Archive through April 01, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: Poll Commentary: Archive through April 01, 2003
By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 07:11 pm: Edit

I ain't touching the Drone poll. To many variables to handle in a modest # of questions. If anyone wants to run one go right ahead but I wont be totaling the answers:)

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 09:35 pm: Edit

Argh.

[Pulls fistfulls of hair out.]

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 09:41 pm: Edit

Quote:

Comment on the drone poll

No single set of answers best describes my point of view because I would like to see each drone using race answer those questions individually.



Might be a good way to "prime the Pump" but ships' speeds will have a lot to do with the final outcome of the drones.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 03:13 pm: Edit

The top speed seems solidly set at 31.

Also we're giving X2 a lot of energy-intensive options to play with.

I'd be surprised is drones faster than 32 were needed. Thye might need to be either tougher or more numerous, but I'm convinced they need to be faster, which also affects the plasma "Super Sabot."

I'm not concerned the super-sabot is needed either, for much the same reasons.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 03:47 pm: Edit

I'm still willing to consider speed 32. If not for X2 then for the Xorks. When I voted I chose both 31 or 32 and I suspect only my 31 vote got tallied.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 04:00 pm: Edit

32 is SO a bad idea consider speed-32 drones. That ability to close one hex on IMP 1 is a huge and needed tactical point, especially on an open map, but not limited to an open map.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 04:14 pm: Edit

I think 31 really should be the max. 32 IF a huge amount of power is spent on that 32nd move.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 04:42 pm: Edit

I disagree.

You either create an option of such limited ability that nobody use it much or you allow a ship to run from drones endlessly.

I think an important game balance point is that seeking weapon are faster than ships.

If ships get the ability to go 32, drones need to go either 33, 36, or 40 as a result.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 04:44 pm: Edit

ick. I don't want to mess with that. Keep ships at 31 then.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 04:51 pm: Edit

I don't think drones necessarily have to be faster than ships. For much of the SFU history (roughly Y60-Y179), drones have been slower than their targets. They're still a pretty useful system.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 04:57 pm: Edit

I also tend to think that at some point, drones are going to start outliving their usefulness. As ships get faster or better defended, the drone is going to start becoming obsolete. X2 doesn't need to be that way, but the trend ought to be visible. Speed 32 drones would seem fast enough.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 05:01 pm: Edit

duplicate. sorry.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 05:08 pm: Edit

The drone as a seeking weapon should continue to be a valid weapon option. I see no reason to phase it out or limit its future usefulness.

Sure, they're annoying in large numbers and we may want to take steps to limit that...

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 05:19 pm: Edit

Well, the Kzin will always use drones.

I can see a X2 Kzinti drone that moves speed 36 or even 40. I don't think the rest of the races would put money into the researh though.

The Feds primary use of drones is on their carriers, if attrition units are scaled down, then the Feds would have a drop in drone usage.

The Klingons would continue to use drones I think, but I also think they would not put their limited research funds into drones.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 07:04 pm: Edit

Quote:

I disagree.

You either create an option of such limited ability that nobody use it much or you allow a ship to run from drones endlessly.

I think an important game balance point is that seeking weapon are faster than ships.

If ships get the ability to go 32, drones need to go either 33, 36, or 40 as a result.


Can you actually back that up or is this one of those I feel that X2 posters seem to like?
Prior to Y178 the Speed 32 drone didn't exist and yet the Kzinti's managed to get along okay without them.
In the Y period speed 8 and 12 drones were expected to strike speed 25 ships!?!

If you really think the enemy will dance and you want Type VIII drones to do a little damage, then you'ld mount Ph-1 Swordfish warheads and time them so that when the enemy gets into overload range ( which he'll do, else you starcastling creats a stalemate ) the drones are also in range...ZAP!!!...small amounts of damage generated by the drones.

Indeed the enemy can only keep the drones at by by moving away from your ship. If he moves in on your ship then he close on the drones ( net closing speed of 64 ) and thus risks taking damage, particularly if the drones a spread out.

Then there is the tractor, you might be able to tractor an enemy vessel, after you've exchanged volleys with a range 5 tractor ( if he's invested his BTTY to stop damage ) and then ED and thus hex the drones chace him with a net closing speed of 16 closing the a range of five hexes.

Then there are your DF weapons. If the enemy runs at 32 and it costs a lot of power then that is either fewer DF weapons he can arm or less SSReo he can generate whilst you will run at 32 only when you feel it's warrented so the ship has more power for DF weapons and SSReo.
Old Kzintis might have a forrest of Ph-3s but they have a few Ph-1s and Disruptors for a reason...to generate damage at range against the enemy.


