module

This module does NOT lend EW. It only gives the drone EW. 1-space module gives the drone +1 ECCM, the 2-space gives +3. It pairs nicely with the control module.


For the Klingons and WYN Fish

Instead of fielding sheer numbers, the Klingons went for durability.

The Megadrone. A massive 4-space drone that takes 15 points to kill. The megadrone is so big that it takes damage as a unpacked shuttle (drones and ADD do their damage to a megadrone, rather than auto-kill)

The K-rack. The K-rack is an 8-space rack that can launch any kind of drone up to the massive megadrone. It may launch 2 spaces worth of drone per turn or one megadrone. It may reload 4 spaces per turn when taken offline.

The WYNs couldn't quite produce the megadrone in sufficient numbers so their X2 fish ships use a 3-space equivalent, the maxi-drone, which takes 12 points to kill.

The only other drone rack capable of launching the megadrone or maxidrone is the type-M rack that holds 3 spaces of megadrones or 4 spaces of maxis and launches one drone per turn, relaoding one drone per turn offline.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 11:46 pm: Edit

I like the control module. One question, though. What level of Tac Intel would you need to find out which drone is the control drone?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 11:58 pm: Edit

Interesting question.

At an off-the cuff, level K sounds about right.

Alternately, it's a question resolved by IDing the drone.

You ID a drone with a control module, you know which drones it is in turn controlling. You ID a drone controlled by a control module and you know which drone is controlling it.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 12:05 am: Edit

That brings up an interesting point. If 2X drones are going to be as fast as some propose (i.e., 40+), then identifying a drone is going to be a problem, unless 2X labs work a bit better. By the time the drone would be close enough to ID, it would be right on you. Maybe some sort of Tac Intel might be useful for identifying the drone at a range where you can still get it before it gets you.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 12:09 am: Edit

You shouldn't be able to tell.

This is not a bad idea. If you get lucky and take out the control drone you get all three or five. That would cause targeted ships to start firing at longer ranges. They may even waste a lot of fire to get that control drone. To make matters worse you should add that if the control drone is destroyed a the controlled drones don't go inert until the movement phase of the next impulse. That way you don't know if you got it that impulse. Aegis would have to ask "Do I keep firing or do I wait to see if I scored. Do I have time if I didn't?"

Drone Control Module. Cool. Launched from Type CX racks.

ECCM module. Not much utility I think. But how about if it did lend ECCM to the Launching ship against the target. It lends more ECCM as it approaches. Sort of a EW/Probe drone thing.

Megadrones sound a lot like Type-H in size. I don't think that will fly er...launch. SVC has stated the Type-H will never be launched by ships.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 12:13 am: Edit

As andrew noted the table is missing a bit during the GW

even if you son't count the CB you need to include the refits available for the CA.

if anyone has time it would be interesting to plot out BPV vs time (including refits) for a class.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 12:54 am: Edit

I'll retry the table in the BPV section.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 01:23 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I'm sorry, but if we have 2X ships with this enormous BPV's, it'll end up broken again, just like the first time. Destroyers with the BPV's of battleships, and cruisers with even more are just too much.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 01:30 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I couldn't be sure. Some thing indicated you did but some things you propose are already the rule in Module X. I don't want to get into which and where. It's not important.

---

---

Quote:

That brings up an interesting point. If 2X drones are going to be as fast as some propose (i.e., 40+), then identifying a drone is going to be a problem, unless 2X labs work a bit better. By the time the drone would be close enough to ID, it would be right on you. Maybe some sort of Tac Intel might be useful for identifying the drone at a range where you can still get it before it gets you.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 01:39 am: Edit

A couple of quick drone questions to consider.

Should X2 drones go with more space like X1 or should the modules get better?

I.E. Explosive modules with 8 points of damage per 0.5 space and armour modules with 3 points of damage per 0.5 spaces.

Either way is the same for Type X and and extra ordinary 1/2 space over the Type VII generates a 24/8/40 drone and using 8 point warhead 1/2 spaces generates a 24/8/40 drone.

The big question is what to do with the Type XI drone, shall it still occupy 1.5 spaces in the rack or a full 2.
If two shall it have 2 spaces of explosive module, 2.5 or 3.
3 space of 8 per 1/2 space would be a 48/10/40 drone and I think thay may be too much.
On the other hand the 40/10/40 drone may well be workable...so long as X2 ships have reasonably good defenses...we can just technobabble that the XI drone motor needs a disproportionately large cooling system, that occupies the theoretical last 0.5 spaces limiting the Type XI to just 2.5 spaces of modules.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 06:11 am: Edit

MJC;

Well at least you now admit that trans32 drones will require an extensive rebalancing of every drone defence known. Therefore the balancing nightmare I was speaking of.

