I'd prefer to just not bother him.

By Ed Grondin (Ensignedg) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 03:40 pm: Edit

John

fair enough.... a legendary science officer can make 1 attempt per drone to regain control of a drone that has lost it's controlling drone. The science officer has a 33% chance of regaining control, on either a 5 or 6.

If the science officer does not regain control the drone becomes inert.

A legendary captain acting as a science officer receives this benefit. A legendary captain acting as any other officer has a 1 in six chance if not performing any other action.

If the original launching unit was a computer controlled ship there is a 33% chance that guidance will be regained. If the original unit had an outstanding crew there is a 1 in 6 chance that guidance will be regained. Crew effects and Legendary officers effects are NOT cumulative. A legendary officer on a ship with a poor crew will lose 1 chance (ie a legendary science officer would have a 1 in 6 chance, an unoccupied legendary captain not acting as a science officer would have no chance, the state of his/her crew means he/she is not unoccupied at that moment.)

How is that?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 04:17 pm: Edit

Ed,

Good overall, but a little complicated.

A Legenday Captain never does more than one thing at a time.

We could just say that the ship controlling the drone with the control module can get control back on a 5-6 only. I don't see a problem with giving a legendary crew a +1 to that roll, just as a poor crew puts a -1 to that roll.

By Ed Grondin (Ensignedg) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 04:31 pm: Edit

John,

Sounds good.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 04:37 pm: Edit

I don't like the idea of having to roll to "regain" control. For everything else, control can be transferred or it cannot. It should be the same here. Rolling just makes luck that much more important.

There definitely should not be any voluntary transfer of control back. I'm less sure about involuntary transfer, but my first though is to disallow it as well (this gives the system a weakness--kill the controlling drone and poof).

John, thanks for the pointer to the change to (F3.34). I had forgotten about it. I think (but need to check some more places), that this also means that seeking shuttles can no longer be noticed without a lab (although tactical intelligence would still work, range 4 and 1 ECCM for a ship). Note that I'm assuming the reference in (F3.51)(?) overrides the automatic announcement of the change of control of a seeking shuttle...

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 08:51 pm: Edit

Well, the weakness is that it would cost quite a bit.
I would go along with the idea that an allied ship could pick up control of the drone. After all, it is recieving the same kind of signal from the control drone as from a ship and ships can transfer control to another ship upon destruction.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 11:03 pm: Edit

Robert,

I tend to want to think of these control modules as being limited things. The disadvantage for using them eould be difficulty getting control back from a module once it is assigned.

If the drone with the control module is itself being controlled, I can see the controlling unit having some chance of getting control of the subordinate drones back, but nobody else.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Sunday, November 09, 2014 - 09:55 pm: Edit

So, long time since anyone posted here :-) I thought an interesting weapon would be a remotely piloted drone launch vehicle, similar to drones in use by today's military. The CIC for the operators could be the AuxCon, so take that out and you take out the command and control. The weapon platform would take the place of a shuttle and maneuver like a fighter. Thoughts?

By Mark Steven Hoyle (Markshoyle) on Sunday, November 09, 2014 - 10:02 pm: Edit

Wouldn't that be a Drogue.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Sunday, November 09, 2014 - 10:15 pm: Edit

No since I don't think there are drogues you pilot around like a fighter. This would be a platform carrying say 6 drones that can be flown around like a fighter and have the drones launch at will.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Sunday, November 09, 2014 - 10:17 pm: Edit

How about the Borak HKs.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Sunday, November 09, 2014 - 11:14 pm: Edit

Not too familar with the HK's. How do they work?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, November 10, 2014 - 12:00 am: Edit

How about remote controlled fighters from J2?

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Monday, November 10, 2014 - 06:18 am: Edit

I think Dennis is proposing a cheaper version of a remote controlled fighter. It probably wouldn't be able to dog fight (I think RC fighters can but at a penalty) and it would simply be, as he put it, a platform. Like a scatter pack that can be flown and may blossom out some or all of its drones.
My apologies if I'm misinterpreting Dennis' proposal.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Monday, November 10, 2014 - 09:32 pm: Edit

That is pretty much it.....kind of like a starfleet Global Hawk eben, perhaps with different configurations like ECM, surveillance, bombardment or ship attack roles.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Tuesday, November 11, 2014 - 11:50 am: Edit

Sorry I did not get back to you sooner.

The HK series of Borak fighters are pilot less remote controlled fighters that are armed with 2 ph-3s, the last model adds a ph-2, and carries a suicide bomb charge. Most Borak ships can carry two HKs.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, November 11, 2014 - 03:46 pm: Edit

There are a number of "historical issues" already in the game system that you would need to circumvent.

First is the ability to control seeking weapons.

You are mounting this system on a drone, or a size 7 unit. While Defense Satellites and Captor Mines are also size 7 units, they do not have engines moving them at warp speeds (they obviously do have some kind of reactor in order to fire their direct fire weapons or arm plasma torpedoes). These have an ability to control seeking weapons they launch, but cannot assume control of seeking weapons launched by other units, they cannot even reassume control of a seeking weapon they previously transferred to another unit.

If this drone command module for a drone existed, it would obviously have been applied to captor mines and defense satellites.

