Uh, no.

Not change targets in-flight.

Way, WAY too good.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 11:33 pm: Edit

I don't see 'too good' here, can you explain? We do this now with cruise missles.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 11:34 pm: Edit

Not "too good" technologically, too much of a gameplay advantage.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 12:17 am: Edit

Every one would have to keep perfect records or it will be too easy to cheat and pick your target of oppertunity. If not that then it also allows non-planning tactics. Why target anything. Just have the drones out there roaming around until one gets a good solution. You could certainly get your drones all grouped up.

I think messing with those rules is dangerous. A drone can HET if its target gets out of the FA arc so I don't see much need to change that. And I really can't see launching a drone in direction C when the target is in A just to slow the drone down. X-Drones can be set to fly at any speed. Getting between them is not a problem, if that is your desire. Just tractor your target to help them catch up.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 03:15 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Drones controlled by X2 ships can change targets while in flight and may move in any way the controlling X2 ship wishes.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 12:17 pm: Edit

Rather than make all those rules, and I think this is too dangerous, why not allow drones to have ONE midturn speed change. You could launch the drones at say, speed 10, and on a predetermined impulse kick up to full speed.

The problem I see with this is that is will allow for large drone wave too easily. But it's simpler that fussing with directional rules and all the minutia that would have to be written to cover all the interactions and possabilities. I might be wrong as I'm still ahving my first cup of coffee on a high pressure week.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 03:34 pm: Edit

"There turns of launching against a single turn's worth of defense...that's a bloodbath for the GW ship or ships."

Is it really? There will be one X2 ship against 2-3 X0 ships. The X2 ship will probably have double drone control which means a max of 12 drones in flight (likely less if the X2 ship didn't have 4 drone racks). With three X0 ships I would expect to have the fire power, drones or ADD necessary to down 12 inbound drones without much problem.

The advantage of this system is it allows the X2 ship to build a drone wave without increasing the number of drone racks or drone firing rate and it uses standard X1 drones. This gives X2 drones the extra oomph they need without resorting to high-warp speeds.

"Every one would have to keep perfect records or it will be too easy to cheat and pick your target of opportunity. If not that then it also allows non-planning tactics. Why target anything. Just have the drones out there roaming around until one gets a good solution."

There is no record keeping because there need be no target until the impulse before impact. III-XX drones already do most of this and don't need to be controlled. A well thought out plan can cause 100 III-XX drones to impact a base all in the same turn from a single DB ship. The level of planning necessary to carry it out isn't something I would want to do FTF. Allowing X2 ships full drone control would simplify this in a good way IMO.

"I think this is too dangerous"
I think the danger is mitigated simply by not increasing an X2 ships drone launch capability.

"But it's simpler that fussing with directional rules"
Maybe I'm overlooking something but the directional restrictions on existing drones seems much more complex then the free movement system I am proposing.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 04:06 pm: Edit

The problem is about half of the normal ways of defending a ship against seeking weapons go out the window.

If the target weasels, no prob. Just choose another target.

Enemy ships put a T-bomb wall in your drones' way, no prob. Retarget a hex that takes them around the T-bombs then retarget who you please.

Massively abusable.

Even one retarget is abusable.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 07:10 pm: Edit

I don't see 'abusable', I see 'usable'. The Y205 X2 Klingon Cruisers I have seen proposed on the SSD thread have two drone racks. How do you propose making these two drone racks useful against 350 BPV worth of X0 ships?

There are four ways I can think of:
1) Make drones harder to kill
2) Make more drones
3) Make drones faster
4) Make fancy new drone types only X2 can use

Option 2 & 3 are undesirable to me and I don’t care for the logistical complications that X2 only drones would introduce.

Making X2 drones TB and WW resistant makes them harder to kill, as intended, but certainly not unbalancing.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 07:25 pm: Edit

It's possible we could compromise. Perhaps a die-roll is in order to see if they can avoid a weasle, or something, rather than it being automatic?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 08:33 pm: Edit

How about a form of O-EW by the guiding ship.