You guys are practically trying to write your own game at this point you realize that? Of course this is nothing new for MJC...

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 06:42 am: Edit

I've always said that an X2 ship defending against an X2 drone will need, amoungst other things.

The ability to ID drones at longer range...I think FULL AEGIS will grant that without having to build a massive new set of rules.
The ability to effectively shoot drones at longer ranges...the sweetspot extention to phasers.
The ability to destroy drones at longer ranges...the X2E-rack I've propossed several times.

AND we are not rewritting the game...just inventing a whole new Technology level for most of the existing races.
Thus use the existing game as the field into which to sow new ideas.
It's not that much of a change as Omega was...is it?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 10:42 am: Edit

Something to consider. Supplement 2 had X2 ships with Full Aegis and the X2 drones (Type-IX and Type-X) were acually smaller.

Type	Speed	Endurance	Warhead	Damage	Space
IX	32	2	8	6	1/2
X	32	25	24	8	1

Something to consider, it doesn't mean we can't use these things but just remember they were apart of the old system.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 10:49 am: Edit

I don't object to these drones, even if they were a part of the old system. IIRC, the things that really broke the old X2 were:

Shield Reinforcement
Uber-Weapons
Built in EW

Those things made the 2X ships the powerhouses they were. The drones and the ship designs themselves weren't that terrible. So I don't necessarily think that just because something was a part of X2 means it should be automatically discarded out of hand.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 04:38 pm: Edit

MJC,

X2 was broken in part because racial flavor was lost, but that's the cart before the horse.

More core is the power/durability ratio was so whacked. The people who wrote it put a bunch of Really Nifty Ideas together, thinking how fun superships would be and created overbuilt monsters that were one-dimensional and boring as hades to play. Thus racial flavor is lost.

Loren is on the right track by trying to build an integrated proposal.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 04:54 pm: Edit

Speaking of Loren,

Yes, H-racks will never be on ships. But ships do mount D-racks (Kzinti Tug) and they're very close to the same thing. The only difference I can see is 3 bins (D) vs 5 bins (H).

I thought it might be fun to give a D-rack a second or even third launcher attached to the same three D-rack bins.

Another variation on the D-rack would be the L-rack (intended for the kzinti for use with control mods), where the system has between 2 to 8 4- or 6-space bins and 1 launcher for every 2 bins. (and 1 launcher destroyed for every 2 bins destroyed). Each luancher launches the ENTIRE CONTENTS of a bin per turn. Targetting of each drone would be completely independent. Each bin reloads at the standard 2 spaces per turn.

The ECCM module was intended to go hand-in-hand with the control module, thereby compensating for the poor ECCM drones have by themselves. ATG gives 2 pts of ECCM, so a ATG drone controlling another drone would only have 2 ECCM to help that controlled drone. Even ATG controlling ATG would only give a total of 4 ECCM and in the hyper-EW environment of X2 that's just not enough. So you agument it with ECCM mods in the drone with the control module.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 05:50 pm: Edit

John Trauger: Not H-Racks. Type-H Drones. The numbers you gave for the mega drone are very similar to the Type-H drone which can only be launched from Planets or carried on drogues. Even a Star Base can't launch them.

Thanks for the complement BTW.

I understood your idea for the ECCM module and it makes sense. You just inspired another idea in me, that's all. I didn't intend a replacement for yours. Perhaps call my version the Scanner Module.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 09:44 pm: Edit

Another way to I.D. drones with X ships is to say that drones IDing has always been a matter of collecting 4 points of scientific information about the drone, but that the combination of the relatively short time drones "hang around" ( in comparison to monsters ) and the highly limited information management systems aboard the vessels ment that in practice is was simply a one lab by lab attempt to identify the drone, with informations from other labs being un able to aid in the analysis.

X2 ships got the imformation managment, semi-AI computers that could allow the information from several labs to be coupled to gether and thus the rules of Drone ID are changes to collecting merely 4 points of scientific information.

This way if you want ( assuming the bonus for X ships ) to garrenttee that you ID a drone at R6, then you can do so by investing 4 labs in the task...your chances of colecting 4 points at range 6 with just 2 labs is 33/36.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 04:34 am: Edit

Loren,

OK. I'm not familiar with H-drones or drogues. Consider the ultra-heavy drones proposals withdrawn.

Still, even through the Klingons didn't build massively larger drones, maybe they still built for survivability instead of fielding vast numbers like the Kzinti. Maybe Klink drones have a minor shield around them that doesn't actually increase the damage they take to kill, but has the effect of their drones taking damage as shuttles. Thus Klink drones are exempt from drone vs. drone auto-kills and ADDs do 1d6 to them.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 11:27 am: Edit

John T.: Module J2 should than be nexton your list. It's one of the best modules since...well, a long time.