The second issue is fighters. Fighters are size class 6 units. Prior to the mid Y160s they had no inherent ability to control drones of their own (see the Kzinti AS). When drone control for single-space fighters was invented, it was limited pretty much to two drones on most fighters (J4.25) (the notable exception was the Federation F-15). And your typical single space fighter cannot accept control of drones launched by any other unit. Fighters are much larger than drones and have this restriction.

Now, that brings us to the Electronic Warfare Fighter and the Fighter Drone Control Pod. The Electronic Warfare fighter can control up to a dozen drones (a fighter with two drone control pods can also do this), but only of drones launched by fighters of its own squadron. It cannot accept control of drones launched by fighters of another squadron, or by a DefSat, or a Captor Mine, or a Ground Missile Base, or a ship. Only fighters of its own assigned squadron. The drone it is accepting control of must be launched by a fighter of its squadron, it does not matter if the given drone was loaded on that fighter's drone rail from the drone fighter stockpile of the carrier, or from the carrier's own drone rack reloads, or from the ready racks of an escort, or from a drone stockpile on some other ship, or even if the drone was loaded on the fighter while it was part of squadron A and was not launched before the fighter landed on the carrier of the EW fighter and was integrated into its squadron. If it is possible to build a drone control system that is small enough to mount on a drone that can accept control of other drones, then it would have been built into fighters.

Now, large (heavy) fighters, medium bombers, heavy bombers, and Multi-Role shuttles can accept control of drones from any source, and all can generally control six drones (heavy fighters and bombers might use drone control pods to increase the number of seeking weapons they can control). With the exception of the (very) expensive multi-role shuttle, these are all far larger than size-1 fighters, and much much larger than a type-IV drone.

Given that, I do not really see how it is possible to build a drone control module that would fit in a two-space drone and be able to control more drones than a fighter can.

As to the "Kzinti Earl" situation. Seems more likely that he would have simply gone for improving all of his ships to "Double Drone Control" (an expense to be sure, but probably cheaper than developing an "expendable" drone control module, i.e., every time you launch one, is is gone, and you give up the potential for 24 points of damage plus the space it is taking in the drone racks.

As to flying scatter packs, those pretty much exist and are outlawed. By that I mean that Remote Controlled Fighters are already flying scatter-packs in that the rules allow you to launch all of their seeking weapons at once (an Z-YC launching six type-I at once), the problem being that something has to control the released drones (the fighter, even remotely controlled, can only control two drones at a time), but remotely controlled scatter packs have been on the auto-reject list for a long time (however much the Kzintis keep whining that it is not fair that they are not allowed to have them, and oh by the way the scatter pack shuttle should continue operating as a suicide shuttle after releasing the drones).

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, November 11, 2014 - 06:19 pm: Edit

Oh, wow.

Combining scatterpack with a suicide shuttle is a nasty and dangerous combination. Gosh, I wish I had thought of that! ( grin )

Even if it is on the auto reject list, something that bad really ought to have its own name or designation. You know, just a short hand title for reference purposes.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Tuesday, November 11, 2014 - 08:55 pm: Edit

SPP, my point is that we can consider a weapon system analogous to modern drones, where their existence does not mean they first needed to be used on mines placed at sea (in context of the real world). It's a game so their use can easily be rationalized, I would think, within the existing framework of the rules set. I agree that should you not want to "tear up" the rulebook excessively, perhaps they are not a good idea for the game, only that a system like that is wholly plausible and would be fun. I can envision a modern navy eventually having a compliment of remotely piloted warplanes that by virtue of not having pilots, might, perhaps, be used in ways that would not be considered if a life was at stake.

The drones could still be self-guided or strictly direct-line homers, but I envision a platform that is controlled by the ship remotely. Really, I guess they would be a form of a drogue that is player controlled and can fly around without the need to be towed.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Tuesday, November 11, 2014 - 10:40 pm: Edit

Another way to do this may be making it mature X1/X2 tech, as time marches forward miniaturization should make these sorts of units possible.

By Mark Steven Hoyle (Markshoyle) on Tuesday, November 11, 2014 - 11:00 pm: Edit

Biological would be the better way to go.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, November 12, 2014 - 01:16 am: Edit

Combining a SS and SP should only be allowed with a HTS or larger. (HSSP)

And it should get to fire it's phaser at the target or incoming size 7 units at a predetermined range!

Range choice would be maximum of 3 set for both functions (defense and attack target). If zero is chosen it would never fire of course. Otherwise it would fire as often as possible within the normal rules a qualified targets (e.g., once per turn, 8 impulse min). If the target enters set range and the phaser is able to fire it will. However, it can be set to always prioritize any SC7 units in range. Target, Range, and Prioritization are set at launch.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Wednesday, November 12, 2014 - 09:43 am: Edit

I was referring to the remote control setup not combined SS/SP units.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, November 12, 2014 - 11:14 am: Edit

Loren Knight:

Heavy Transport Shuttles do not have phasers.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, November 12, 2014 - 12:53 pm: Edit

For what its worth, I suggest we call the combined SS/SSP/phaser firing monstrosity the....... Medusa shuttle mission.

After all, it launches drones, itself and shoots an energy weapon at its target(s).

IMO this monster deserves a title worthy of the assumed impact it would have if added to the game!