Quote:

I don't think drones necessarily have to be faster than ships. For much of the SFU history (roughly Y60-Y179), drones have been slower than their targets. They're still a pretty useful system.


Andrew and I have had this conversation before.
One thing we agreed on, was that drones have been faster and drones have been slower but there never has been a time when the speed of drones was exactly the MAX speed of ships, and that, that simple change could make for some interesting tactics.


Quote:

I also tend to think that at some point, drones are going to start outliving their usefulness. As ships get faster or better defended, the drone is going to start becoming obsolete. X2 doesn't need to be that way, but the trend ought to be visible. Speed 32 drones would seem fast enough.


And what in what year did Marco Polo bring back gunpowder!?!
I'm not saying it hasn't changed a bit and we use C4 and stuff when we can but it's still there in rifles.

More over the Type VII and VIII drones will have the ability to keep chasing a ship for 5 turns. Type X and XI drones will be perhaps 7 or 8 turns.
Even if the enemy choose not drop his drones from hios control and start with fresh ones, that's 5 turns you must spend evading drones which is ( 10 to move the 32nd and 48 power from the Warp Engines ) 200 points of the entire 240 points that your warp engines will generate over that 5 turn period.
And after that you'll both be outside or nearly so, of firing range for youself and have extensive rear sheild damage because of the enemy sniping on your rear.


Quote:

Well, the Kzin will always use drones.

I can see a X2 Kzinti drone that moves speed 36 or even 40. I don't think the rest of the races would put money into the researh though.

The Feds primary use of drones is on their carriers, if attrition units are scaled down, then the Feds would have a drop in drone usage.

The Klingons would continue to use drones I think, but I also think they would not put their limited research funds into drones.


Equality between drones and a ship's MAX speed will not see the death of drones, for the same reasons that drones were not phased out during the period in which the Speed 20 drone was the fastest drone about.

If we really think the drone needs to move more quickly to get into place, then we could have a booster pack ( like a shuttle and causes the drone to take double damage if it's hit, that needs to be dropped ( dropping down to 32 ) for actually striking ( or firing Swordfish ) the enemy vessel )...But I think speed 32 drones will do okay against speed 32 ships, especially if the speed 32 ship is paying 10 points of power to move that 32nd hex per turn.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 07:20 pm: Edit

Quote:

More over the Type VII and VIII drones will have the ability to keep chasing a ship for 5 turns. Type X and XI drones will be perhaps 7 or 8 turns.
Even if the enemy choose not drop his drones from hios control and start with fresh ones, that's 5 turns you must spend evading drones which is ( 10 to move the 32nd and 48 power from the Warp Engines ) 200 points of the entire 240 points that your warp engines will generate over that 5 turn period.
And after that you'll both be outside or nearly so, of firing range for youself and have extensive rear sheild damage because of the enemy sniping on your rear.



That isn't my concern. My concern is that 2X ships as we're designing them are armed with Phaser V's, that can pulse fire as Phaser VI's using full aegis control. Unless you fire a pretty massive drone wave, OR have drones that are signifigantly tougher than they are now, they aren't as much of a threat as they used to be. Sure, 2X will have them...I even said so in my original post. But unless we come up with a way to make them a good bit better (and not just faster) they won't be a very effective main weapon for the Kzinti.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 08:56 pm: Edit

Okay, so the speed 32 drone means we can fire at R1 on them.

If Shall we assume that Ph-5s can fire rapid pulse 3Ph-3 shots or shall we say 2Ph-6 shots which can be dialed down to 2Ph-3s.


A triplet of Ph-3 shots at R1 will inflict on average 11 points of damage and range from 9 to 12 points, that kills a Type VIII ( 8 points ) automatically. And a pair of Ph-3 shots at R1 for 6 to 8 points of damage killing a Type VII.

A Pair of Ph-6s will generate 10.66' points of damage at range one and damage ranging from 8 to 12 points. They'll kill a Type VII or Typve VIII automatically.

This basically means that we are killing one and 1.5 space drones with a single Ph-5 being invested.
If we are limited to speed 32 for drones then advent of a a TURE TWO SPACE X drone will came to pass and have 3 full spaces ( or perhaps 2.5 or perhaps 3 but the last space can not be explosive module unless one of the forward space isn't (X1 all overagain )) of modules and thus be tougher at 36/10/32 ( or 30/10/32 or 30/12/32 ).