The chance of distraction by a WW is 1-6 but with an O-EW shift there could be a chance of failier. This O-EW works only for the ship generating it and any seeking weapons it is guiding. In other words, ECCM generated by the guiding ship applies to its drones.

The only problem I can see is how to opperate such a rule without the use of the EW rules. What would be the non-EW version?


<edit> This could be an out growth of non-scout carriers ability to lend EW to their fighters. Maybe all X2 ships, through the use of their Special Bridge, could be able to lend EW to their own shuttles and seeking weapons.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 08:39 pm: Edit

It strikes me that drones that change targets act alot like wire-guided missiles. If that's the case, give them a similar penalty...such as a chance to miss. When the drone reaches it's target, you have to roll to hit. Say 1-5, or something, but not an auto hit. I've fired wire-guided missiles before, and it's not as easy as it looks.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 09:20 pm: Edit

Tos,

I'd like an argument for this proposal.

You are handing drones the ability to minimize at best, devolving easily to neutralize, the two most common and effetive forms of drone defense out there.

I'd like you to either show me that it's not as bad as I think or modify the proposal back into something resembing balance.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 09:59 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Rather than make all those rules, and I think this is too dangerous, why not allow drones to have ONE midturn speed change. You could launch the drones at say, speed 10, and on a predetermined impulse kick up to full speed.

---

---

Quote:

The problem I see with this is that is will allow for large drone wave too easily. But it's simpler that fussing with directional rules and all the minutia that would have to be written to cover all the interactions and possabilities. I might be wrong as I'm still ahving my first cup of coffee on a high pressure week.

---

---

Quote:

"There turns of launching against a single turn's worth of defense...that's a bloodbath for the GW ship or ships."

Is it really? There will be one X2 ship against 2-3 X0 ships. The X2 ship will probably have double drone control which means a max of 12 drones in flight (likely less if the X2 ship didn't have 4 drone racks). With three X0 ships I would expect to have the fire power, drones or ADD necessary to down 12 inbound drones without much problem.

---

---

Quote:

The advantage of this system is it allows the X2 ship to build a drone wave without increasing the number of drone racks or drone firing rate and it uses standard X1 drones. This gives X2 drones the extra oomph they need without resorting to high-warp speeds.

---

---

Quote:

"I think this is too dangerous"
I think the danger is mitigated simply by not increasing an X2 ships drone launch capability.

---

---

Quote:

"But it's simpler that fussing with directional rules"
Maybe I'm overlooking something but the directional restrictions on existing drones seems much more complex then the free movement system I am proposing.

---

---

Quote:

The problem is about half of the normal ways of defending a ship against seeking weapons go out the window.

If the target weasels, no prob. Just choose another target.

Enemy ships put a T-bomb wall in your drones' way, no prob. Retarget a hex that takes them around the T-bombs then retarget who you please.

Massively abusable.

Even one retarget is abusable.

---

---

Quote:

I don't see 'abusable', I see 'usable'. The Y205 X2 Klingon Cruisers I have seen proposed on the SSD thread have two drone racks. How do you propose making these two drone racks useful against 350 BPV worth of X0 ships?

There are four ways I can think of:
1) Make drones harder to kill
2) Make more drones
3) Make drones faster
4) Make fancy new drone types only X2 can use

Option 2 & 3 are undesirable to me and I don’t care for the logistical complications that X2 only drones would introduce.

Making X2 drones TB and WW resistant makes them harder to kill, as intended, but certainly not unbalancing.

---

---

Quote:

How about a form of O-EW by the guiding ship.

The chance of distraction by a WW is 1-6 but with an O-EW shift there could be a chance of failier. This O-EW works only for the ship generating it and any seeking weapons it is guiding. In other words, ECCM generated by the guiding ship applies to its drones.

The only problem I can see is how to opperate such a rule without the use of the EW rules. What would be the non-EW version?