Those Type X 36/10/32s and 30/10/32s, are going to skip past the triplet of Ph-3s one time in 27 which isn't all that disimilar to the Type IVF drone of old skipping past a single Ph-1 66% of the time.
The 30/12/32s are going to skip past the three Ph-3s 11/27 of the time which is ( at some 40.7% of the time ) much closer to the one Ph-1 fails to kill a Type IVF.

When dealing with Ph-6 shots rapid pulses at those X drones, the 36/10/32s and the 30/10/32s are going to slide by a pair of Ph-6 shots 1 in 27 times and the 30/12/32s are going to slip past 11 in 27 times.

These results basically mean that all but the toughest drones will fail to be killed by 1Ph-5 ( which is the Ph-1 analog ) which because ships will tend to have 8Ph-5 will mean that the X drones haven't fallen very far behind.
The fact that X-Aegis will mean that drones can be shot at repeatedly until they die does mean that the chance of penatration is very low indeed but that is not the primary objective of drones.
The primary objective of drones is to for phaser fire on something other than the ship that launched the drones ( and at no cost in power ).

When the ships start getting 12Ph-5s around the time of the Xork invasion, then drones may begine to fall away from their regular MY rate of phaser required to kill one drone.

A simple combination or either, 50% more drone racks or poundal mode drones combined with external armour modules or Advanced Armour modules should allow for the Type VII and VIII drones to remain competative against speed 32 ships even with the full anti-Xork load of phasers.

Consider this, a Type X drone ( usually 36/10/32 ) switches on its poundal mode ( reducing it's Endurance to 3 turns ) mounts both an internal and external space of armour ( Type XP-XA"A" ) and thus would be 24/18/32 and that would be then be shot down by 6Ph-3 shots ( taking a full Pair of Ph-5s, like the old IVF-a used to reguire 2Ph-1s ) or a some 4Ph-6 shots and have a 1 in 81 chance of slipping through ( which also equates to 2Ph-5s being employed which is an analog of a pair of Ph-1 shooting down a type IVF-a drone).

If the Warheads then jump up to inflict 8 points of damage per half space instead of 6 then the drone may not be falling behind and rather will be jumping ahead!

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 09:03 pm: Edit

This discussion should be moved to the drone thread.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 09:15 pm: Edit

"X2 drones" not " 2X Drone Ideas " as I've already got something in X2 Drone ideas that I'ld rather not have extinguished talking about how many Ph-6 shots it takes to kill a Type VII drone with poundal mode switched on and an external module of A" armour and advanced explosive modules ( 24/14/32 ).

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 11:51 pm: Edit

By the time this all gets done, X2 is not going to be any fun to play.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 12:23 am: Edit

As long as we keep the truly rediculous ideas out, X2 might still work.

And I'm guilty of some crazy ones myself (2-box phasers). Which everyone promptly shot down.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 05:40 pm: Edit

Place all current POll Commentary either in the BPV topic or here.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 07:24 pm: Edit

Okay, commentary on the "mini BPV" poll.

I say 300-350 for an XCC. Seems like a good number to me, without being too ridiculous. It makes the XCC superior to the CX (as it should be) but not a BB. It does leave room for growth into XBC's and what have you, though.

On the second question, I said shrink the relative spread. I have two reasons for this. One is that most of the races have a fairly close BPV for their CX's, and I felt that would continue with 2X. Secondly, the one big exception to the rule has been the ISC. The ISC had a distinct advantage in the years it was dominate. It had studied the waring races west of it and developed ships expressly designed to defeat them. That advantage is gone by X2 years. They've been beaten by the Andros just like everyone else, and are in much the same shape (if not worse) than the other war-battered galactic races. The BPV of their ships should reflect thier loss of advantage, IMHO.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 07:42 pm: Edit

I support the 300-350 range but think that the sort of ships that we're creating will probably pus BPV into the 350-400 bracket.

I am comfortable with either.

I never believed the 315 price tag for the ISC CCX. It's a good ship, don't get me wrong, perhaps the cream of the CCX crop. But 315? No way. As a result you really need to throw out the ISC when you talk about "spread."

What would like to see is whether we're comfortable with the existing BPV spread of X1 ships if we didn't count the ISC.

I think most of us would be.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 07:50 pm: Edit

Mike Raper: My thoughts exactly. Well put! Couldn't have said it better myself.

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