<edit> This could be an out growth of non-scout carriers ability to lend EW to their fighters. Maybe all X2 ships, through the use of their Special Bridge, could be able to lend EW to their own shuttles and seeking weapons.

---

---

Quote:

It strikes me that drones that change targets act alot like wire-guided missiles. If that's the case, give them a similar penalty...such as a chance to miss. When the drone reaches it's target, you have to roll to hit. Say 1-5, or something, but not an auto hit. I've fired wire-guided missiles before, and it's not as easy as it looks.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 10:08 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Tos,

I'd like an argument for this proposal.

You are handing drones the ability to minimize at best, devolving easily to neutralize, the two most common and effetive forms of drone defense out there.

I'd like you to either show me that it's not as bad as I think or modify the proposal back into something resembing balance.

---

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 10:10 pm: Edit

"I'd like an argument for this proposal."

Its simple.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 10:24 pm: Edit

It's monsterous.


And we only need something better...not awesome.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 10:32 pm: Edit

The balance rules I would have is only X2 rack-launched drones can be guided, not SP, not drouges, not fighters, not PFs. A guided drone cannot be transfered. If 12 guided drones is too many we can limit it to 6 guided drones and 12 controlled drones (including those being guided).

Optional limiting factors:
A drone cannot shift from guided to controlled.
A guided drone cannot hit without being released (completely released which means it no longer gains the ECCM of the controlling ship).
A released guided drone must declare its target immediately upon release.

If you accept the argument posted previously the proposal can be balanced.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 10:33 pm: Edit

A 48/10/40 drone is monsterous.

Why would anyone even field such a thing if the enemy has ADD?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 11:12 pm: Edit

Yeah, well I wonder how we give plasma torps the same level of boost and still level them capitalise on it without loosing their plasma-torp-ness.


Actually speed 40 drones are good if the enemy has ADDs.


But as I was saying...5 is a legitimate option.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 08:31 am: Edit

I think playtesting the target-change idea will be necessary to truly define how much of an advantage it will be. How about this for a compromise:

Controlling player can attempt to change targets as much as he likes, but it gets progressively more difficult each time he does so. First target is a normal "auto hit". First change leads to a die roll of 1-5. Second change 1-3, third change 1. That gives the player a chance of changing targets, but not a perfect one, and makes it a gamble every time he tries it. I think such a thing could be interesting to try, but would be a book-keeping nightmare for any drone-heavy player.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 11:04 am: Edit

What SFB already isn't a bookkeeping nightmare?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 11:09 am: Edit

Mike, maybe change that from a to-hit factor to a chance the drones goes inert when you attempt to change targets.

A good portion of what drones can be used for is absorbing fire and creating terrain. If a to-hit is to be made then the drone may well be unaffected until it reaches it target hex, which for most drones doesn't happen so there is no affect at all (only the targets knows the risk is somewhat reduced but it still must deal with it).

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 11:17 am: Edit

Seriously target switching is already in the rules for Omega and Simulator. But IIRC those are limited to Scud or Tachyon missiles. Both of them are in very short supply even in a fleet battle.

But the Drone is just about as plain vanilla as you can get. There are large numbers of them in fleets even if SP's cant be used.

Maybe it would fly if we made the target switch a public announcement. Or maybe require a reaqusition roll immediately when retargeted.

But it should be less capable. Than what Mike is suggesting.

1st Target Automatic
2nd Traget (1st switch) Roll 1-4 or drone goes inert
3rd Roll 1-2

I've avoided commenting much because I don't really have the time to keep up a debate. And I'm not really firmly for or against anything.

Lorens Boost idea seems the best for practical reasons. It can fairly easily be tracked from the imp launched without to much trouble. You already are tracking the drone from launch in a fleet/squadron battle already. And in a Duel it wouldn't really slow anything down because you have to know when it was launched to track when it runs out of endurance.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 12:10 pm: Edit

What I proposed about the die roll was indeed that the drone would be inert if it missed. That's the risky part about it...you can TRY to switch targets, but doing so may result in loosing the drone.